Evil
Perhaps you've read about it. A few days ago, there were murder bombings in two street pet markets of the capitol city. They weren't suicide bombings. The bombers were two retarded women who had vests filled with explosives fitted to them and were sent to the pet markets. The explosives were detonated by remote control when the women had made it through security and were amongst the shoppers. Dozens of people were killed.
The women made it through security because the cultural norms of this country discourage close searches of women. That they were retarded women made them even less suspicious and easier to manipulate. The pet markets were targeted because they would be crowded with people buying pets for themselves and their children.
All of this was thoroughly considered by the killers. They scouted the area and knew when it would be crowded with shoppers. They prepared the bombs and the remote detonators. They noted the habits of the security forces and their reluctance to search women. They knew that most decent people are very solicitous and considerate of the retarded and this they made a key part of their plan. They found women who would suit their purpose and they told them a story. They knew the women would trust them and innocently follow their directions.
The bombers worked a long time on this plan and their were probably more than just a handful of them. They succeeded. They were there to see the women join the crowd and then they pushed the button. They saw the flash, heard the noise and saw the bodies and the pieces of the bodies flying through the air and laying on the ground. They listened to the screams of parents crying for their blasted children and of the children crying for their dismembered parents. Perhaps they slipped in the pools of blood.
And you know what, they were thrilled. They were happy, really happy their plan worked so well. They all got together and saluted each others courage and cleverness. They had a party maybe and showed each other newspaper headlines about the deaths. Each one recounted again to each other one his part in the great victory. Then when the party was over, they began to plan again.
Our soldiers and the soldiers and cops of this country are here to hunt these men down and kill them. When they do, they have done good thing and the world is better for it.
The women made it through security because the cultural norms of this country discourage close searches of women. That they were retarded women made them even less suspicious and easier to manipulate. The pet markets were targeted because they would be crowded with people buying pets for themselves and their children.
All of this was thoroughly considered by the killers. They scouted the area and knew when it would be crowded with shoppers. They prepared the bombs and the remote detonators. They noted the habits of the security forces and their reluctance to search women. They knew that most decent people are very solicitous and considerate of the retarded and this they made a key part of their plan. They found women who would suit their purpose and they told them a story. They knew the women would trust them and innocently follow their directions.
The bombers worked a long time on this plan and their were probably more than just a handful of them. They succeeded. They were there to see the women join the crowd and then they pushed the button. They saw the flash, heard the noise and saw the bodies and the pieces of the bodies flying through the air and laying on the ground. They listened to the screams of parents crying for their blasted children and of the children crying for their dismembered parents. Perhaps they slipped in the pools of blood.
And you know what, they were thrilled. They were happy, really happy their plan worked so well. They all got together and saluted each others courage and cleverness. They had a party maybe and showed each other newspaper headlines about the deaths. Each one recounted again to each other one his part in the great victory. Then when the party was over, they began to plan again.
Our soldiers and the soldiers and cops of this country are here to hunt these men down and kill them. When they do, they have done good thing and the world is better for it.
posted by Carl at 6:27 PM
25 Comments:
WOW. Your observations are so powerful, you have a real gift for words. Have you considered sending your observations to editorial pages in international newspapers? We hear of all the the civilians killed, but never of the evil which goes into the planning and execution (both literally and figuratively)
of those acts. Thank You.
I heard about this story on NPR and it angered and saddened me to no end. I think you identified the situation exactly as it happened. The fact is there is EVIL in the world. It feeds on and perpetuates carnage. Yes, the people who did this were motivated by pure evil. In fact, I would say their actions clearly show they themselves are in fact, evil - plain and simple. Though they may try to wrap themselves is some perverse veil of religion - their actions clearly show they serve a dark lord. They use some bogus religious facade to hide behind in order to rationalize their simple psychotic lust for murder.
Yes, I do believe in good and evil as well as in God and the devil. Even if one is not religious, it's hard to argue the existence of evil. This act was completely over the top. I was sad for the women that were used. The fact that they were mentally handicapped made them perfect pawns in a heinous plan. I imagine their innocent, trusting faces being coaxed into a killing spree they were unable to comprehend. I imagine the slaughter scene you described so vividly with child, parent and even pet in a bloody, horrific blur. All the while the "warriors of god" (I'm sure that's how they view themselves) stood cowardly in the distance achieving some type of grotesque high from the whole picture. I do believe there is one God who manifests Himself differently to different people. However, the core is the same, one God of love, tolerance and hope - pure un-adulterated good. I think God gets really upset when people use His name to do bad things.
Do you have any feel for what the locals are saying about this incident? Is the civilian population becoming tired of these acts and the organization that is perpetuating them?
