I have just discovered that this post has been linked to by Tim Blair.
Please take your pick.
a) do a quick word association on some words chosen at random (but inflenced by Blair's misleading heading "VILE MURDERING SCUM HAVE FEELINGS TOO" and put whatever abuse you like in comments. I removed the comments of one guy, but I won't remove any more. Go for your life. Let's party.b) read the post. I've also upgraded the visibility of some comments Ken Parish has made below - to help you get the hang of what I'm trying to say. If you disagree we'd all be grateful if you'd try to argue your case.
But its up to you.
__________________________________________________________________
I came across a reference to the London terrorists as 'vermin' in the blogosphere.
Perhaps we can all be forgiven for the strength of emotion in the moment. Nevertheless it seems to me that this language is odious. And it also seems to me that there is a kind of race to the bottom going on in which political leaders try to out do themselves in their language as if this proves the bona fides of their toughness.
I hope I'm not taken to be being sentimental about the terrorists. I'm not suggesting rehabilitation be a major focus! I would endorse straightforward description of our military objectives against them. The word 'crush' is usually used in this context.
But talk of "vermin" and the expressions I think Kim Beazley and Tony Blair have used - "human filth" and "extermination" respectively feels like a horrible and degrading way to express oneself to me. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but the only thing those words conjour in my mind is the Nazis speaking of the Jews.
The language is the language of the vigilante the language of indulging one's hatred. It is also of course the language of dehumanisation. We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them most obviously for the practical reason that we want to defeat them.
I'd be interested in others' views.
__________________________________________________________________
Postscript - a comment from Ken Parish.
I wonder whether some commenters actually bother to read posts before they comment on them. I suspect many just fix on key words (in this case "vermin") and then extrapolate and deem the author to be saying whatever their own prejudices dictate. Nicholas was very careful to explain why he objected to the use of the word vermin, and it has nothing to do with sympathy or concern for the tender feelings of the terrorists.
It's because we need to understand their motives and mindset in order to anticipate and defeat them, and because labelling them as "vermin" actually lets them off the hook in moral terms. They are humans who know what they're doing and are morally responsible for it, not mindless automaton cockroaches to be exterminated but not blamed.
And then there's the "there but for the grace of God go I" factor. Do RWDBs (at least the more intelligent of them) really think that ordinary Germans who were complicit (actively or passively) in Nazi atrocities in WWII were necessarily all that different from you and me? Obviously the leaders were psychopaths, but but most were just ordinary people, propagandised into believing that those they were exterminating were "sub-human", or perhaps necessary "collateral damage" of a noble cause.
In particular circumstances we are all capable of telling ourselves rationalising stories that enable us to commit appalling acts. Were the RAF pilots who fire-bombed Dresden "sub-humans"? Or the Germans who bombed London? Or the Americans who knowingly killed lots of civilians in Falluja? Note that I'm in no sense equating these acts with those of the Bali or Madrid or London bombers (not least because civilians were the specific target not just "collateral damage"). But they're nevertheless all huamns who bear moral responsibility for their actions.
This doesn't necessarily say anything at all about whether or how we eliminate them as threats. We may well kill and crush them literally, not unlike cockroaches or rats, and for the same reason: - they threaten us and self-defence requires it. But self-defence also requires us to understand them and hold them responsible.
When you're headed for war with Islam Nicholas it's no time for niceties. War is like that.
I find it amusing that people use this language, advocate war with an entire religion (see above comment)etc., and then try and claim the high moral ground. What upsets these people is not the fact that these actions took place, but the fact that 'their side' did it to 'our side'.
Yes. The terrorists would love this kind of language—they’d like nothing better than to see Western countries turn against their Muslim populations, making all their paranoid Jihadic fantasies come true. The more we can identify them as thuggish criminals and the less as holy warriors, the better for everyone.
It was quite unhelpful language to use and pretty out-of-character for Messer Beazley in particular.
Dehumanisation never got anyone civilised anywhere.
I couldn't agree more, Nicholas.
It's true. Paul Keting referred to Senators as "undemocratic swill", and within three months they had all been executed.
