**********
[What follows is taken from The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, ed. Louis Pojman, p.928-29]
“Restraint and magnanimity are the luxuries of the self-confident, the rulers of these countries are anything but secure on their thrones,” writes Friedman. *
Friedman illustrates his theory with a Bedouin legend about an old man and his turkey. One day an elderly Bedouin discovered that by eating turkey he could restore his virility. He bought a small turkey and kept it around his tent, feeding it, so that it would provide a source of renewed strength. One day the turkey was stolen. So the Bedouin called his sons together and said, “Boys, my turkey has been stolen. We are in danger now.” His sons laughed, replying, “Father, it’s no big deal. What do you need a turkey for?” “Never mind,” the father replied. “We must get the turkey back.” But his sons didn’t take him seriously and soon forgot about the turkey. A few weeks later, the Bedouin’s sons came to him and said, “Father, our camel has been stolen. What should we do?” “Find my turkey,” the Bedouin replied. A few weeks later the sons came to him again, saying that the old man’s horse had been stolen. “Find my turkey,” he responded. Finally, a few weeks after that, someone raped his daughter. The Bedouin gazed at his sons and said, “It’s all because of the turkey. When they saw that they could take away my turkey, we lost everything.”**
To let your enemy take an inch is to give him a mile; it is to lose your wealth, your status, your reputation, your integrity. In such a state, the rule is not “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life,” but “a life for an eye, two for a tooth, and the lives of your entire tribe for the life of my turkey.” freedman thinks that Hama Rules govern the Middle East conflict. They are the rules that Israel has learned to play by. Friedman notes that the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, is the one man Assad has feared and respected because Sharon plays by those rules too.
If Friedman’s thesis is correct, we in the West are dealing with warriors who are playing by a different set of rules than ourselves. Our notions of proportionate response and the distinction between combatants and noncombatants don’t apply to Osama bin Laden, Iman al Zawahiri, and Al Queda. As bin Laden has announced, every American is an enemy and ought to be destroyed, whether he is a soldier or a civilian.
* Thomas Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem (Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1989), p.95.
** Ibid., p.89
**********
If Friedman’s thesis is correct, we in the West are dealing with warriors who are playing by a different set of rules than ourselves.
ReplyDeleteOf course they're playing by a different set of rules to us; as far as I can tell, nobody has ever claimed anything different. This smacks of a straw man argument.
Our notions of proportionate response and the distinction between combatants and noncombatants don’t apply to Osama bin Laden, Iman al Zawahiri, and Al Queda.
You mean that these individuals don't apply these notions, rather than these notions don't apply to these individuals. Which one do you mean? The first doesn't necessarily lead to the second.
As bin Laden has announced, every American is an enemy and ought to be destroyed, whether he is a soldier or a civilian.
Does that mean that you believe that we should also adopt this attitude?
"Of course they're playing by a different set of rules to us; as far as I can tell, nobody has ever claimed anything different. This smacks of a straw man argument."
ReplyDeleteIt's not an argument. Not one I was using, anyway. Sounds like you're grasping for fallacies.
"You mean that these individuals don't apply these notions, rather than these notions don't apply to these individuals. Which one do you mean? The first doesn't necessarily lead to the second."
I don't mean anything. This was written by Lous Pojman, who was trying to summarize Friedman's position, and offering a perspective on terrorism. I think the context suggests that Pojman is saying that our notions of proportionate response and the distinction between combatants and noncombatants aren't notions the terrorists holds. We can't count on this to be a conflict with people who won't attack innocent civilians, who won't blow up buildings because you have a McDonalds in theior country, etc. That's why Pojman goes on to indicate that bib Laden had announced that he doesn't play by those rules. I don't know what was so hard to figure out.
"Does that mean that you believe that we should also adopt this attitude?
I think that would be self-defeating. If "we" [Americans] "adopted this attitiude" then we would hold that "every American is an enemy and ought to be destroyed, whether he is a soldier or a civilian."
I'd watch out before I accused others of not "making sense."
