Walk a mile in Omar's shoes

[coberst]

Walk a mile in Omar’s shoes

Homicide, the most egregious moral infraction possible, becomes common place in war. It seems to me that we take such homicides in war all too lightly.

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child, caused by a suicide bomber, we feel immediate sympathy; often we will come to tears. But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt, through imagination and reason, to create an analogy that will allow us to understand why another behaves as s/he does. Empathy is a character trait that can be cultivated by habit and will. Sympathy is somewhat of an automatic emotional response.

The lack of understanding between our foe and our self can transform an argument or misunderstanding into a war of mass homicide. Using a quote from “To Kill A Mockingbird”: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war. Empathy can help us understand our political opponent so that we can reason together. Empathy is a rational means for reaching a solution to our problem.

Questions for discussion

Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

[Enforcer Talen]

We always want to understand our political opponent. Sun Tzu had a nice quote about knowing your enemy and yourself.

Do we always want to prevent war? Negative. Sometimes it is a necessity of states.

In a war, we want to complete our objectives (which is not always total annhilation of the enemy). I dont quite follow your empathy question.

For those who make policy, reason is above all vital. However, at the tactical level, combat can be thrilling - but it must never dictate your actions. Questing for the emotional rush can get you killed.

[coberst]

I empathize with a person not to give approval or to condone the actions of that person, but to create a means whereby their actions have meaning to me. When their actions become meaningful to me I can thus walk in their shoes and perhaps through such empathy I will be able to act in a way that will improve the situation in which both that person and I am involved.

Empathy is the first step to comprehending and thus to solving situations in which I find my self. Ignorance is generally not bliss; ignorance is not the path to peace, harmony, or freedom.

[Coyote]

The lack of understanding between our foe and our self can transform an argument or misunderstanding into a war of mass homicide. Using a quote from “To Kill A Mockingbird”: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view.”

Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war. Empathy can help us understand our political opponent so that we can reason together. Empathy is a rational means for reaching a solution to our problem.

Why would I want to see things from the point of view of Omar the murder bomber? Do I also want to see things from the point of view of Jeffrey Dahmer? Besides, what guarantee that we have that Omar the bomber wants to "reason together"? Remember, he's avenging injustices that can go back to the Medieval era and the Crusdaes; he's engaged in a suicide bombing because he things he's going to Paradise and fuck 72 virgins... "reason" does not enter this picture.

Questions for discussion

Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

No, sometimes war is in our best interests. Not always, though. And sometimes, "understanding" or "seeing it from his point of view" does not mean we're going to empathise with him. I understand the motivations that drive a lot of the Muslim militants, but I still don't well up a whole lot of sympathy for them.

Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

What does this foe have to say that I can work with? According to Hamas' Mickey Rat, they want a world of global Islamic domination. Bin-Laden said (at one point) that the only way to end the war was for America to convert to Islam. According to many mullahs and imams, the reason the entire Middle East is in bone-crushing poverty-- despite mass uneployed manpower and a stunning array of natural resources the world desperately needs-- is because of "Western Imperialism" and "not enough devotion to Allah". Oh, and Israel.

Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

Oh, hahaha! I get it! Funny joke! Um, how about.... do we have a choice in fighting when the enemy is motivated by religious hallucinations? Here's a rhetorical question for you: Would it not be better to just flatten them with high-altitude bombing until they snap out of their delusion and realize that Allah's magic army of sky-pixie warrior angels aren't going to help them, and then we can finally negotiate some sort of understanding with them?

In other words, riddle me this: How do you choose between fighting or "empathising" with a pack of religious nutcakes that have no grip on this reason you seek?

[Tatterdemalion]

At risk of saying something stupid, what exactly is your argument? That being able to empathise with others is a good thing? I don't think you'll find a single person here who'll disagree with that.

However when you take that to a national level I think you'll find it's flat out impossible to gain a full understanding of another states capabilities and intentions, espaicially if said state is in any psoition where it might be a threat to you. Heck there's entire schools of thought in international relations that define the interactions of states through their attempts to maximise their own security.