And their sperm stolen?
these people willingly killed innocent people.
They have no respect for human life.
They should be brought to justice. The punishment fitting the crime is death.
Vermin is an adequate description.
That's very un-Christian of you, Homer. You should be truer to your creed.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45)
"I come not to send peace but a sword."
- Matthew 10:34
Well we've had Nazis and the bible, Goodwin's Law has not yet been invoked and the discussion still hasn't gone off the rails.
It just goes to show, that when it comes to the Bible, there's something in it for everybody.
True to one's creed?
Children were injured in the London blasts.
Jesus said that people who injure children should have millstones put around their necks and be cast into the sea.
Port Adelaide fans are!
I share your concerns, Nicholas. When Kim Beazley described the terrorists as "subhuman" I instantly thought of the German "untermensch".
The main problem I have with such language, though, is that by denying the humanity of the terrorists, you effectively let them off the hook. If you say they are vermin, then it's difficult to blame them for behaving like vermin.
Recognising their humanity brings home just how evil their actions are --- they are capable of understanding what they do, but choose to do it anyway. And worse, we are fundamentally like them. It's a scary thought.
I agree with Nicholas. Using "vermin" gives me the shivers. It reminds me too much of Rwanda, when the Hutus were calling the Tutsis "cockroaches". Let's just call the terrorists what they really are: "criminals".
Homer: on the issue, I'm a "life without parole" man.
Hmm. I wonder how many of the more enlightened commenters here would have rushed to defend the humanity of the IRA bombers after, say, Omagh. Call me skeptical, but I reckon the silence would have been deafening if someone had called those bombers sub-human/vermin/filth whatever. Oh, sorry, my mistake. I'm sure the silence would have been broken by pithy reminders of support for the Irish republican movement by US Catholics.
Yeah, yeah - it's a straw man, but probably a pretty accurate assessment regardless.
I don't think Observa's comments are helpful. The last thing this RWDB wants is an escalation of conflict between the West and Islam. Therein lies a conflict without foreseeable end, and one that serves only the interests of terror masterminds like al Zarqawi and bin Laden. I remain confident that the majority of Muslims care for neither the doctrine or the methods espoused by these Islamist extremists. Westerners and Muslims have a long demonstrated ability to co-exist peacefully in a range of countries from Turkey to Pakistan to Australia. Let's treat each other with respect and we can keep it that way.
But the terrorists are fair game. Vermin? Well, according to one definition, that term covers an insect or animal that is destructive, annoying, or harmful to health. Includes cockroaches, flies, mice, and rats. I think the term 'terrorists' could be slotted in neatly after rats.
Forget the clever analogies between with Nazis and their 'untermenschen' or whatever. Such hollow sophistry highlights only the long stretch made to draw the comparison. The creatures we are dealing with here live in a world devoid of negotiation, compromise, compassion or respect - c.f. humanity. Their hate-filled little minds see innocent children, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters in a school or on a bus as nothing more than a canvas on which to write their depravity.
Paedophiles, I would suggest, have more care and respect for young people than a suicide bomber on a public transport bus. Anyone want to rush in to defend the humanity of kiddy-fiddlers? Dare ya. Strange then, that we can dig so deep for the homicidal maniacs behind the London bombings, no?
Seems to me all this argument about nuance, understanding and humanity boils down to something rather less laudable - the barely concealed notion that an enemy of an enemy of mine shouldn't be called sub-human filth.
Get a grip, people.
So it's OK to call the Australian Prime Minister a rat but not terrorists? Go figure?
One reason not to dehumanise the terrorists is that unlike actual vermin, humans are responsible for their actions, and are held to a higher standard of behaviour. To their credit, the allies put the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg, and so did the Israelis later on with Eichmann.
If the Nazis were just thought of as vermin they could have just been killed as soon as they were captured.
Bollocks. Churchill set up a special office whose sole purpose was to call Hitler & Co far worse things than vermin.
CL,
Can you give us some examples. I'm genuinely interested, not trying to score points.