Perhaps you mean that we should adopt the notion that we should target...well...terrorism isn't a country, but if we replaced "islamo-facist terrorist" with "America" then we would have no soldier/civilian distinction and your whole analogy would get messy.
Maybe you mean (any) "Middle East countries." Well, no, I don't. I'd have thought that much was obvious.
See, I can't adopt the attitude. I'm not a countriless terrorist.
Anyway, this post isn't something I wrote. It is made up of parts I agree with and disagree with (or would like better clarification on). I think it does a good job at showing that you can't give these guys an inch. That if you do, they take a mile. That some rather naive Americans are sleeping peacfully at night and condemning certain actions taken against terrorists from their ivory towers by day. I thought it interesting to hear someone who had been involved in ((and studied) terrorism and its response, in Israel. It's wise to listen to people who have more experience than us. That's it.
Anyway, if only some would react to terrorism the way they do to some posts around here. Shoot first ask questions later. :-)
"I don't mean anything. This was written by Lous Pojman, who was trying to summarize Friedman's position, and offering a perspective on terrorism."
ReplyDeleteI assumed that since you quoted it without comment, you agreed with the opinion. Thanks for clarifying that this is not the case.
"I don't know what was so hard to figure out."
There are some people who argue that because they do not hold these values in regard to us, we should not hold these values in regard to them. I disagree with this position, and I understand from your reply that you do as well.
"That some rather naive Americans are sleeping peacfully at night and condemning certain actions taken against terrorists from their ivory towers by day."
I don't sleep particularly peacefully at night, but then again I'm not American, and I certainly oppose torture, since that what you appear to be getting at.
"I assumed that since you quoted it without comment, you agreed with the opinion. Thanks for clarifying that this is not the case."
ReplyDeleteNot exactly what I said.
"There are some people who argue that because they do not hold these values in regard to us, we should not hold these values in regard to them. I disagree with this position, and I understand from your reply that you do as well."
Too simplistic.
"I don't sleep particularly peacefully at night, but then again I'm not American, and I certainly oppose torture, since that what you appear to be getting at."
I wish you better nights.
But, again, too simplistic.
So in fact you do agree with Pojman's interpretation of Friedman's thesis? I'm struggling to grasp what you feel is "too simplistic".
ReplyDeleteIt's not even Pojman's theisis. I assume you don't have the book....
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it's simplistic to think: people can either 100% agree or 100% disagree with something.
I don't agree 100% with Plantinga's theory of warrant, but that doesn't mean I disagree with 100% of what he's said.
If I thought that way, or held others to that stricture, I'd be simplistic.
Either you're more subtle than I can possibly understand, or you don't have an opinion about Friedman or Pojnan are trying to say. Either way, it's not clear what you're seeking clarification on, apart from the notion that Friedman has nothing useful to contribute beyond the blindingly obvious and that I have no idea who Pojnan is.
ReplyDeleteMerker,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I assumed that since you quoted it without comment, you agreed with the opinion. Thanks for clarifying that this is not the case."
I had said said, "Anyway, this post isn't something I wrote. It is made up of parts I agree with and disagree with (or would like better clarification on)."
And so I responded to your response to my above quote, "Not exactly what I said."
That is, I said "I agree with some, probably not all."
You responded to that, "Thanks for clarifying that you don't agree with any of it."
I said this was simplistic.
You then said, "So in fact you do agree with Pojman's interpretation of Friedman's thesis? "
So, I hope you see that you are operating between two extremes. You are staging the discussion as "agree 100% or disagree 100%."
That's simplistic.
Friedman said plenty. You took one part and called that "obvious." You tried to make that "his thesis."
You're obviously trying to trade in oversimplifying things. Overgeneralized and misleading comments aren't conducive to rational debate.
You made one point about a straw man argument. I said that what you citied wasn't the argument. You thus tried to introduce a red herring and are now blaming me for not following its scent.
Let's apply some critical thinking skills, ability to follow points in the discussion, or else let's not bother to waste people's time with sophistries.