[Tatterdemalion]

Why would I want to see things from the point of view of Omar the murder bomber? Do I also want to see things from the point of view of Jeffrey Dahmer? Besides, what guarantee that we have that Omar the bomber wants to "reason together"? Remember, he's avenging injustices that can go back to the Medieval era and the Crusdaes; he's engaged in a suicide bombing because he things he's going to Paradise and fuck 72 virgins... "reason" does not enter this picture.

Doesn't that rather assume that militant Islam is the cause rather than the symptom of hostilities in the middle east? I think I'm going to be charitable to the OP and assume he's not suggesting that people far gone enough to strap a bomb to their vests shouldn't be dealt with as necessary. Rather I think he's just making an obsurely worded "peace and love" statement. Naive and simplistic as opposed to borderline retarded.

Of course maybe I'm misunderstanding and our OP would like to present his views a little more articulately?

[coberst]

Coyote asks—“In other words, riddle me this: How do you choose between fighting or "empathising" with a pack of religious nutcakes that have no grip on this reason you seek?"

I think that the smart thing to do is to always use empathy first. If we do that we can understand our neighbor regardless of how things turn out. If our neighbor will not listen to the best proposal we can make considering the situation then we know we must take actions other than a direct attempt to reason together. In other words we have prepared our self to be in the very best position we can be in, i.e. we understand our neighbor.

I gain nothing rational by not using empathy. Empathy is a no-brainier. What other people do is beyond my ability to control. My reason informs me that empathy is the best policy no matter what course the matter takes.

[coberst]

At risk of saying something stupid, what exactly is your argument? That being able to empathise with others is a good thing? I don't think you'll find a single person here who'll disagree with that.

However when you take that to a national level I think you'll find it's flat out impossible to gain a full understanding of another states capabilities and intentions, espaicially if said state is in any psoition where it might be a threat to you. Heck there's entire schools of thought in international relations that define the interactions of states through their attempts to maximise their own security.

Empathy is always the best policy. We, of course, cannot always be successful in understanding our neighbor even if that neighbor is a person or a state. I think that if we had leaders who were strong in the character trait of empathy we (US) would not have had to fight in Vietnam or Iraq. Ignorance is never the better policy in my estimation.

[Darth Wong]

Why would I want to see things from the point of view of Omar the murder bomber? Do I also want to see things from the point of view of Jeffrey Dahmer?

There are criminal psychologists who have spent their entire careers trying to understand what goes through the mind of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer. Only an idiot thinks he might lose something by trying to understand the emotional and psychological motivations of his enemy rather than oversimplifying them into some kind of 2-dimensional cardboard caricature.

[coberst]

Why would I want to see things from the point of view of Omar the murder bomber? Do I also want to see things from the point of view of Jeffrey Dahmer? Besides, what guarantee that we have that Omar the bomber wants to "reason together"? Remember, he's avenging injustices that can go back to the Medieval era and the Crusdaes; he's engaged in a suicide bombing because he things he's going to Paradise and fuck 72 virgins... "reason" does not enter this picture.

Doesn't that rather assume that militant Islam is the cause rather than the symptom of hostilities in the middle east? I think I'm going to be charitable to the OP and assume he's not suggesting that people far gone enough to strap a bomb to their vests shouldn't be dealt with as necessary. Rather I think he's just making an obsurely worded "peace and love" statement. Naive and simplistic as opposed to borderline retarded.

Of course maybe I'm misunderstanding and our OP would like to present his views a little more articulately?

Sorry, my OP is the best I can do. Some people cannot comprehend what I post while others say I am posting the obvious. What is a guy going to do?

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, my OP is the best I can do. Some people cannot comprehend what I post while others say I am posting the obvious. What is a guy going to do?

Tell the second group to talk to the first group?