Naughty Near East Ner'Do Wells? Misguided Mahommadean Miscreants? Choleric Koranic Curmugeons? Pyrrhic Plutonic Pirates In Pyrotechnic Pantaloons?
Perhaps we can all be forgiven for the strength of emotion in the moment. Nevertheless it seems to me that this language is odious. And it also seems to me that there is a kind of race to the bottom going on in which political leaders try to out do themselves in their language as if this proves the bona fides of their toughness.
We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them
Dave,
The passage you quoted isn't about people killing people.
if you put your hands up to a terrorist and say kill me , I love you then that's fine.
don't say it is biblical however.
A person who deliberately kills a person is killing someone born in the image of god which means...
or to put it another way what are they saying about their neighbour?
"I find it amusing that people use this language, advocate war with an entire religion (see above comment)etc., and then try and claim the high moral ground"
I don't find it amusing Dirk and will not necessarily claim high moral ground, just personal self-interest. I don't advocate war, but I think it's now inevitable and outline my reasons for that at John Quiggin's 'Class of 05' With a 21 yr old son and 18 yr old daughter, I'd appreciate any practical suggestions(barring capitulation) as to how a clash of civilisations can be avoided.
"We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them
All I want is to put all of you in a bus or a train when the "vermin" blow itself to pieces...may be you will be wanting to change your opinion...not you but your relatives...good luck...
What the hell does that mean Phil?
Matthew 10:34's "sword" looks very much to me like a metaphor for strife. The rest of Matthew 10 goes on to say that folk should put Jesus ahead of family, and how this will mean all kinds of strife.
I feel sorry for Jesus, actually. No man has had his words quoted out of context more often than the carpenter.
Watch this Nick and come back and tell us if you still think the term 'vermin' is too harsh for these people.
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2004/september/ogrish-dot-com-eugene-armstrong-beheading-video.wmv
Maybe we should call them "freedom fighters" or "insurgents?" Suicide bombers are people too!
Seriously, how can you draw a moral equivalance between the use of Untermenschen to refer to innocent people based on ethnicity and religion, verses refering to guilty people as "vermin" because they have individually chosen to act like vermin by indiscriminately killing other human beings. You've made yourself incapable of condemning evil by adopting that rhetoric. Keep this up, and you'll turn into Madeline Albright and want to go dancing with Kim Jong Il.
So what to call the terrorists? Me, myself, I prefer to call them "JDAM targets."
Future JDAM victims, thanks Mike, or maybe "cluster bomb martyrs". How about "he who is helped to hell by hellfire"?
Vermin are what are eating the still unrecovered bodies of the dead slaughtered in the London tube by these fanatics.
How's that?
Now, I'm not one to mince words like the smarter ones amongst you. It seems that this thread has been devoted to arguing the sematics over whether or not murderous terrorists should be described as less than human or not. I would be interested to have a little more backgound on some of the 'don't abuse the terrorist, they're just humans' commenters.
Community anger is such that right now these attackes are perceived as an attack to increase pressure on the governments with troops in Iraq. The alleged perpetrators have said as much. So what next? All foreign troops leave Iraq. Then there might be another attack asking for all Jews to be tied to rocks and thrown into the sea. That happens. Another attack. Another demand. Continuous capitulation is the outcome.
And you people are concerned that we might be viewed as lesser beings because we describe terrorists as sub-human filth? Get a grip.
Still no alternative to hunting them down and shooting them like rabid dogs. What do you clowns want us to do? Understand them to death?
I wonder whether some commenters actually bother to read posts before they comment on them. I suspect many just fix on key words (in this case "vermin") and then extrapolate and deem the author to be saying whatever their own prejudices dictate. Nicholas was very careful to explain why he objected to the use of the word vermin, and it has nothing to do with sympathy or concern for the tender feelings of the terrorists. It's because we need to understand their motives and mindset in order to anticipate and defeat them, and because labelling them as "vermin" actually lets them off the hook in moral terms. They are humans who know what they're doing and are morally responsible for it, not mindless automaton cockroaches to be exterminated but not blamed.
