GLevy wrote:

> [...]
>I am fascinated by antiterrorism methods that expose the inconsistency
>of terrorists. The problem is that that no matter what rational argument
>you could come up with, they will find a way to "rationalize" their
>position. It may be that the root of the problem is emotional and no
>amount of rational argument will work. It's like being faced with a
>tiger and trying to explain to the tiger that eating you will generate
>inconsistency in his set of belief. Unfortunately, it may be that the
>only way to show the inconsistency of their terrorist to the terrorists
>is by means of the ultimate argument: force.

Mmh... You can and perhaps you should, in some circonstance, use force
for capturing terrorist & Inc, but I doubt you could convince them 
of their inconsistencies by force. Perhaps you mean they will learn
the inconsistencies by accumulation of enemies, war, violent choc. 
Kamikase-like terrorist are enhanced in their paranoid belief by such
accumulation of difficulties. They want prove your own inconsistency,
at the price of their own.  It is perhaps a form of "social madness". 

I think more and more we should bet on the reasonableness of most.
And we should be the less violent possible, and then attack the problem
at his roots. My opinion (if you mind) : the inescapable solution could
be international antiprohibition. Americans have known the result of
alcool prohibition, they know antiprohibition is *the* weapon against
mafias and their obscure and unfair financial fluxes. I'm not sure that
it is realist.

I said:

>Well, a typical G*-like answer would be: we will get rid of terrorism
>when we will stop trying to get rid of terrorism.
>This is also in the spirit of Alan Watts "The Wisdom of Insecurity".
>Terrorist are not inconsistent (although some of their beliefs can be 
>inconsistent with our beliefs), but they indeed prove some inherent
>and intrinsical possibility of inconsistency of our democraties. But,
>that "possibility of inconsistency" is what we must learn to live with.
>For the same "deep" reason we can expect there will never be universal
>vaccin in medecine.

Here is a funny illustration by Tom Tomorrow (from New-York):



Reply via email to