[Stuart]

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child, caused by a suicide bomber, we feel immediate sympathy; often we will come to tears. But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

Of course we don't. Equating the death of the victim of a murderer with the death of the murderer himself is the worst and most contemptible form of moral relativism. It's a symptom of a person too cowardly to think an issue through and make simple value judgements. It's very easy to turn around and say that the one death is on the same plane as the other. Unfortunately, like most simple answers, its also wrong.

Do we always want to prevent war or to understand our political opponent?

The answer to the first part is no. Sometimes war is the least-worst solution to a problem. Understanding our opponent is a key part of winning; failure to do so is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq

Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

That's a dumb question. Attempting to understand our opponent, how he reacts and thinks is a standard part of military operational planning. That goes back to Ug, Gug, and the dispute over a cache of mammoth steaks.

Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

That is a really dumb statement. If you think fighting is so much fun, I suggest you go try some. Visit a front line first aid station, ride a Medevac and then I'll arrange for you to touch a nuclear weapon.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Considering that the mothers of the suicide bombers regularly cheer, celebrate, and are lauded as heroes for raising their children in such a fashion, it appears that you have not walked the mile in Omar's shoes that you recommend.

I have. Since 9/11 I've studied the Quran and the Hadiths, with the rigour of anyone in a Madrassa; I can name and discuss the great thinkers of Islam, and list her Holy-Warriors of fifteen hundred years of history with ease. I know the circumstances of all the great tumults of Islamic history, of their success and their failure. I understand the appropriate motivations of someone under Islam and the philosophy that the religion inoculates into others. I've come to deeply respect most of our enemies for their utmost adherence to their own faith. Even Osama bin Laden, like the Mad Mullah in the Somaliland before him, must be given grudging admiration, a real sort of respect for the ability of a cunning and intelligent general, who has coolly maintained a war, and preserved himself, against the concentrated force of the whole of the world's greatest power.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't cut his head off and place it atop a fence-spike at the front of the White House, because I would. Ironically he would be far less bothered by the act than any of us who read this thread; it is in his cultural continuum for the victors to do such things to the defeated, and he would expect it from a worthy opponent. It wouldn't change his ascension to Paradise in his own eyes, after all.

Islam, Submission, is a seductively simple and extremely powerful religion. It offers absolute certainty through absolute obedience, with none of the sophisticated forgiveness games and issues of Faith that Christianity has. Islam does not ask for Faith--it presumes to be the absolute Fact of the universe, and you simply must follow its tenets in the same way you obey physical laws.

This presents to the average Muslim an aura of intense comfort. By his obedience to the tenets of his religion, nothing can ever sway him. His place in the afterlife is guaranteed. Death is indeed lighter than a feather, and the happiest thing to which he can aspire. Islam has existed and will always exist, as the submission to the revelation of God; understanding the Muslim is to know his absolute certainty of belief in these things. There's no reason to create an analogy to understand what the suicide martyr does, to use the Islamic term, when we know why he does it. He does it because it is the commandment of God to kill the Infidel, and those who die fighting the Infidel are given the highest and infinite pleasures of paradise--very worldly pleasures, to entice some men who, on this world, Islam leaves very deprived. Since the young Muslim is raised in a culture where the words of the Quran are absolute fact, there is no doubt that the 72 dark eyed virgins of paradise will be waiting for him, and hundreds of peach-bottomed serving boys, that gardens with flowing milk and honey will be at his command, that his orgasms during intercourse will last for ten thousand years each and be a thousand times more intense and that he will have an instant erection whenever he desires for as long as he desires. As for the girl who takes up the role of the martyr, she gains, along with the male, the chance of an honour worthwhile in and of itself--to save several of her closest relatives and guarantee their entry into paradise, even if they are unworthy of it.

To those raised to believe the Quran is absolute fact, this is a wondrous gift, well-worth "dying" to gain, which is a laughable term anyway, when, to the believer, it is not death at all, but rather ascension to the perfect reward of the martyr. There, we have walked a mile with Omar, and no doubt, if we were guests, he would be perfectly courteous to us. He would not harm us or kill us out of hand, even if just the day before he had slowly sawed the head off a captured American soldier. He would explain his beliefs to us and profess them sincerely, and say that he must fight until the whole world has acknowledged the power of Islam (which is distinct from converting to it, but rather, the paying of tribute by the infidels) and hopes we will convert, or at least submit. And if we demur then, he would warn us sternly that on the 'morrow we might well find ourselves killed, and we could agree, and say the same to him, and part with some mutual respect well intact.