And then there's the "there but for the grace of God go I" factor. Do RWDBs (at least the more intelligent of them) really think that ordinary Germans who were complicit (actively or passively) in Nazi atrocities in WWII were necessarily all that different from you and me? Obviously the leaders were psychopaths, but but most were just ordinary people, propagandised into believing that those they were exterminating were "sub-human", or perhaps necessary "collateral damage" of a noble cause. In particular circumstances we are all capable of telling ourselves rationalising stories that enable us to commit appalling acts. Were the RAF pilots who fire-bombed Dresden "sub-humans"? Or the Germans who bombed London? Or the Americans who knowingly killed lots of civilians in Falluja? Note that I'm in no sense equating these acts with those of the Bali or Madrid or London bombers (not least because civilians were the specific target not just "collateral damage"). But they're nevertheless all huamns who bear moral responsibility for their actions. This doesn't necessarily say anything at all about whether or how we eliminate them as threats. We may well kill and crush them literally, not unlike cockroaches or rats, and for the same reason: - they threaten us and self-defence requires it. But self-defence also requires us to understand them and hold them responsible.
The Mayor of London had a nice speech in which he explained why he preferred the term 'murderer' because to ascribe them with the term 'terrorist' gives them a reason to do what they do. By using 'murderer' their crimes are not diminshed but their position is.
After all, murderers just want to kill people, whereas terrorists want to kill people for a reason.
Deny them their reason and they lose power. By not referring to them as 'Islamist' or 'Muslim Terrorists' you are denying them the other Islamists and Muslims. No one wants to associate with a murderer, right?
A smart move.
Common, unreasoned murder is enough of a contemptible crime. 'Murderer' is not a politically loaded term, which was Nicholas' point.
Red Ken also has to now cover his arse, having been greasing up to the fundies for some time and even fete'ing some dingbat linked to EQ to a civic reception; he has to tread a fine line between acknowledging the evil perpetrated without upsetting the substantial George Galloway electorate in Bethnal. Duplicitous turd- or is than a demeaning term?
Here's a piece of advice for you vapid pompous asses debating the proper nomeclature for homicidal Islamofascist terrorists: they aren't shame-based. They don't give a fuck what we call them. Before they are annihilated, like the Nazi fascists before them, examining the root causes is an exercise in stupidity. Self-defense trumps the perpetrator's "issues" as the body count mounts. (And it is insane to think that resisting terrorism is a root cause or that the privileged lives of most terrorists was poverty.)
Missing from your dribble is any concern about the victims or respect for the good men that are on patrol right now face to face with these vermin on decent people's behalf. Care to admonish them for the names they are calling the enemy, you self-loathing leftist twits?
ph
I guess you must love a spot of violence, because you can't say things like that face to face without a smack in the head or creating incredulous delight.
Or are you capitalising on the fact that blog rage grants you immunity to any physical challenge?
Or am I umderestimating the value of verbal abuse?
Nic
Ahhh so this is what the real RWDB do!
Thanks for the vermin alert.
"Dehumanisation never got anyone civilised anywhere."
No kidding. We are sub-human in the eyes of Bin Laden and his ilk. We are sub-human in the context of Islamic dhimmitude.
----
"We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them
"Dehumanisation never got anyone civilised anywhere."
No kidding. We are sub-human in the eyes of Bin Laden and his ilk. We are sub-human in the context of Islamic dhimmitude.
----
"We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them
"Dehumanisation never got anyone civilised anywhere."
No kidding. We are sub-human in the eyes of Bin Laden and his ilk. We are sub-human in the context of Islamic dhimmitude.
----
"We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them
Deadly serious; I lived in London when Livingstone was head of the GLC (booted out in the mid '80s by Thatcher) and the bastard was then pally with and apologising for the provo IRA. He adopted fundie Islam as a cause, which helped him slither back into office- now the chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately for Ken, they've mutated into vultures. He is a classic old-school leftist toad, prepared to jump in the cot with anyone or anything that vaguely resembles a cause that will earn him brownie points with the perpetually outraged. Hopefully Londoners may well be aware now of what having idiots like Livingstone and Galloway represent them means.