Oh, I want to clarify a point I made. When I said I imagined their faces being coaxed into a killing spree they could not comprehend I didn't mean to imply the murderers told them that part. I mean they were most likely given a story - something like, "I want to give you a special present. I want to give you a pet of your very own and you even get to go pick it out. I'm even going to give you a special vest to wear when you pick out your pet. The vest will give you extra power to help you pick the very best pet there is..." Un-friggin-believable.
Tony: i never get off the base on the ground. and i never get to talk to any of the local people ever. everything i read i read in newspapers and on line from various groups, like the icg or the various refs available at the small wars journal.
there is a lot available but you have to go and look for it. the christian science monitor is pretty good. stars and stripes is good also. the nyt has a lot of good stories too.
It seems you are advocating moral relativism at the end of this. Is that your intent?
anonymous: i don't know quite how to respond to that.
what i am saying is the men who participated in this should be hunted down, captured, given a fair trail and then hung. if they resist somebody should put two in their head. those who catch or kill them will have done a noble thing. if i could contrive some way to help in the endeavor, i would be thrilled.
that is what the captain meant to say.
Huh. Moral relativism?? I hardly think so. You cite to me any cultural example in which it is accepted practice to exploit and murder the mentally handicapped to further ones own political agenda without consequence. These men knew exactly what they were doing, and proceeded with full malice aforethought, and it is culturally appropriate in any society to enact and enforce laws limiting this type of action, and holding those men responsible. Heck, this response goes all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi.
It seems problematic that one would say, "Those who catch or kill them will have done a noble thing". Is it justifiable to assert that nobility was not the intent of the men who performed those acts (albeit,characterizing that as nobility would surely conflict with what you may characterize as nobility)? I'm not sure it is. So, when attributing a classification of moral goodness to the act of hunting down these men
and killing them we transcend that barrier between duty and morality. To say that it is "good" and
"noble" for us to kill them, but immoral for them to kill others seems to be advocating moral relativism. To classify "catch[ing]" these men as the duty of a soldier is one thing, but to qualify that duty is quite another.
i am a very simple fellow. pilots generally are. the air molecules will behave in this fashion or that fashion depending on the conditions and they won't change their behavior in the face of a clever argument. the ground will smash you to pieces if you hit it too hard and you can't talk your way out of it. certain things just are.
tracking down, capturing or killing the fellows who committed this act is a noble act. it just are.
anonymous, imagine one of these innocent women were your sister, do you still feel so morally superior that you would advocate the position that just punishment is wrong?
OK...Let me get this right... are you comparing the actions of these terrorists with those of the police or soldiers? I would classify the word "noble", as an appropriate description for anyone, soldier or policeman, risking his own life to help maintain order for the protection of total strangers being victimized by a minority group for their personal political visions. Would you characterize as moral relativism, or ignoble, the actions of the Israeli nazi hunters seeking justice for the sins of former SS officers responsible for the torture and murder of countles innocent civilians? Hardly. Even the most politically correct position cannot condone these actions without consequence.
To the first Anonymous: Mine is not an argument appealing to pathos, so a response to your question is more or less fruitless. However, what I will say is that I do not feel any sort of moral superiority, which is exactly the reason that I am contesting the attribution of the word "noble" (indeed a qualitative term lending itself to superiority) to any act that by itself would be seen as man acting in a Hobbesian state of nature.
To the second Anonymous, as well as to the first: I'm afraid you have not read my words, so I will try to restate my argument with different ones.
To answer the question of whether I am comparing the actions of soldiers to those of terrorists, I contend that we cannot make an assumption that their idea of nobility is not what prompted the formulation and execution of this plan. Nonetheless, any system of justice should punish actions in a appropriate manner; otherwise, the state that adopts that system is not a legitimate one. If I were to make the assertion that these men should not be punished, then I would be advocating moral relativism. On the contrary, what I am saying that "just punishment" is exactly that: it is just. But there is a difference between justice and nobility. As soon as one calls an act of killing noble, no matter who performs that act, a moral claim is made that transcends the morality accompanying negative rights.
whooo, it's getting deep in here. i am getting out of this discussion, from my position i can see your thesaurus smoking.
To the argumentative anonymous: I think you need to understand the meaning of the term moral relativism before making an argument based upon it. Your contention that the terrorists may have believed that their actions were noble, thus acceptable, represents a living example of moral relativism.It simply does not matter whether these men believed that their acts were noble. To the contrary, moral universality, that is, that mankind as a whole shares a basic moral code which, when violated, is deserving of punishment, is what is at issue. Under that universal code, there are acts which simply cannot be accepted. These are cowards who hide behind disabled women. So, if anyone is lucky enough to find them and stop them from perpetrating more universally heinous acts, you would argue that killing under any circumstance is wrong, and allow them to escape? Sometimes in the real world, one must look at circumstances from a real world perspective.
That's all I have to say about that.
