You seemed to admit that ape hierarchy is an example of this. How it is that the alpha male dominates by intimidation and alliances, whilst forming alliances to keep him in charge. — schopenhauer1

Well, firstly I would suggest, that 'admit' is not the most appropriate term to use here. You provided links to two very good articles about scientific studies performed with chimpanzees. The conclusions delivered in both articles were 'limited,' in the extent of the comparison and commonalities the authors were prepared to state, regarding the similarities of punitive behaviour used by chimps and humans. I fully accept those findings (rather than 'admit' they have value), in as far as they go, and are evidenced, but my statement, again, is that the chimpanzee use of, what I would consider or recognise as applied horror and/or terror techniques, is far more simplistic and basic behavior, when considered against the quite common 'survival in the wilds,' type experience/inheritance, we and animals share.

Human use of horror and terror is far far more advanced and nuanced, compared to any other species on this planet imo, including how a particular individual animal, achieves and maintains the 'alpha male' style dominance, in a pack of dogs/wolves etc or in a troop of primates or in a pride of lions.

I have not been offered any evidence to the contrary ...... so far. I am not suggesting that there is no better evidence out there, but I think this path of 'compared to the animal kingdom,' as I outlined in this thread's opening, will not offer much more than those comments that have already been made by yourself and a few other contributors. I think focussing on the other points/questions I raised in the op, would be far more fruitful and useful. Unless, you do see more value than I do, in further exploring the animal v human aspect of how notions of horror and terror are employed.

Well, firstly I would suggest, that 'admit' is not the most appropriate term to use here. — universeness

I was responding to this below, not the article:

In your chimp example, is what you describe, only ever 'within a troop hierarchy?' — universeness

The reason I said that is, I know chimps go to war with other tribes. I would have to see any evidence if they actually hold "grudges" against that tribe for past wrongs. I doubt it necessarily. It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, but they are brutal campaigns (tearing at faces, ripping limbs, etc.). And the campaigns to maintain dominance by the alpha and his allies are basically terror campaigns to keep any would-be contenders in line. Have you seen the series "Chimp Empire"? I remember one scene where one of the outsider chimps was brutally attacked and killed in one of the episodes. That to me seems like basic, "Try allying against the alpha, see what happens" (terror) techniques". Granted, the commentary is pretty dramatic, but take of it what you will from the footage itself.

Anyone can see that these two words, not only they are not opposite --in any logical way-- but they are
instead quite close to each other. There's no space for a different interpretation between them. — Alkis Piskas

I am ok with the difference being that 'terror' is anticipatory, threat-based, a debilitating dread of witnessing or physically experiencing (a) horrific act(s).

This gal, Ann Radcliffe, like a lot of "intellectuals" need to feel they make a difference by inventing their own definitions, meanings and interpretations of words and terms, far from wat us the norm, so that they seem to stand out, be "special". Don't get attracted by this kind of shit. — Alkis Piskas

I have offered no opinion yet, as to Ms Ratcliffe's quote. I will now however. I think it speaks to the notion that some folks like to feel terrified, when there is no real threat, (like watching horror movies for example or riding a roller coaster) and some enjoy such notions of 'terror,' even when there is a very real threat (perhaps 'thrill seekers' are an example. Perhaps even human mercenary soldiers, are also a more disturbing example)
I don't think such aspects of 'terror' have much to offer, based on the main questions I placed in my opening, apart from the human mercenary soldier example, perhaps.

A friend's cat which I had teased and annoyed a lot wreaked vengeance on my person whenever I visited. Quite justifiably. — BC

Was it just you exclusively, or was this cat aggressive towards many visitors in the way many cats are and dogs too. I don't find such examples particularly interesting, especially when there are programs that demonstrate how a cat/dog can be quite easily trained to no longer react in such ways to people they consider 'strangers.'

More seriously, though, what facilitates human vengeance are extensive cognitive resources to carry out the impulses of the emotions. Most animals lack the capacity. Animals are equipped for self-defense, territorial defense, off-spring defense, food defense, and so on. But when the defense is over, it's over. With humans, one never knows whether it's over or not. Years can pass before vengeance is taken. — BC

Again, I don't think the human v animal demonstration/comparison of the notions of horror and terror, have much more to offer, than the contributions already made. I think the other aspects/questions I included in my opening might produce far more interesting debate/discussion.

I will watch the two vids you offered, and then comment, on your post.