"Dehumanisation never got anyone civilised anywhere."
No kidding. We are sub-human in the eyes of Bin Laden and his ilk. We are sub-human in the context of Islamic dhimmitude.
----
"We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them
52 people killed (at least), innocent people slaughtered like dogs, decent people the world over wary when going out in public, and all you bunch of intellectually superior compassion guzzlers can come up with is "now, now, there's no need for name-calling". It amazes me that anyone would even be thinking of that at a time such as this. It's a stupid thing to be concerned about and really highlights how much "compassion" you morons really have!
I think the those responsible for the bombings in london be tried and jailed (for a long time) the day after those other war criminals, Tony Blair, John Howard, George Bush etc and respective cabinets are tried and put away. Going to another country and murdering civilians on the basis of faith or economic advantage is indeed heinous and should be stopped.
If the bombers turn out to be from Iraq at least they can argue that their mass murder was provoked. Responding to violence with more violence only leads to more violence. As for the ability to negotiate, Tony Blair has hardly been more forthcoming than Osama Bin Laden. And no i don't support Osama or any other Jihadis, for exactly the same reason i don't support Blair, Howard, Bush - they all kill for reasons of self interest and justify that killing with lies and racist dogma.
As Noam Chomsky said: "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
"Or the Americans who knowingly killed lots of civilians in Falluja?"
Hey, Ken, got a link to a factual verifiable account of that? Give us the number and circumstances of that "lots of"?
Damn well you can't. It's the kind of inflammatory reckless statement that needs challenged. I'm sick of jerks throwing out civilian death numbers from sources like the discredited Lancet Report and hoping it will stick.
Waiting on your link........
Oho Nicholas! Practicing a bit of flypaper theory yerself hey?
Shame all this Blairy-eyed belligerence doesn't translate into boots on the ground. Why, then we'd have Osama's head in an ice-packed esky within a week.
Meanwhile I can imagine the terrorists/misunderstood muslims/vermin saying to eachother "It's amazing! We bomb them here and they turn on eachother there."
So, should we condemn all the lefty bloggers who referred to John Howard as a "lying rodent"?
Or does our concern for dehumanising terminology only extend to Islamic terrorists?
buzz buzz
Evil P: The "lying rodent" is what is known in the writing and cartooning trades as a "caricature" - when the features of the original are exaggerated for humorous effect. It also happened to Hawke and Keating in the old "Buzzards of the Bush" cartoons in the Oz. I can't remember anyone from the ALP whinging "dehumanization" when PK was portrayed as a vulture with a sombrero. Why are the RWDBs so more thin skinned?
And for that matter, more addicted to conspicuous indigation? That's what I'm seeing a lot of in this thread. If they had lost loved ones, I'd understand the rage... but I'm getting the vibe that it's not really it. Instead, it's just another free kick on misplaced compassion - missing the point that it's not about compassion at all.
When the bombings occurred, I was at my workplace, an English language school. Lots of my co-workers are from the South of England, or had lived there in the past. They were extremely worried about the disaster when they heard about it, and were swapping URLs as quick as Google News could dig them up. But they didn't go into hysterics, or blame people or burst into tears. (They were a lot better behaved than a lot of you trolls, I must say.) I remember I was very worried, because I guessed my sister would have commuted through Edgeware Station - one of the blast areas. She did email me later to say she was alive - but also saw the smoke from the blast itself.
Not as good is what happened to a brother-in-law of a coworker. He was about to take a train, wasn't able to, and the train he missed blew up. He's alive, but I'd be worried about survivors' guilt.
And if my sister had died, how would I have reacted? I don't know. Anger? Probably. Sadness? Definitely. Vengeance? I doubt it. Personally, I don't see myself as harbouring death/torture fantasies on the murderers. Doing life in solitary would probably be all that I could hope for those bastards. I wouldn't be happy or content, but I'd hope that it would close the issue.
Did I say it wasn't about compassion?