So I am breaking my self imposed vow of silence to tell all of the anonymouses to either identify yourselves or Can It.
I don't know about moral relativism but it seems to me that all morals are relative and that the means always justify the end in someone's mind...big deal.
Next topic!
Brother: thanks for the thought, but i don't mind anonymous comment. it might be easier if we come up with some means to tell each other apart though. you guys can be anonymous 1,2 and 3, or if you like, something else; earth, fire and water maybe.
near as i can figure, we are all on the same side. the fellows in question should be found and removed from the company of humans, one way or another. We can call it what we will as long as it gets done.
to anonymous, you sir (or ma'am) are an idiot and a blowhard. Are you so impressed with your self administered wit that you cannot see right from wrong? Hunting down the bad guys and killing them is what good people say when they are frustrated with evil. Moral relativism is what self righteous people say when they don't understand nor can not admit to themselves or their loved ones that they too are frustrated with the injustices of life.
namecalling, yeah, very articulate, and oh so persuasive. signed, anonymously, incomprehensibly unaware that so few can actually read.
If there's something that this topic needs, it's a little bit of moderation. For one, the ad hominem attacks on all sides serve no purpose but to weaken the attacker's argument and make him or her appear less intellectual.
Now, on to the actual topic. To clarify for everyone, I believe what the first/original "anonymous" is trying to argue is that it is problematic to assume that it is noble or intrinsically right to hunt down those responsible for the pet market bombings in Iraq. That's not to say one can't argue that this is what he or she believes is true or right, I think that Anonymous 1 really wants people to present these kind of arguments rather than simply say its true without backing it up. That being said, please do not mistake Anonymous 1 as saying that what the leaders behind the bombing did could possibly be moral. In my eyes, and from what I can tell, Anonymous 1's eyes, using someone without their knowledge or free will to kill others and causing their own death is certainly universally wrong. (If Anonymous 1 disagrees with me here, then he/she might want to rethink their stance against moral relativism.)
As such, please don't attack Anonymous 1 for trying to encourage constructive conversation on what is certainly the most pressing issue of our times. Discussion certainly needs to be had if we are to decide whether or not it is noble for the US to hunt down those responsible, and God knows this discussion needs to be had if we are ever to achieve any sort of rapprochement with Arabs in the Middle East.
Here are some arguments I see as being supportive of Carl's view as this being a noble response. 1) The perpetrators violated the laws of Iraq, international laws, and a universal moral code. As such, they are to be brought to justice, so long as that justice itself is commensurate with the aforementioned laws and moral codes. 2)Insomuch as law, order, and universal morality are noble, maintaining these things or restoring them when necessary must also be a noble act. (I think that maybe Anonymous 1 is unsure whether hunting down the perpetrators falls within this argument).
Now, here are some arguments which I can see against considering hunting down the perpetrators a noble act. 1) As much as I can tell, no Americans were killed, so should it be up to us to do this? 2) If it is inherently noble to hunt these people down, then it's noble to hunt down each and every single person who has done something on a similar or larger scale. Why, then, did the US leave Somalia, fail to act in Rwanda, and why aren't we doing anything about Darfur? Millions more have died in as disgusting of ways, yet we've done nothing. In that case, we are so ignoble that going after the people responsible for the pet market bombing doesn't even begin to counter act our previous failures. 3) Finally, even if we do go after them, is it noble to risk American lives for something that may produce no results? I'm all for humanitarian aid and even military intervention, but at the point where the volatility in the region goes back hundreds or years, and stems from things like who was the right successor to Mohammed, are we going to be successful? If not, why are we there?
In Middle East conflicts that have been dominated by raw emotions and religious beliefs, it is high time for rational and logical discussion and reasoning to start playing a role in the solution.
Brand New Anonymous: I very much appreciate your encouragement of logical argumentation on this issue. It seems that the application of logic when evaluating occurrences such as the pet market bombings lends itself to reasoning in a way that an employment of emotion cannot.
Essentially, then, I want to elicit the foundation of my argument. I am arguing that morality and nobility are not inherently connected, and thus, we cannot draw a bridge between the two. Whereas nobility may be a virtue, it seems that there can be subjectivity in what is viewed as noble, which is why I made the assertion earlier that we cannot assume that these terrorists were not acting out of what THEY view as noble. Surely, if they believe the pet market bombings were noble, that would probably conflict with the idea of what you and I see as noble. However, if we call their act of killing ignoble, and in turn call the act of killing performed by the soldiers noble, we encounter this conflict of relativism because we are connecting nobility to morality. I want to argue that the morality embodied in justice is devoid of any sort of qualification, such as the qualification that characterizing an act of justice as noble would create. Consequently, then, I'm not sure that one can even characterize a moral act as "good". It seems to me that this, too, is a qualification transcending the basic tenets of morality, and that for a universal moral code to exist, it must be free from any such qualifications.
