[MD] sq social - sq intellectual

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
"The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that you can
talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot directly
control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control biological
patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society and biology is not
words. The instrument of conversation between society and biology has always
been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." (Lila, 24)

[Arlo]
The first key point missed here is in the first segment... "The idea that
biological crimes can be ended by intellect ALONE"... As Gene, SA and countless
others have already posited, is that the current "war on terror" ignores (as
Gene has just pointed out) why it is several megalomanical groups can continue
to breed. The idea spread by right-wing radio is that "Islam" itself is the
problem, ignoring completely the often malicious actions undertaken throughout
the world in the name of American Imperialism and hegemony.

For one, just one, example of this I suggest "Confessions of an Economic
Hitman", that is an insider's confessional of how (simplistically stated)
massive international loans were given to poor countries, with the lender's
(for example, Haliburton) not only aware they would not be repaid but counting
on it. When the loan would default, as they knew it would, they would negotiate
with the World Bank to forgive the loan, only if the country would sign-over
certain mineral rights, drilling rights, etc. (Which is what was after all
along). Then the company would turn to the US Government and claim a huge loss
on the loan, much of it would be then given to the company in the form of
corporate welfare or massive tax breaks. The victims of these scandals are
always the "average Joes", who as a result of witnessing this, and other
hegemonic acts, come to hardly, hardly see the US as "so good" (as Platt
believes).

Here we are drawn, yet again, into a key dichotomies. Namely, that the US is
always good, and those who oppose the US are always bad. Certainly the actions
of the terrorists are abominable and should be dealth with militarily when they
threaten anyone. However, "intellect" must play a role in our overall being, to
the point of being able to see when and where WE have also acted in ways that
harm others. If we really wish to take away the breeding ground from which the
terror groups recruit, part of this MUST be a willingness to reflect on our own
actions, not simply "drop bombs". Those who seek to employ these radio-esque
simplistic dichotomies will right-away turn this into "being soft on terror",
or "using intellect alone", or "supporting the enemy" rhetorical nonsense. I
(and dare I say no one here that I'm aware of) proposes that dangerous enemies
and threats against us go undealth with, and we ignore a fight when it is
brought to us. But, this can't exist in a vacuum. Not all of their complaints
against the US's imperialistic and hegemonic acts may be valid, but many are,
and until we are able to deal with that, dropping bombs will never, ever defeat
the enemy, all it will do is make more.

The second key point is also in the first segement... "The idea that BIOLOGICAL
crimes can be ended by intellect alone"... not only misrepresents the
difference between those fighting for *perceived* justice and those who steal
your wallet in a dark alley, but undermines any chance of real success. The
terror leaders, I'd argue, are hypocritical power-mad megalomanics manipulating
religious doctrine with a real aim only of increasing their own power (if Bin
Laden really believed what he preaches, why has he himself not gone to meet the
virgins?). And these should be dealt with "with a gun". But the rank-and-file
that are drawn to these terror groups are not there to commit "biological
crime", they believe themselves to be freedom fighters opposing an evil empire.
This is not "biological crime" but a social level conflict that must be dealt
with by intellect. And, as I've said, PART of that solution must involve
self-reflection on our part. When complaints brought against us are misguided,
we should strive to demonstrate that, we should not accept blame or
responsibility for things that we have not done. However, we are far from
without guilt. And when those complaints are real and do represent valid
criticisms of our actions, we should own up to that. Only then can a real
dialogue begin that will undercut the recruiting base of these power-mad
lunatics.

But such a reasoned stance will likely never occur. Wrapping oneself in the flag
of moral righteousness (both us and them) is so much easier.