Evil P: The "lying rodent" is what is known in the writing and cartooning trades as a "caricature" - when the features of the original are exaggerated for humorous effect. It also happened to Hawke and Keating in the old "Buzzards of the Bush" cartoons in the Oz. I can't remember anyone from the ALP whinging "dehumanization" when PK was portrayed as a vulture with a sombrero. Why are the RWDBs so more thin skinned?
And for that matter, more addicted to conspicuous indigation? That's what I'm seeing a lot of in this thread. If they had lost loved ones, I'd understand the rage... but I'm getting the vibe that it's not really it. Instead, it's just another free kick on misplaced compassion - missing the point that it's not about compassion at all.
When the bombings occurred, I was at my workplace, an English language school. Lots of my co-workers are from the South of England, or had lived there in the past. They were extremely worried about the disaster when they heard about it, and were swapping URLs as quick as Google News could dig them up. But they didn't go into hysterics, or blame people or burst into tears. (They were a lot better behaved than a lot of you trolls, I must say.) I remember I was very worried, because I guessed my sister would have commuted through Edgeware Station - one of the blast areas. She did email me later to say she was alive - but also saw the smoke from the blast itself.
Not as good is what happened to a brother-in-law of a coworker. He was about to take a train, wasn't able to, and the train he missed blew up. He's alive, but I'd be worried about survivors' guilt.
And if my sister had died, how would I have reacted? I don't know. Anger? Probably. Sadness? Definitely. Vengeance? I doubt it. Personally, I don't see myself as harbouring death/torture fantasies on the murderers. Doing life in solitary would probably be all that I could hope for those bastards. I wouldn't be happy or content, but I'd hope that it would close the issue.
Did I say it wasn't about compassion?
EP, As I recall the "lying rodent" epithet was coined by Senator George Brandis, so perhaps your indignation should be pointed in that direction.
DAOIS, I only brought up the Left's dehumanisation of John Howard because lefties are whingeing about terrorist scum being called names.
Let's have a bit of consistency here. Either it's okay to refer to people as "vermin" and "rodents", or it isn't.
Your assertion that it's acceptable to use such language for politicians, but not for mass-murdering villains, is simply ridiculous.
I presume you would regard this worthy citizen as just a misguided or poorly informed but valuable educator and example to his people, and not a crazy fat delusional xenophobic theocrat in a mu-mu and tea cosy then? I must be a really awful, diversity unaware, knuckle-dragging troglydite.
Looks like HTML code doesn't work here- try a cut and paste, and read (and try to decipher) the transcript.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1411904.htm
It turns out that in some quarters, even using the word "terrorist" is considered too harsh for describing terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/07/12/ixportal.html
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.
Early reporting of the attacks on the BBC's website spoke of terrorists but the same coverage was changed to describe the attackers simply as "bombers".
The BBC's guidelines state that its credibility is undermined by the "careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments".
Consequently, "the word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding" and its use should be "avoided", the guidelines say.
Rod Liddle, a former editor of the Today programme, has accused the BBC of "institutionalised political correctness" in its coverage of British Muslims.
A BBC spokesman said last night: "The word terrorist is not banned from the BBC."
Ken wrote -
"I wonder whether some commenters actually bother to read posts before they comment on them."
I imagine some have read Tim Blair's post bagging Nicholas and linking here:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/vile_murdering_scum_have_feelings_too/
I'm apparently one of those commenters who never read posts. Just saw Nicholas' update at the top of the post. Thought Ken's was the latest. My bad - been a long day.
So we have failed to defeat the terrorists because Liberals have not expressed their hatred in sufficiently extreme terms? Is that what's going on here?
I'm genuinely puzzled by this. What practical difference does it make to the War on Terror if Nicholas says in public that he doesn't like people - even these people - being called vermin? It's not as if George Bush, scrolling through Troppo Armadillo (as he does), sees Nicholas's post and thinks: "Why yes! These terrorists aren't vermin after all, despite what Dick tells me. They're living, breathing human beings with feelings too and I should lighten up on them. Don - pull our troops out of Iraq. Condi - stop leaning all over Musharraf: Osama's had a hard enough time hiding from us all these years and I reckon he needs a break."