That said, I find your comment about a failure to act in Rwanda and Darfur very interesting, and I must admit that it is a consideration I hadn't even connected to this topic, although these situations are all surely analogous and worth some thought.
to the anonymous who used the word "idiot": this is my blog and one of my rules is you must be civil. name calling is not civil. don't do it again. the rest of that entry was ok.
to the two anonymouses (see Marty, I got the joke) after that: interesting discussion. my only comment is you oughta do what you can when you can. if you succeed great, if you don't at least you tried. just because you can't right all the wrongs doesn't discredit your efforts to right some of them.
Darfur: i've been to eastern chad and it is a long, long way from anywhere. we are kind of busy now so we can't help much. helping is a huge undertaking since to stop what is going on, darfur would have to be occupied by foreign troops; foreign troops who would shoot. the sudanese gov is pursuing a brutal but smart counterinsurgency program. and the only way to stop it is to tell the rebels to give it up or occupy the place.
Rwanda: the tragedy of rwanda is that it would have taken so little effort to have stopped that, but nobody had the moxie to do the little it would have taken. 2 AC-130's and a Ranger battalion would have stopped it cold, if only because it would have shown the Americans were serious. (read Tom Odom's book about that "Journey Into Darkness")
But because we can't do all of it doesn't mean it isn't worth the candle to do some of it.
hi carl,
I think that that is a very good, legitimate, and well thought out response. Kudos to you for taking the time and the effort to write it out for us.
On one level, I definitely agree with your argument that we should do what we can, whenever we can, as long as its the right thing. Past failures aren't a good excuse to inhibit future intervention, as we saw with the Clinton administration's complete failure between Somalia and Rwanda.
I guess the crux of the issue is that it's hard for everyone to decide if what we're doing right now is the right thing. I completely respect and support all those working in Iraq as hard as they can to do their job and try to bring stability to the country. My only concern is that perhaps the actions of our country and our government undermine what people like you are doing to help. Issues like our use of torture and our percieved "crusade" against Islam probably hamper progress. Indeed, its even possible (I really don't know, nor does anyone in America really) that our presence is making things worse or preventing progress. At this point, would the right thing for us to do be leaving, rather than hunting down those responsible? I wrestle with this thought every time I think about Iraq. I feel horrible thinking that we might have to forego all the accomplishments that people like you and our soldiers have made if we leave if that's the best thing to do. But, if our moral obligation really is to do what's best for the people of the world and particularly Iraq, leaving might then be what we have to do (again, who knows if it is?) Until then, keep up the good work you're doing, because even if George Bush/America/whoever messed Iraq up, you and everyone there is doing what they can. I hope this gets figured out soon.
in small wars, the important things happen in the neighborhoods, the villages and the country crossroads. they are little things too, involving small groups of people. these things are the most important but because they are little they mostly aren't on the front page of the paper but they are there, in the back pages and features and less well know papers like christian science monitor and stars and stripes (check out the small wars journal site too, that is like living history).
so you read all the little stories, and the books and you decide what you, that one voter you, thinks is going on and how we are affecting it, for good or ill.
No fair though allowing anger at past foul ups affect our treatment of people who need our help now. the inside the beltway ivy league morons who made those mistakes won't pay for them. they will never pay. they will just continue to get big public speaking fees until they die. the little people in the villages and hood's would pay.
Ok, now I'm really PISSED. Oops - am I aloud a minor cuss word Carl? The reason I'm sideways is because I always miss all the action. The last big bru ha ha that happened on this blog I missed. When I finally responded - everyone was waaaaaay over it. So, my response sat there ever so lonely and never to be responded to again.
So - here we go again only this time, I actually RESPONDED FIRST and no one else responded for like - oh, I don't know - oh yeah 9 DAYS! And when everyone did respond - y'all ignored my comments! Hey, give me a break on the "y'all" part - I've been living in Atlanta! So now that I'm responding - like 1 1/2 weeks after the last comment - it'll be the kiss of death and this will be a "dangling" entry. I never have know how to give up on a conversation. Writing when no one is continuing to read is ever so liberating!
Here are a couple closing thoughts:
1) YES, I'm joking and NO I'm not really having a temper tantrum.
2) Why don't y'all just say who you are. Ok, I realize I'm not the brightest bulb in our bunch but at least I use my name. You know what they say, "God takes care of babes and fools."
3) The whole discussion that transacted completely overlooked the idea that the people who were responsible for the bombings could in fact be evil. Though that doesn't sound overly intellectual - it just may be that simple and true.
Tony:
figure it this way; all this is much faster than having a debate by mail with somebody in china in 1878. the longer you wait, the better thought out your comments can be.
Post a Comment
<< Home