Dr. Helen Smith, the noted forensic psychologist (who happens to be married to InstaPundit’s Glenn Reynolds – lucky bastard) has an absolutely excellent piece on understanding the pathologies of the terrorist mind. Dr. Smith understand more the pathologies of people who have abandoned sanity for the worship of death, a description that sadly applies to many elements of Middle Eastern society today. As she notes:
In my private practice, I don’t work with terrorists but I do work with violent people. I used to believe (as many of my colleagues still do) that empathizing with my patients and increasing their self-esteem would help them on the path to self-actualization. Of course, for some anxiety-ridden patients who need faith in themselves, the technique of empathy and support works. However, for those patients with serious violent tendencies, just the opposite is true. With those patients, I’ve found that setting clear boundaries and making judgments about their immoral behavior works like a charm.
Those patients who threatened me backed down only when I got up in their face and told them forcefully to stop — the slightest hint of fear or intimidation (or sympathy!) on my part was met with increased threats. In the real world of private practice, confronting real murderers, I learned to act in ways that were different from what I had been taught in graduate school.
Unfortunately, there are still those in the ivory tower who have not learned this valuable lesson. They continue to believe that to humanize and to empathize with violent students, professors, and terrorists is the only way to treat those who wish to do them harm. In fact, however, the old saw “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” applies. Without clear boundaries, and a sense of consequences, their behavior will spiral out of control until they injure themselves and others.
The fact is that all the empathy in the world is wasted on an Osama bin Laden or a radical member of Hamas. History has told us the sympathy for the devil has always been a disaster – witness the way in which Chamberlain coddled Hitler at Munich, leading to the brutalization of the Czechs under the Nazis. Groups like Hamas, Hizb’Allah, and al-Qaeda have a set of demands that include the worldwide imposition of shari’a law, and that demand is not negotiable in the least. The idea that the “root causes” of terrorism can be ameliorated by giving the Arab world more money and selling out Israel is absurd.
The poverty of the Arab world is not the fault of the West, nor does the solution lie with the West. The poverty of the Arab world is due to the way in which the trillions of dollars in natural resources are being mishandled by Arab governments. Saudi Arabia should not have an unemployment rate in the range that it does – it should be one of the richest countries on Earth. Instead, the House of Saud takes all the money and leaves its people in the fourteenth century. Arab states have to import foreign workers just to keep their infrastructure running.
It is time to realize that the problems in the Arab world cannot be solved by surrendering to them. The Arab world is in dire need of reform, a reform that must come from within, but can be started by ensuring that reform remains the only option. The invasion of Iraq sent the very clear message that the kind of behavior that was once tolerated in the region is no longer acceptable. This message has been heard very well in Riyadh, Tehran, and Damascus.
Dr. Smith is right – now is not the time to make excuses for the dysfunctions of the Middle East. The problems there are not US “imperialism,” Israel, or poverty. They are kleptocracy, autocracy, and fundamentalism. Unless we want the region to explode in a fit of violence like a murderer going on a rampage we must insist on democratization and change in the region.
I totally disagree with your “comment policy”. I was really glad to notice you had removed it, and very unpleased to see it appear again. I refuse to be told what to do for obvious things. This is the american way of breaking the sense of responsibility in each individual (“warning, this cup contains hot content”; “this side up”; “this truck makes wide right turns”; “objects in the mirror……… and so on and so on…
In addition, Jay himself engaged in the “logical fallacies” mentioned above. So who’s judging? You would be judge AND party of the debate? Even though I rarely engage in insulting people (and when I do, it’s not as bad in my mind as it looks on paper, and I then regret it), I don’t think people should be forbidden to do so. Sometimes, insults mean something real, and allow people to express their anger. Out-of-topic insults would not be responded to by anyone. Is that not a better rule (not to set as a rule though)?
You may think I am going to far, but the american way of policing everything may well be the reason for the raise of terrorism. When you are forbidden to express your views (“we want a country” being an example), you have no other choice than “saying” it louder and unlawfully.
To make a comment on your article, I just want to stress that the situation is Saudi Arabia (where a few gets trillions) has been created by Western oil companies. Who do you think is giving them the money?
Vincent,
You are an idiot. This is Jay’s site. He gets to make the rules, since he pays for it and runs it. If you don’t like the very simple rules he has, go play somewhere else. I’m sure he’ll get over it.
so you’re one of those who consider that money is more important than freespeech…good for you! I don’t.
What do you think Jay? Why did you took them off for a little while?
I took them off when I changed the templates, however, the policy has always been the same. I very rarely delete comments, and very rarely ban anyone for trolling. That being said, the comments policy should be common sense in the first place.
As for your argument about Saudi Arabia, the West may have taken a blind eye to the Saudis, but the blame properly lies with the Saudi government. They are the ones who are taking billions of petrodollars and spending it on themselves rather than on the people of Saudi Arabia. Sooner or later the House of Saud is going to fall, especially when the Saudis notice that their neighbors to the north suddenly have standards of living far in excess of theirs thanks to a democratic system of govenment. Once that happens, the rate of societal transformation in the Middle East will be as rapid was it was in Eastern Europe 15 years ago.
Vincent misses the point of “free speech.” This is not a public forum, it is Jay’s forum. It is private, and we are given permission to play in it. So yes, I do believe in free speech. The difference being, I understand what it means.
You are an idiot. This is Jay’s site. He gets to make the rules, since he pays for it and runs it. If you don’t like the very simple rules he has, go play somewhere else. I’m sure he’ll get over it.
That’s very true.
On the other hand, James, you have to ask yourself – if Jay’s willing to close threads to avoid defeat and delete posts that point this out, is this really the kind of site you want to be a part of? Is your viewpoint so fragile that it can only be supported by those who will do anything to make sure that they never look like they’ve lost?
Cry me a bloody river – if all than why are you still here?
For the record, the comment threads on Bush’s military service were closed because there was absolutely nothing worthwhile being said. I’m the only editor here, and I’m not going to take the time to tackle the same arguments ad nauseam when they’ve already been dealt with several times. At that point when the same old things been said so many times its no longer argumentation, it’s masturbation.
If you want your own forum, get your own blog where you can rant all you please and set your own rules.
Cry me a bloody river – if all than why are you still here?
My infinite patience with the wrong.
I’m the only editor here, and I’m not going to take the time to tackle the same arguments ad nauseam when they’ve already been dealt with several times.
Funny, I don’t seem to recall you dealing with the fact that your explanation of his gaps in service only explains five out of the 12 months in question, or the fact that the service he’s supposed to have done to make up the missed periods is substantiated only by a record that doesn’t have his name on it, or the fact that a reward of over $3k has been offered to any eyewitness who could substantiate Bush’s claims – a reward that has gone unclaimed, or the fact that the New York Times article you claim as refutation fails to address most of the claims in question.
In fact your entire refutation was “The Annenburg Center says it, so it must be so.” If that’s what passes for intelligent debate around here I suppose there’s no reason to stick around.
Yes, because obviously MoveOn.org is a more credible source than the most prestigious journalism school in the country.
The debate is over, you lost, now go home.