I should have noticed that they were only little trailers, given the 'Hollywood style' intro treatment, to generate dramatic attraction. So I can respond faster than I thought I could.

The reason I said that is, I know chimps go to war with other tribes.
It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, but they are brutal campaigns (tearing at faces, ripping limbs, etc.). And the campaigns to maintain dominance by the alpha and his allies are basically terror campaigns to keep any would-be contenders in line. Have you seen the series "Chimp Empire"? I remember one seen where one of the outsider chimps was brutally attacked and killed in one of the episodes. That to me seems like basic, "Try allying against the alpha, see what happens" (terror) techniques. Granted, the commentary is pretty dramatic, but take of it what you will from the footage itself. — schopenhauer1

I fully accept the similarities, between early tribal warfare between competing groups of human hunter-gatherers, and fights between chimp troops, and between most other competing animal groups of the same species, fighting each other to hold on to areas of good resources etc. I also fully accept that the level of violence involved, looks absolutely horrific, and I also accept that animals feel and can fully demonstrate fear and even terror. The big differences in human use of horror and terror is, as you yourself have highlighted and exemplified, and I think there are many more such very significant differences, that throw humans way, way beyond any animal or insect-based exemplar.

I would have to see any evidence if they actually hold "grudges" against that tribe for past wrongs. I doubt it necessarily. — schopenhauer1

It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, — schopenhauer1

I have not seen 'chimp empire' but I have watched similar battles in a series about meerkats, and another about ants v termites etc. As I suggested, I think that the examples offered so far, fall way, way short of the human uses of horror and terror and how such is being employed today (as it was in the past) between groups like Hamas and the Israelis or Putin/Ukraine and the western nations, or China currently in Honk Kong and the South China sea, or in North Korea or perhaps even in the UK, in far more subtle ways, than many of us understand. I would like to focus more on those areas and on the other questions in my opening, related to human nefarious use of horror and terror and how 'the people,' might better understand and effectively combat those who would, and do, use such tactics, rather than continue the comparison with the use of such amongst animals and/or insects and or/birds etc..

As I suggested, I think that the examples offered so far, fall way, way short of the human uses of horror and terror and how such is being employed today (as it was in the past) between groups like Hamas and the Israelis or Putin/Ukraine and the western nations, or China currently in Honk Kong and the South China sea, or in North Korea or perhaps even in the UK, in far more subtle ways, than many of us understand — universeness

I'm not sure I understand the question. But perhaps the clarity of this matter rests upon the underlying assumptions one holds.

Humans are clever animals, so anything we do that animals also do is given a greater scale and sophistication by us. Humans use intimidation and violence as a tool to achieve ends. Even the democratic state, with many of its laws, police and punishments is just highly refined, even abstracted variation. So? Why do humans do this? Social control and territory acquisition.

How do we deal with this if institutions (e.g., the U.N.) and strategies (diplomacy) fail? No idea. If cultures are locked into internecine squabbles about hearts and minds and land grabs, then it's war. And then we come to questions of style - what kinds of horror and terror are judged to be commensurate with the goals?

Terror and horror can be distinguished as unrelated experiences, but I don't have a problem with people using them interchangeably when they report their experiences.

Terror is, in a sense, a "transitive" noun. Terror is something that can be imposed on someone else, or on many people. Israel and Hamas have imposed terror on each other. War, by its nature is terrifying. A city can not be bombed without producing terror, as the bombs crash into buildings, explode, collapse buildings, burn flesh, ignite fires, etc. People really DO hate it when that happens, and they find it terror-ible.

Horror is a more subjective experience. I find some circus rides horrifying, despite them being safe devices which many people find quite entertaining. I find spiders and their webs horrifying, especially when encountered in dim enclosed spaces. Many people are indifferent to spiders. I don't find bats disturbing (I'm talking about ordinary brown bats that eat insects).

One can learn and unlearn horror. I find spiders less horrifying than I used to, and this is owning to a deliberate effort on my part. I find heights horrifying. There is a glass observation deck built on the wall of the Grand Canyon that allows one to look straight down for about 3/4 of a mile. I could learn to not find this glass deck horrifying. Horror films key right into my horror potentials. This too could be unlearned (but then I wouldn't have the experience of horror in a theater).

Terror, on the other hand, is too overwhelming a condition to be unlearned. One can become desensitized to terror, but this is not a desirable goal.

Terror and horror can be similarly bad experiences, except that horror does not normally involve actual physical threat. Terror IS threat, both physical and psychological.