Because respect has never led people to stop killing each other. It just makes the conflict more poignant, but, if anything, it can be all the more severe.

[Coyote]

Why would I want to see things from the point of view of Omar the murder bomber? Do I also want to see things from the point of view of Jeffrey Dahmer?

There are criminal psychologists who have spent their entire careers trying to understand what goes through the mind of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer...

That's why we have criminal psychologists-- trained specialists whose job it is to profile psychotic nutcakes. We, as a society, do not train all our people to be criminal psychologists.

In the case of the suicide bomber, we have "intelligence analysts" who gather information on their motivations and figure out their drive. I do not need to be a intelligence analyst or a criminal psychologist because these guys do it for me.

I gain nothingby going to the Middle East and setting out a tea service and hope to entice a random bomber to come over and have a chat to try to reconcile with him before jumping to the conclusion that he should be shot.

Besides, I'd ask of the OP, why isn't the suicide bomber meeting his obligations to come and empathise with us for some "common reason" and "empathy"?

...Only an idiot thinks he might lose something by trying to understand the emotional and psychological motivations of his enemy rather than oversimplifying them into some kind of 2-dimensional cardboard caricature.

Of all the people in the world who actually do closely resemble their 2-dimensional cardboard caricatures, I'd have to say that religiously-motivated suicide bombers are most likely the ones.

[Coyote]

...Doesn't that rather assume that militant Islam is the cause rather than the symptom of hostilities in the middle east?

They sure aren't doing anything to help, that's definite. Say what one will about who picked on who first-- the Middle East or "the West", but either way only someone unhinged would argue that suicide bombings are helping to resolve the issues.

I think I'm going to be charitable to the OP and assume he's not suggesting that people far gone enough to strap a bomb to their vests shouldn't be dealt with as necessary. Rather I think he's just making an obsurely worded "peace and love" statement. Naive and simplistic as opposed to borderline retarded.

Well, he pretty much said that:

When we see a mother weeping over the death of her child, caused by a suicide bomber, we feel immediate sympathy; often we will come to tears. But we do not easily feel sympathy for the mother who may be weeping over the death of her child—the bomber.

To understand the bomber we must use empathy. We attempt, through imagination and reason, to create an analogy that will allow us to understand why another behaves as s/he does.

Of course maybe I'm misunderstanding and our OP would like to present his views a little more articulately?

That would be handy, indeeed. So far it does seem to be a generic "peace love and flowers" thing from the 1960's.

Reaching out with empathy and trying to resolve conflicts is a good thing-- but it assumes that everyone on th eother side is a rational individual that seeks stability and is willing to engage in compromise to come to a acompatible agreement. In some cases, that is simply not the case. Someone who believes that Islam must dominate the world or the fate of his eternal soul is in jeopardy, and must right these wrongs by strapping on a suicide vest and killing people who may not even be combatants or feel like they are 'in the fight', is someone who is not interested in reasoned discourse.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Do we want to win a war badly enough to empathize with our foe?

That's a dumb question. Attempting to understand our opponent, how he reacts and thinks is a standard part of military operational planning. That goes back to Ug, Gug, and the dispute over a cache of mammoth steaks.

Out of curiosity, what would you say were the points in American history where this was not properly done (Such as the thought that communists were functioning as a globalized conversion conspiracy, the various nationalistic rebellions etc')?
My impression was that in the post WW2 period America badly failed to understand the attitudes of other nations, and were convinced that problems were bought about by misunderstandings rather than the possibility of a fundamental conflict of interests, even between democratic countries). (Though this might be merely an erronous impression bought about by over-reading of Kissinger's "Diplomacy" )

Do we want to use reason when fighting is so much more fun?

