Suppose that in the early 1960s, a self-described Communist went on a high-profile shooting rampage. The shooter had serious psychological issues, and investigations of him turned up no connection between his actions and any Communist country or organization. Was communism to blame for his actions, or should the shootings be considered the work of a lone nutjob who merely latched onto communism as an excuse to act out, and who would have found another “cause” to shoot people over were communism not available?
Suppose that in the mid 90s, a pair of nutjobs blew up a government building in the name of resistance to government oppression. They were members of an extremist, racist anti-government group, but that group didn’t order or even know of their actions until they saw the results on the news. Who is to blame for the bombing: racists in general, anti-government types in general (including the almost-always non-violent and non-racist libertarian movement), or the two assholes who thought blowing up a daycare center for federal employees was a good way to stick it to the man?
[For those of you who haven't seen through my cunningly disguised scenarios, I'm referencing Lee Harvey Oswald in the former scenario, and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the latter.]
{ 8 comments }
muslims are different. They are rbots, programmed by the Quran so that they must follow every verse blindingly. Verses are like computer code, not open to interpretation or exegesis – all muslims are textual literalists. There is no such thing as context for a verse in teh quran and when you have differing translations, you have to take the Osama bin Laden -approved version. This may mean you use a different translation on a verse by verse basis, but hey thats what it takes.
Muslims are orcs, ok? stop trying to humanize them. Would Aragorn have allowed Orcs to join the Army of the West? Would the Spartans have allowed Persians to join the 300?
god, you are so naive!
(Id have made this a front page post, but apparently Im not allowed to do that anymore s it violates DW ethics rules. Please don’t hit me in the face.)
(sarcasm off: thanks Eric. good post.)
I think there’s an important distinction to be drawn between motive and cause. Something can be a motive for an action without being a cause of that action. The link between motive and action is an individual choice, not a cause-and-effect reaction.
In the ideal, logical, rational world, motive and cause are closely aligned; but individuals are not logical and rational. Psychology is not physics.
Can a motive become a cause? Certainly! If a given motive leads to the same actions in a large number of cases, there’s reason to suspect that the motive is to blame. If those who hold the motive actively advocate those actions, that’s even more reason.
Eric,
One needn’t join Club X in order to hold ideological beliefs. I myself am not a member of any recognized Christian church but my words and deeds would certainly convict me as one (I should hope!).
You nor anyone else can possibly know what this man would have done should he have latched on to another ideology. So to postulate he’d have killed anyway is without a foundation. Is it possible? Sure. It’s equally possible that a different ideology would have corrected his brand of crazy – if indeed his brand of crazy existed outside the Communist ideology. Something you do not, and cannot, know.
While correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, I take the XKCD line with it and say it does wink and nod at it suggestively. But suppose Racist Group A harped on the belief that, “Boy, wouldn’t it be great if someone blew up a government building? That’ll teach ‘em!” but appended that with, “But don’t none of you do it. Because that would be wrong. (wink, wink)” Racist Group A would clearly hold a degree of guilt in inciting such violence. But suppose they never even said that, I think no one would seriously argue that ideologies of hate will inspire violence in those with a proclivity toward it. Therefore isn’t it logical that 1) groups that say such things be monitored and 2) these groups be held accountable when their members go “off the reservation” even if it isn’t an explicitly sanctioned outing?
Ultimately the two assholes. However, speech that incites isn’t protected speech. Libertarians aren’t calling for violence. I think it’s a fair bet to say, however, that the “extremist, racist anti-government group” probably was. Even if it wasn’t explicit.
Of course, mob bosses never explicitly order hits. But I don’t think you’d argue they’re innocent when an enemy of theirs happens to end up at the bottom of the Hudson River at the hands of one of their goons.
Overall, though, I enjoyed your post.
I believe that there is a 2007 book out alleging that Oswald was programmed to kill Kennedy, that the Soviets changed their minds, and were unable to get to Oswald in time to stop him. What’s more fun is that it’s by a high ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer who defected to the US in 1978. What a nightmare for US/Russian relations if that one were to turn out to be true. The book is titled Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination.
