RE: The terrorism meme

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Tue 05 Nov 2002 - 04:48:01 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: The terrorism meme"

    >Subject: RE: The terrorism meme
    >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 22:51:36 -0500
    >I can't disagree with you, Grant. The question, then is, What
    >tactics/strategies should each group now try? Scott has suggested for the
    >Palestinians non-violence. (Personally, I think this has much to recommend
    >it; might a reciprocal Israeli new tactic be? I do note that the Druse
    >non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation, and did have some modest
    >success, though ultimately it failed.)
    >Would the new tactics of one group have to be met with new tactics by the
    >other? Is there a way of starting both groups on the first steps toward
    >(and less destructive) tactics?
    >What are your own thoughts?
    I think the people who want violence are one group and they hold most of the weapons and the people who want peace are a separate group and they are the ones who would use non-violence. The non-violent group might win in a police state where there were only two sides, but where there are three sides or four sides, I don't think the method would work. While one group of palestinians was being non-violent, Hamas would be committing atrocities.
      While one group of Israelies was being non-violent, Arial Sharon would be sending tanks into Gaza. All you would get would be conflicting messages that included both violence and non-violence from both sides.

    Someone has to spread the message that the only solution is one in which both sides win. They have to see that by cooperating with each other they can build a garden of Eden. By fighting, all they will end up doing is destroying each other. War is a zero-sum game. Only it uses up so many people and resources the winner ends up winning in name only. How you get to people to realize that non-zero is the only game that makes sense, I don't know. Right now the people in power only know how to play the zero-sum game. They are all ex-generals and guerillas. They think they can win the game they are playing and they are willing to expend as many lives as it takes to achieve that goal.

    When they run out of people willing to sacrifice themselves and others to
    "win" the war, the war will stop. I don't really see any short cut to accomplish that. Maybe a second coming of Christ would do the job. His was the only philosophy that holds out any hope. But even if he came back, Sharon would find a way to become Pope and Arafat would become a second Mohamad and the wars to control the Holy Land would start all over again.

    You've got to remember, this war has been going on for about 2,000 years. First it was the Romans, then it was the Muslims, and then the crusades sent the Christians. These same groups are still at it. Christians are just Romans in clerical garb. The same groups are still fighting over the same spit of land and they all still think they can control it with violence. In 2.000 years, they've learned nothing. I don't see them changing their spots anytime soon.


    _________________________________________________________________ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 05 Nov 2002 - 04:51:49 GMT