(Disclosure: calling the London bombers 'vermin' or 'subhuman' doesn't bother me at all. It's all just noise. Everybody of any moral stature knows they're really really really really bad people anyway: we don't actually need to remind ourselves every five minutes.)
(Disclosure 2: I was born in London. I grew up there. I spent most of Thursday night drowning in tears and tissues as I watched the television and read the blogs. Spare me your indignation. (Just in case.))
"As Noam Chomsky said: 'Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.'"
Yeah. Right. Maybe we can get the jihadists to come to Jesus or become Quakers.
Chomsky's an idiot. Basically he is saying that responding to terrorism, as in defending ourselves or attempting to destroy the terrorist, is the root cause. Wasn't passivity tried for the past three decades? Israel offered land for peace with the Oslo Accords. Arafat scuttled that. Clinton's passivity after the first WTC bombing got us the second more lethal one.
Of course, the largest flaw with Chomsky's logic is that there is symmetry in intent and morality between the perpetrator of violence and the reaction of the victim.
Terrorists are vermin. That's appropriately descriptive. Only the pathologically shame-based souls among us would debate its usage.
Hey, jen, it's amusing that an idiot who posts "buzz, Buzz" as a response to someone would characterized my utterances as "blog rage". As someone whose retort was the utterances of a fly anything in the higher order of human expression would sound shocking to you.
The "hippie chic" bio is a bit dated too. It really really doesn't put you in the realm of original or intellectually evolved.
I see the habitu
It's nice to see you've grown some gonads and won't be deleting posts just because they point out your idiotic double standard.
A person that thinks blowing up innocent people, removing heads, cutting throats, is normal, and somehow furthers their cause, is accurately described as sub human, filth, or vermin. All are quite accurate. I am assuming that if someone decided that removing the head of one of your family members would further their political cause you wouldn't worry about what they were called. Or perhaps you wouldn't.
Simply amazing.
Nabs, I really don't want to know about your habits- they're disgusting. Seeing as I regard Victorians as bath-shy untermensch, you wouldn't want to know in what regard I hold ideologues who place pipe bombs in public places and slither off to safety.
Perhaps another perspective that I think Nick's original point was alluding to. "The terrorists" are in fact, biologically, human beings. Exactly what seperates them from many people you know is a lifetime of experiences and their collection of reactions to them. Pointing this out may indeed sound like something you could describe various ways, but it's also only patently true fact. While obviously the vermin language is only emotive, it's a very nice side point to remember that in using it people can easily forget the facts. Once we remember these facts, the trajedy from all of this simply more salient.
Dear ranting insult machines,
Moronic leftie here.
Maybe if you applied a bit of thought you would see the immense pragmatisim in not engaging in a word of words that can and will alienate non-terrorist muslims.
Where do you think the tip-offs are going to come from that will help nail the current bombers and prevent further ones?
The non-terrorist muslim community.
TA DAAA!!!!
That's moronic.
Why would innocent Muslims feel insulted by the words used to describe terrorists -- unless they already associated themselves with the terrorists?
Plod has one in custody and has identifed three of the four deceased bombers- all Anglo-Pakistanis from Leeds. Bugger all to do with tip-offs, the morons had identity documents on their now well dismembered carcasses. Enjoy those 288 virgins, fellas! At least one has been described by 'is mukkas as "a good Muslim". Please elucidate on this thread, informed fans of diversity awareness and non-judgemental language.
EP,
"Why would innocent Muslims feel insulted by the words used to describe terrorists "
Probably for the same reason RWDBs take issue when someone criticises Dubbya and Howard etc.
Stuff like: "When you're headed for war with Islam Nicholas it's no time for niceties" is what appeared on a thread about what to call terrorists. I could rest my case here.
Muslims have been insulted in the streets and hate letters have been sent to mosques and mosques have been vandalised.
This is all counter-productive. We are not at War with Islam(TM). Al'qaeda and friends want the west to declare war on Islam. They want muslim populations within the west to be ostracised. The best way to see that the west doesn't is to not take the first step of hinting that these bombers are representative of the muslim community.