If I recall, our sitting US president of the day explicitly blamed talk radio hate for the OKC bombing. This was nonsense. My understanding is the mishandling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents by the government were much more direct influences than any talk show commentary. The Turner diaries and the whole leaderless resistance concept embedded therein make this one a bit of a mess to deal with.
Regarding muslims, the threat from “leaderless jihad” is at least worth discussing to see whether the concept has any legs and whether Maj. Hasan is an example of it. Overuse of the concept is going to pull in innocents, violate rights, and be counterproductive by turning honest, faithful american muslims against the US. The government does not seem to be interested in discussing the problem and that’s going to cause trouble down the road.
Suppose, in the early 21st century, a lifelong member of religion X with strong ties to the Xist community shot up a place. Suppose that this man was supported by figures in the Xist community: by his cousin who said “If he had killed one or two I would consider that self-defense” because he felt his Xist beliefs denigrated, by an prominent Xist cleric who celebrated his actions. Suppose this man told people that he was an “Xist first, American second” suppose he supported killing American soldiers by Xists, suppose his stated beliefs were overlooked because everyone was terrified by the damage done to their career by being seen as an “Xophobe” even though Xists suffer no more harassment or violence than any other group in society. Suppose Xists had killed more than 10000 people in the last decade alone in the name of their god X, suppose the Book of X was dripping with examples of violence and was a narration of a “righteous” people (the only righteous people in their eyes) overcoming their subhuman oppressors by slaughtering them.
I could go on ad nauseum, but would we include Xism in our blame?
Of course we bloody well would, it would be the height of insanity and wishful thinking not to.
Lee Harvey Oswald has a fascinating history that is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. He was in the US Marines in the late 1950s at the height of the cold war, although he had Marxist sympathies. He was stationed at an air base in Japan where the U2 spy panes were stationed. He worked as a radar operator at this base. At the time the U2 program was a highly classified and was making spy flights over the Soviet Union. How exactly did the US military allow a Marxist to work in air traffic control room at this air base? While in the Marines Oswald studied Russian and subscribed to the Communist Party newspaper.
Oswald got out of the military on a hardship discharge and quickly traveled to Finland and from there to the Soviet Union. He asked to become a Soviet citizen, but his application was refused. He went to the US Embassy in Moscow to renounce his US Citizenship. He threaten to tell the Soviets everything he knew if the US interfered. “Everything he knew” was probably a reference to the U2, which he actually knew very little about.
While Oswald was living in the Soviet Union, a U2 spy plane crashed, and the U2 program became public. Oswald married, but became bored living in the Soviet Union and returns to the US.
Oswald was not arrested on this return from the Soviet Union, but he was questioned a couple of times by the FBI. In New Orleans he forms a pro-Castro group that seems to have only him as a member with some help from an ex-FBI agent. He goes to Dallas and has some run ins with the FBI, who he accuses of harassing him. Then he assassinates the president Kennedy and is assassinated himself.
You can create conspiracy theories all over the map with that story. Oswald was really a CIA operative sent to the Soviet Union … Oswald was brainwashed by the Soviets to assassinate Kennedy…. Castro got Oswald to assassinate Kennedy…. The anti-Castro Cubans/CIA got Oswald to assassinate Kennedy… On and on ….
Rescinded
“Suppose, in the early 21st century, a lifelong member of religion X with strong ties to the Xist community shot up a place. Suppose that this man was supported by figures in the Xist community: by his cousin who said “If he had killed one or two I would consider that self-defense” because he felt his Xist beliefs denigrated, by an prominent Xist cleric who celebrated his actions. Suppose this man told people that he was an “Xist first, American second” suppose he supported killing American soldiers by Xists, suppose his stated beliefs were overlooked because everyone was terrified by the damage done to their career by being seen as an “Xophobe” even though Xists suffer no more harassment or violence than any other group in society. Suppose Xists had killed more than 10000 people in the last decade alone in the name of their god X, suppose the Book of X was dripping with examples of violence and was a narration of a “righteous” people (the only righteous people in their eyes) overcoming their subhuman oppressors by slaughtering them.
I could go on ad nauseum, but would we include Xism in our blame?
Of course we bloody well would, it would be the height of insanity and wishful thinking not to.”
Are you proposing we disallow the practice of all religions then?
Comments on this entry are closed.