Criminals, Terrorists, Countries (& Antisocial Personality Disorder)

[bloom]

What's the difference?

Let's look at the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder

There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(40) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7)lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

The anti-social personality disorder is often the type of personality of criminals (They steal with no remorse - for example). Not all anti-socials are in jail of course. Some find their niche in the government - some are in business, or whatever.

It's interesting that the American description emphasizes "lawful behaviors... grounds for arrest". Though the European one mentions, "conflict with society".

I think that most people see criminals as in "conflict with society". People who are not acting in accordance with the interests of the group. Though some may work as a gang.

But what about Terrorists. They do have a group - but their group is at odds to someone else's group. Though it should be noted that the so-called terrorist groups in the ME, for example - are NOT in conflict with their own society - but with ours (and Israel's). The so-called terrorists may engage in "deceitfulness", though they do plan ahead. They are aggressive and they may exhibit "reckless disregard for safety of self or others" - but they are doing so for the purpose of the group. They may also have a "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another".

The same traits that are exhibited by the terrorists are exhibited by the Military (anyone's military - that is conducting operations against anyone else). They are supposed to be in harmony with our society - but in conflict with others (or at least ready to be). They engage in "deceitfulness", though they do plan ahead. They are aggressive and they may exhibit "reckless disregard for safety of self or others" (some might argue that they are not reckless) - but they are doing so for the purpose of the group. And they may also have a "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another".

I think that the whole idea about labeling someone a "terrorist" is to suggest that they are criminals. But they are clearly different from criminals - if they are working for the interests of a group. The only difference that I can see is that their group is not considered to be a nation. I am going to refer to them as a militia - I think that it is a more fitting word.

------

I wonder how much Hezbolla represents the people of Lebanon. That's the problem with militias like that. It is not clear who they represent. Who is part of the group that supports and is supported by them?

And also - the militia group is clearly out-gunned compared to the well-honed military of the US/Israel. It seems like completely "reckless disregard for safety of self or others" - but they must not have felt that they had a choice. It seems to me that the only good way out of the conflict is to give people choices. Also - if the society is shared - so it's not My society vs. Your society.

But it looks like the best way out as far as US/Israel is concerned is to destroy the other society entirely. They certainly have the guns. They also have the aggression as well as "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another".

AFAIC - the US Military is not acting in MY interests - that makes them very similar to criminals. If I thought that they were acting in my interest - then they would be legitimate. There will always be that difference in perspective about whether such a group - military or militia, either one - is acting in anyone's interests - or just their own. Hence the pro-nationalism propaganda.

And it seems obvious that ALL war would be a crime to the other side - it's not in their interest - as it's in conflict with their society.

[bloom]

1. Einstein on war

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

- Einstein

[bloom]

2. I guess the term is now "guerrillas"

As in - "The House, displaying a foreign affairs solidarity lacking on issues like Iraq, voted overwhelmingly Thursday to support Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah guerrillas."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_go_co/us_mideast


I think it's just demonization. Same old, same old.