Posted on 07/08/2005 1:35:55 PM PDT by Pokey78
APOLOGISTS for terrorism (and they are not in short supply) argue that it is a weapon used by people who despair of achieving their goals in any other way. It is a cry from the depths by those deprived of a voice in the political process. The terrorist is not an aggressor but a victim, and we must disarm him not by violence but by addressing the grievance that motivates his deeds. This argument has been used to excuse Palestinian suicide bombers, IRA kneecappers, Red Brigade kidnappers, and even the mass murderers of September 11. Its main effect is to blame the victim and excuse the crime. If you look at the actual condition of terrorists down the ages, however, you will soon discover that the excuse does not match the reality. Some terrorists have been poor and some have been victims of injustice. But those are the exceptions. The Jacobins, who unleashed the original Terror, were for the most part privileged members of the rising elite. The Russian anarchists of the 19th century were no worse off from the point of view of material and social privileges than you or me, and with grievances that were more the work of the imagination than the result of either observing or sympathising with the ordinary people of Russia. There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden’s entourage is any different, and even the IRA, which purports to represent the “oppressed” Catholics of Ulster, is very far from recruiting from those whose oppressed condition it loudly advertises. As for the Islamist terrorists who have targeted our cities, they tend to be well educated, specialists in medicine, engineering or computer science, people who might have helped to provide the Middle East with the stable middle class that it so badly needs, but instead have chosen another and faster route to glory. It seems to me that we will be nearer to understanding terrorism if, instead of looking at what terrorists have in common, we look at what is common to their victims. The targets of terrorism are groups, nations or races. And they are distinguished by their worldly success — either material or social. The original Terror was directed against the French aristocracy — soon supplemented by all kinds of real and imaginary groups supposed to be aiding them. The Russian anarchists targeted people with wealth, office or power. The Great Terror of Stalin, initiated by Lenin, was directed against groups alleged to be profiting from the system that impoverished the rest. The Nazi terror picked on the Jews, because of their undoubted material success, and the ease with which they could be assembled as a group. Even the nationalist terrorists of the IRA and Eta variety are targeting nations thought to enjoy wealth, power and privilege, at the expense of others equally entitled. Islamic terrorists bomb the cities of Europe and America because those cities are a symbol of the material and political success of the Western nations, and a rebuke to the political chaos and deep-rooted corruption of the Muslim world. Success breeds resentment, and resentment breeds hate. This simple observation was made into the root of his political psychology by Nietzsche, who identified ressentiment, as he called it, as the distinguishing social emotion of modern societies: an emotion once ordered and managed by Christianity, now let loose across the world. I don’t say that Nietzsche’s analysis is correct. But surely he was right to identify this peculiar motive in human beings, right to emphasise its overwhelming importance, and right to point out that it lies deeper than the springs of rational discussion. In dealing with terrorism you are confronting a resentment that is not concerned to improve the lot of anyone, but only to destroy the thing it hates. That is what appeals in terrorism, since hatred is a much easier and less demanding emotion to live by than love, and is much more effective in recruiting a following. And when the object of hatred is a group, a race, a class or a nation, we can furnish from our hatred a comprehensive stance towards the world. That way hatred brings order out of chaos, and decision out of uncertainty — the perfect solution to the alienated Muslim, lost in a world that denies his religion, and which his religion in turn denies. Of course hatred has other causes besides resentment. Someone who has suffered an injustice may very well hate the person who committed it. However, such hatred is precisely targeted, and cannot be satisfied by attacking some innocent substitute. Hatred born of resentment is not like that. It is a passion bound up with the very identity of the one who feels it, and rejoices in damaging others purely by virtue of their membership of the targeted group. Resentment will always prefer indiscriminate mass murder to a carefully targeted punishment. Indeed, the more innocent the victim, the more satisfying the act. For this is the proof of holiness, that you are able to condemn people to death purely for being bourgeois, rich, Jewish, or whatever, and without examining their moral record. The tendency to resent lies in all of us, and can be overcome only by a discipline that tells us to blame faults in ourselves and to forgive faults in others. This discipline lies at the heart of Christianity and many argue that it lies at the heart of Islam too. If that is so, it is time for Muslims to organise against those who preach resentment in the name of their religion, and who regard the crimes of last Thursday as virtuous deeds, performed with God’s blessing, in a holy cause.