That is a really dumb statement.

Perhaps he means the adrenaline rush caused by violence or popularity of violent, immediate, primitive reactions (Iraq for example or mass bombings for examples) as opposed to slow, gradual (usually more effective) acts (Economic embargoes, economic co-operation and more "peaceful" measures on diplomacy)?

If you think fighting is so much fun, I suggest you go try some. Visit a front line first aid station, ride a Medevac and then I'll arrange for you to touch a nuclear weapon.

I don't (think fighting is fun) but can I take you up on that offer in a year or two?:P (Army service )

[coberst]

The Duches of Zeon

Do you think that understanding "the Quran and the Hadiths, with the rigour of anyone in a Madrassa; I can name and discuss the great thinkers of Islam, and list her Holy-Warriors of fifteen hundred years of history with ease. I know the circumstances of all the great tumults of Islamic history, of their success and their failure" helps you understand the Muslim nations. Do you not think that if all Americans understood these people as well as you that both they and we would be much better off?

I disagree, I think that mutual respect will stop homicids more than anything else.

[coberst]

Coyote says--"Reaching out with empathy and trying to resolve conflicts is a good thing-- but it assumes that everyone on th eother side is a rational individual that seeks stability and is willing to engage in compromise to come to a acompatible agreement. In some cases, that is simply not the case. Someone who believes that Islam must dominate the world or the fate of his eternal soul is in jeopardy, and must right these wrongs by strapping on a suicide vest and killing people who may not even be combatants or feel like they are 'in the fight', is someone who is not interested in reasoned discourse."

Empathy does not assume that everyone is rational. Empathy does not demand that both parties practice empathy. If I develop the habit of empathy it is good for me and for the world despite the fact that very few practice empathy.
_________________

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Duches of Zeon

Do you think that understanding "the Quran and the Hadiths, with the rigour of anyone in a Madrassa; I can name and discuss the great thinkers of Islam, and list her Holy-Warriors of fifteen hundred years of history with ease. I know the circumstances of all the great tumults of Islamic history, of their success and their failure" helps you understand the Muslim nations.

Of course it does. Tradition is everything to them; they pride themselves on that fact. So, you study their traditions to learn about them. That is always how you understand people, my dear fellow, you find what is important to them and you learn about it thoroughly. And to Islam, that is tradition.

Do you not think that if all Americans understood these people as well as you that both they and we would be much better off?

We would be better off. They would be much worse off. Our ignorance, or disinterest, is allowing the resurgence of Islam into a position of power... The sons of the Prophet gather their strength once more as they have many times before. We're in a see-saw conflict between Christianity and Islam which has existed since the 7th century. Islam advances until checked, we counterattack, they check us, they counterattack.. We check them, we counterattack. They check us (which is how they view decolonization), and proceed to counterattack....

There has been a cyclical flow of violence between the Muslim and Christian worlds for 1,500 years. Understanding that would certainly make us more willing to fight viciously and vigorously, which would bring us advantages, but, of course, would bring only disadvantage to them.

I disagree, I think that mutual respect will stop homicids more than anything else.

No, it makes homicide in my opinion more palatable, not less, as.. Both people know what the other is, and therefore gain more hate, at intimately knowing their flaws, not less. They have respect for each other, perhaps, but also any doubt about their killing certainties is wiped away. Why is it that communities of peoples who have lived alongside each other for centuries or longer are always the ones which carry on the most violent and hideous feuds, but for this reason? Getting to know others makes us revile them and hold them in contempt for their differences. It is only the ignorant who can love all of humanity as you do, I fear.

[wolveraptor]

Why is it that communities of peoples who have lived alongside each other for centuries or longer are always the ones which carry on the most violent and hideous feuds, but for this reason?

