Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"Common sense would tell us that cessation of printing cartoons would not lead to any peace between us and the "Jihadists."
Common sense tells me that 12+ people would be alive at this moment if the cartoons were not published.
There is what the French economic philosopher Frederic Bastiat referred to as "the seen and the unseen." His notion applied to economic evaluations. But it can be applied in most other ways. In this case, you see a number of people killed under the pretext of the cartoons. You postulate that if it weren't for the cartoons they would be alive. What you don't see is that the terrorists were killing for a far greater, to them, reason than the cartoons. And if the cartoons did not exist, they would have killed another number of other people--or even possibly the same ones. When you "see" through the blindfolds of immediate professed causation, you are blinded to the possibilities of the "unseen."
And I don't know what the gain was, except a few jihadists revealed themselves long enough to be killed.
Again, the seen and the unseen. You see what you consider a loss of life for no significant reason. What you don't see is the enrichment of life provided to the cartoonists when they were doing what they wanted to do, while, no mean feat, making a living at it, and enjoying life as they saw fit. You fail to see what is significant, certainly no less significant to the cartoonists than what is personally significant to you, but also what is significant to a society of free individuals. Because you see triviality, you don't see what is fundamentally important to our way of life.
Not to mention, of course, that the terrorists gained the attention they desired as well as instilling an amount of fear which would provoke some to caution against "insulting" their God--dying would not be "worth it."
"what is going on in the rest of the world which hasn't printed cartoons isn't enough"
Agree 100%. In my opinion, we get closer to doing "enough" by killing all o fthem, not by provoking further attackes, for no discernable gain. I already knew they had the right to publish the cartoons.
What you see is cartoons provoking an attack. Because that seems so silly to you, you, for the moment, dismiss that attacks have been, would have, and will occur with or without the cartoons. Thus you inadvertently feed into the narrative that we who offend are the guilty party. That there is some "reason" for their attacks, a reason we provide.
Well, there is a reason we cannot help but provide. By existing as who we are, and by daring to interface with them as we are, EVEN IF THEY MIGRATE INTO OUR MIDST AND INTERFACE WITH US, we offend them. Wherever they are in this universe is sacred land to them and their God. And those who profane it by doing anything other than what is prescribed by their religion is an enemy who must submit or die.
"we give the terrorists another niche into our souls"
Very true. So is it conceivable that there is a niche small enough in your soul, that you'd give to th eterrorists, even temporarily, to save innocent lives?
There is no niche small enough that they would overlook. If they will kill over what you consider so insignificant and silly, what would they not kill for?
Nor is it my place to tell others to give up their inalienable niche. Rather it is more my place, and I believe yours, to stand with them, to all stand together against tyranny.
If the terrorists agreed to surrender if we adopted Sharia law, it would not be worth it.
Would it be worth it if we adopted a piece of Sharia law which is antithetical to our principles? Sharia law calls for the death of those who would insult their Prophet.
An insignificant accommodation might be a price worth paying (and hopefully only temporary, as we still need to be hunting them down) to save lives. That's my point, and you obviously disagree.
The seen and unseen are less obvious, more murky here. You are blinded by what appears to be "pragmatic." And your pragmatism extends primarily, if not only, to saving lives. Thus you fall into the appeasement trap. Your first pragmatic error is to judge an accommodation which strikes against principles as insignificant. And by this error you can accommodate the pragmatic goal of saving lives. But the first pragmatic error nullifies the need "to be hunting them down." If the goal is to save lives, and the accommodation is the abandonment of principle, then there is no further need to fight and kill. Simply appease the terrorists by submitting to their demands, their principles, and all lives from then on will be saved.
"The terrorists don't need cartoons to give them motivation to kill."
Which is why we need to be relentless in our quest to kill them all. But while pursuing that, I don't see that every single opportunity to provoke them, must always be taken advantage of, 100% of the time.
Provoking them does not require opportunity. It only requires our existence. 100% of the time.
"Some things are just too silly to die for" That's what I'm saying. Let's risk human capital where it makes sense to do so - specifically, where we need to protect vital interests, or where we can kill dangerous jihadists. In those cases, we should take risks.
|