Roger Scruton is author of The West and the Rest: Globalisation and the Terrorist Threat
Just silly. We're not talking about Jacobins or Russian anarchists. We're talking about Islamic fundamentalists. Whatever the reason is, it isn't envy at success, as so many shallow people on this forum, in agreement with this author, have spouted.
This is a crucial point, and one which few people seem to get.
Then please answer me this: Why do rich, priveledged, educated Leftists hate America, and its God-fearing, private sector, morally upright citizens? Using the above article, are these "enemies within" resentful of spiritual success? Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer and The Swimmer certainly aren't resentful of my salary, nor my contributions to the betterment of mankind.
I'm not holding my breath for a muslim change of heart.....I'm practicing for better marksmanship.
Despite what some will say, it sometimes is just as simple as that.
"I resent your success. I hate you and your kind. So I bomb you "
The Times (U.K.) 07/09/05 by Roger Scruton
APOLOGISTS for terrorism (and they are not in short supply)
Sounds like a portion of the latest Howard Dean speech...
It has nothing to do with "success".
It has to do with Israel. We support Israel. Therefore, we are as bad.
When their societies obtain true social justice, they'll stop resenting us.
No, you are not! I am so sick of listening to them and their nonsense -- dangerous nonsense. They are blinded by the their hatred for President Bush, who has the kajunas to call evil by its name.
Well said, well said! I never realized until reading this that one of the biggest problems in the ME is the absence of a healthy middle class. In fact, that was also missing the Russia and in France. Perhaps it can be traced back to all forms of "terrorism" or rage against the wealthy classes. And look who the socialists are today in America? Hollywood stars, millionaire musicians, the wealthy elite!
C'mon France - you LOST the Olympics and now it's time to get over it!
Count me in... They are so blind in hatred for GW that they will sacrifice any morality to condem the Prez...
If you are comparing Isslam to either the Nazi or Imperial Japanese Empire, you are WRONG. It is far, far, worse and has been around a lot longer -- 1400 years to be precise, during which it has slaughtered at least half a billion people.
ping:
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=Globalisation%0D%0Aand%20the%20Terrorist%20Threat
In the case of Arab terrorism, it's Islam ideology first, envy second; it's both.
Comes very close to the resentment by the Democrats and the need to destroy?
I think that's a large part of it. But, others in this thread have correctly identified a fundamental problem in Islam as well, in my opinion. Truly orthodox Muslims, those who observantly follow all of Islam's tenets, have a very limited perspective on the world outside their own. There are two worlds to them: dar al Islam (the house of submission, but it can be interpreted as peace as well), which refers to areas under Islamic theocratic rule, with shariah law as the legal basis of the system and dar al harb (house of war), the lands of the unbelievers, which are seen as targets awaiting Muslim conquest.
A true Muslim cannot be a member of the middle class. But, many of the Islamic terrorists are not actually religious (research it yourself if you don't believe me). Especially the suicide bombers in Israel, and elsewhere. Islam is a convenient excuse/cover to strike at the hated/resented/envied West for many, and for others, it is the reason they attack. In both cases, the rise of Muslim moderates, even if they would be watered down Muslim, would go a long way towards stemming Muslim terrorism. That is, in fact, why the Al Zarqawi terrorists are targetting Shiites and moderates in Iraq. Because right in the heart of Dar al Islam is arrising a new house of Dar al Harb. Democracy is spreading there, moderation is spreading there and education is sure to follow, fundamentally endangering the spread of Islam.
That is why it is so critical we persevere in Iraq. Because, ultimately, it won't be us that will deal the deathblow to the Islamic fundamentalists and the terrorists. It is moderate Muslims who say "Heck no. I am not having a child of mine growing up to be a living bomb. He'll be a lawyer, and she'll be a teacher or a professor. (or whatever) Get the hell out of my country." True fundamentalists of any sort don't tend to do that well in society; by their very nature, they are so radicalized they cannot live in society. That's why they live in compounds and such. Hence why the claim that evangelical Christians are fundamentalist in more than a literal sense is ridiculous. Fundamentalist muslims have managed to make a compound out of the whole Middle East, but it seems some parts of the community want to live a decent life instead. And that threatens to topple the whole house of cards.
So, let me conclude by saying, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition to the true moderate Muslims". Keep training the Iraqi army, keep educating the Iraqi kids properly, keep the elections running smoothly and the tangible benefits of democratic society visible and attainable and the terrorists will be finished as a truly effective force, confined to living in caves and compounds in the desert and mountains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.