You err on the side of caution. And what warbo said above.
PB,
Fine. Doesn't change the fact that many crimes are prevented/solved by tip-offs. How about preventing the next one? These guys didn't use any communications device to discuss their plans before or after the bombings, so they stayed below the radar. The only way the authorities could have found out about it is through tipoffs.
"At least one has been described by 'is mukkas as "a good Muslim". Please elucidate on this thread, informed fans of diversity awareness and non-judgemental language."
# Use positive rather than negative language, ie 'a good muslim is like X here who has a business and is part of the community. A good muslim is a good person like anyone else and good people don't blow up others.'
Then encourage muslims to condemn the bombers too.
I don't see how saying 'no, he was subhuman filth' is a particularly useful; or how the fact that 'the other guy called me a poo-head' is justification for calling him a poo-head back.
Is he still regarded as "A good Muslim" by his peers, in the light of his recent bit of pro-active protest?
"Is he still regarded as "A good Muslim" by his peers, in the light of his recent bit of pro-active protest?"
Dunno. Plenty of muslims can lead their lives without killing anyone, I don't see why he should be subject to special rules.
Keeping an eye on his peers would be a good idea, of course.
Many people in our community appear to live blameless lives. That is, until they pick up a rifle and go on a murderous rampage or are exposed as having molested 11-year old boys.
In these circumstances, the community will often describe that person as "nice", "kind" or "quiet". It doesn't mean that community somehow has different moral standards to the rest of us. It just illustrates that the inner workings of people are often hidden from the rest of us.
I didn't hear anyone condemning the entire Tasmanian community because no-one reported Martin Bryant to the police in advance of his crime.
Marty wasn't doing it in the name of some possibly fictional deity, he was just nuts.
Another point with Bryant, my now expired dear old dad who was a Colonel of Infantry before he retired, and who always carried a 1916 Lee Enfield .303 in the boot of his car, with a few clips, had been at Port Arthur a week prior; he said at the time "had I (or someone like me) been there, that bastard might have got one or two, but no more".
I can't add to that.
"Dehumanisation never got anyone civilised anywhere."
For once I'm with Amy, but maybe not so lucky. It was dehumanising Saddam that got us into the Iraq mess. Then again, I don't suppose the invasion and occupation has been all that civilised.
"dehumanising Saddam got us into the Iraq mess"?
What an utter load of rot.
Amy
1.I am too old to retort.
2.Hamlet said buzz buzz in reference to court intrigue and gossip. I was also referring to Nabokov's flypaper. A smile - worthy analogy, I thought.
3.As far as I can see you hadn't commented when I mentioned blog rage. Although I must admit your vitriol is as entertaining as any I've read and the essay solution is a little pearler.
4.As for the bio, I have no control over what Parish writes. But as you went to the trouble to look, here is a perspective.
I find the left right slanging entertaining to a point, then it is verbiage.
I sometimes feel like Hitler incarnate, other times me and Mother Theresa would be great mates.
This forum is at its most engaging when folks are funny or when ideas take several directions.
I don't find written abuse fun. Face to face, well, that is something else.
Hi PB,
"Marty wasn't doing it in the name of some possibly fictional deity, he was just nuts."
# And how do we prevent people who are 'nuts' going berko with guns? In a sensible, responsible and understanding way. Dismissing Bryant as simply 'nuts' won't prevent another guy doing the same, but will hinder the mentally ill generally.
Want proof? Go ask someone if they have a mental illness. More than 25% do, but they're not gonna tell you, are they?
Re your OT comment about your father.
""had I (or someone like me) been there, that bastard might have got one or two, but no more"."
# Yeah, and if there was a properly running health system those first two people might have not been shot either. Forgive the typical leftwing speil, but it is self evident.
Is that an argument for private ownership of weapons or for more police?
After all, *each month* more Americans die from gunshot wounds than were killed in the September11 attacks.
As a footnote to the post, a column in today's Courier-Mail suggested that Beazley's use of these words (hypothesised to be part of the effort to make him seem tougher) may not have been unrelated to his recent drop in approval ratings.