Saturday, July 9, 2005
Logic That Isn't (Updated)
The violence visited upon England is being used by some to justify their ideology — a cynical distortion of the circumstance.
This logic posits that if we did what the sociopaths wanted then they would like us — that the overt logic of terrorists is to be taken seriously — rather than being seen as an excuse used by the disturbed individuals in a community to express their pathology.
This is a variant of “what did we do to deserve this?” This is the logic of the recent appeasement offered by the Spanish government to murderers — the proximate cause of the current attack on Britain. That ill wrought logic is ineluctable for the confused — you can hear it coming — the doleful clanking of challenged reason: If we didn't support the democratic state of Israel, if we didn't proactively attempt to change things for the better by engaging dangerous and despicable regimes, then things would be okay — we would be safe — all we have to do is reason with them — we just need to be understanding.
Today's (7/11/05) NYT has an article by the always interesting Edward Rothstein about War of the Worlds — the book and the movie. Rothstein sees references to 9/11 and the Arab/Israeli conflict. Rothstein's comment about one character in Wells' book is relevant to my above comments:
…The novel's greatest scorn is for the curate who keeps seeking root causes: “What do these things mean?” The attacks, he concludes, may be deserved. “What sins have we done?” At the same time, he is so consumed by self-scorn and fear, he is unable to fight or plan.