Because they directly compete for resources? Notice that in any such situation, the two groups of people will be adjacent but extremely segregated. Take the American South of the 60s. Many Southerners joined the Klan because they feared "the niggers" would take their jobs, neighborhoods, and what little self-respect they still had. In our current, post-integration (yes, this is debatable, but not here) society, racially-based acts of violence have definitely gone down, probably because poor whites saw that poor blacks were in a very similar predicament to themselves. In other words, empathy.

The fact that adjacent peoples will feud has nothing to do with their alleged "respect" for one another, and everything to do with misunderstanding and competition.

[Coyote]

Empathy does not assume that everyone is rational. Empathy does not demand that both parties practice empathy. If I develop the habit of empathy it is good for me and for the world despite the fact that very few practice empathy.
_________________

Then you're contradicting yourself. Earlier, in your first post, you wrote:

Empathy can prevent war and it can help win a war. Empathy can help us understand our political opponent so that we can reason together. Empathy is a rational means for reaching a solution to our problem.

Empathy as a means to seek common ground and "reason together" to reach a solution to a common problem. You cannot have that if one side is reaching out with empathy, and the other side is coming only to blow himself up, and you along with.

What you end up with is a situation where I have a great deal of understanding about the enemy-- about as much as the Duchess, in fact, between study and living over there, although her knowledge will be more recent and scholarly-- and what I've learned to understand in the enemy you've presented, ie, the irrational suicide bomber and the social network that creates/supports him, is that there is no reasoning or bargaining to be had, for no matter what my best efforts would be at negotiation, he will present a list of demands that are inflexible, and I am not prepared to meet.

Ergo, impasse. I'm not going to submit myself to his system of reality; I'm not going to join him as he worships his version of the Sky Pixie. And since his demands tend to be absolute and inarguable, I can either kill him or let myself get blown up.

You don't seem to be prepared to accept the idea that other people in this world have nointerest or desire in empathic reasoning; You don't seem to be prepared to accept the idea that other people have a completely altered and absolute state of reality; You don't seem to be prepared to accept the idea that there is a quote function that works just fine.

[coberst]

Duchess

I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

[coberst]

Coyote

I guess this means that I have not managed to make an empathy sell with this thread.

[Darth Wong]

Of all the people in the world who actually do closely resemble their 2-dimensional cardboard caricatures, I'd have to say that religiously-motivated suicide bombers are most likely the ones.

And what of suicide bombers in Palestine who were never particularly religious? Simply by reducing the enemy to the religiously motivated suicide bomber, you are already engaging in the act of reducing complexities to 2-dimensional cardboard caricatures.

There is a vast population of people out there who despise America, and who can be pushed to support or at least condone acts of violence and terrorism against Americans. The "enemy" is whatever makes them think this way, and the tiny fraction of them who go over the edge and become suicide bombers are merely a symptom of the problem.

Since 9/11 I've studied the Quran and the Hadiths, with the rigour of anyone in a Madrassa; I can name and discuss the great thinkers of Islam, and list her Holy-Warriors of fifteen hundred years of history with ease. I know the circumstances of all the great tumults of Islamic history, of their success and their failure. I understand the appropriate motivations of someone under Islam and the philosophy that the religion inoculates into others. I've come to deeply respect most of our enemies for their utmost adherence to their own faith.

Are you so sure that all of America's enemies can be characterized as Islamic religious fundamentalists? That is certainly one source of America's foreign-policy woes, but we in the West have given a lot of people in other parts of the world plenty of perfectly viable non-religious reasons to hate us.

[fgalkin]

I have. Since 9/11 I've studied the Quran and the Hadiths, with the rigour of anyone in a Madrassa; I can name and discuss the great thinkers of Islam, and list her Holy-Warriors of fifteen hundred years of history with ease. I know the circumstances of all the great tumults of Islamic history, of their success and their failure.

The problem is that this is what the "fundamentalist" muslims REJECT. They know no history, and they explicitly reject all of the great thinkers of Islam for leading them astray to their current situation. They want to go back to the source, to the Koran and the Hadiths, and that, plus some interpretations of Salaffiyah clerics should be enough to understand the mindset of the average muslim.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin