At 11:54 AM 25/10/2007, Jim wrote:
>I don't claim to be able to see into the mind
of
>terrorists, but, from a strictly tactical point
of
>view, the whole point of a genuine act of
terrorism
>seems obviously to be predicated on the premise
that
>the victims are innocents who have nothing really
to
>do with the issue at hand.
Innocence is a subjective valuation that plays a marginal
role in subsequent actions. Whether the terrorists consider
their victims innocent or guilty they are motivated to create
an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in their targets that,
if successful would build instability among their enemies.
Guilty or innocent, I might be expected to be fearful of
being blown up. Some governments are sworn to protect the
safety of their citizens. Even the extradition process is
more about the need to provide internal security and
stability for citizens, I think.
I think Leonard explores a lot of this in a number of books.
That Mr. Majestik comes to mind, but there are others where
average middle-class types are shown to bring unexpected
resources to defending themselves against predators. The
innocence of respondents motivates interest among readers, I
think, but they don't much affect the response. That Mel
Gibson flick, Payback puts the character's innocence more
into question, but the action is still there.
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------ The
evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 Oct 2007 EDT