So again, if somebody reports they were terrified and horrified in a bombing attack -- I have no objection. The rest of us who are not getting bombed and shot at can afford to be fussier,

I agree with you that I am far more anthropocentric than you are. — universeness

I am not (consciously) "anthropocentric" at all.

I think by now, you know that I celebrate that difference between us, and I would love to convince you to be less misanthropic than I think you are.

I'm also not "misanthropic" at all.

You're special pleading conflates difference of degree with (an unwarranted suggestion of) difference in kind.

What was it do you think that made Viking and Mongol warriors okay with being "horror-ible"? Was it that the horror inflicted terror?

Purported quote from Genghis Khan:

The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.

What was it do you think that made Viking and Mongol warriors okay with being "horror-ible"? Was it that the horror inflicted terror — schopenhauer1

Thankfully we have all been spared the fury of the Norsemen and the scourge of the Mongols. Their various successors have proved worthy successors in the arts of horror and terror. Terror is an effective offensive approach. If it's bad enough, it paralyzes the victim with horror and fear, ties them up in knots,

Hamas' attack on Israel was clearly intended to be "terrible" -- not just for the immediate recipients, but for the entire nation. It was also well timed and well executed, apart from the terror they created. Hamas - 1, Israel - 0. Israel's response, the bombing and siege of Gaza, couldn't be a surprise, but it could be (and has been) very very bad for the civilian Palestinians. How bad has it been for Hamas fighters and militants? We don't know, yet, and we won't know -- until (IF and WHEN) the Hamas defenses have been invaded and cleared out.

Russia's attack on Ukraine, and seizure of its eastern lands and Crimea has not been a terror and horror operation--not that it has been a picnic, of course. As brazen as the Russian seizures have been, as costly in lives and infrastructure as the war has been for Ukraine, a relatively low level of terror and horror seem to have prevailed. There was no blitzkrieg; no gas, biological, or atomic weapons; no massive bombing; no massive invasion. Rather, a steady grinding up of Ukraine's resources. For Ukraine, it's been slow destruction. Why?

The Norsemen, Mongols, Hamas, and Israel are doing what they COULD do. So is Russia. Vlad P. might want to have done things differently, but he couldn't manage a lightning strike, a blitzkrieg, lots of shock and awe.

The victim of a big surprise attack (horror, terror) is always at a disadvantage. After 9/11, the US could not duplicate the horror, terror, and surprise of planes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon. A few people can pull off a surprise. After the surprise is over, the perps are all dead. Who is the victimized country going to kill? In our case, Iraqis and Afghanistanis. Did it produce satisfaction in America? No. We didn't seem able to duplicate the horror, terror, and surprise we experienced.

I suspect that Israel is not going to get satisfaction from pounding the shit out of Gaza, even if there is nobody left there.

I am ok with the difference being that 'terror' is anticipatory — universeness

I'm OK too with that. Fear has to do with the future and the unknown (as we say "fear of the unknown"). Terror is fear too, only it is more intense. Likewise with horror. But terror and horror are not exactly the same. E.g. horror can also cause disgust (as in horror films). But the essential and common element in both terror and fear is intense fear, so they reflect about the same thing. So, in no way are they opposite

Now, since your topic also refers to the mind, there''s a lot to say about how fear --independently of its intensity-- is produced and about the mechanisms of the mind involved in that. But I think this is not the intention of this topic.

Otherwise, I agree with a lot of points in your description of the topic.

Ok Tom. let me try to 'home in,' on the main questions I was trying to raise in my opening.
All species on Earth had a similar experience in the wilds, under the 'survival of the fittest,' style of competition. I think the first major difference that developed between humans and all other species, was that we gained far more success against species, far larger, stronger and faster, than us by finding ways to work with each other in unison/common cause/cooperation. We could compete with and surpass all other species, due to cooperation.
But, we were still left with the fallout of 'competing,' with each other. This was the case for all other species as well.

Horror and terror, imo take on a much deeper and far far more nuanced sense of morality and injustice, when it is contemplated or applied to other members of the same species. This seems to me to be far more true in human species, than in any other. No other species has the kind of relationship with the notions of horror and terror that humans demonstrate they have.

So, let me try this scenario:
Two groups/communities/nations of humans form reasons/justifications as to why they MUST go to war with each other. They try to set 'rules,' under which they will fight. Inevitably, many on both sides, push those 'rules' to the limits or completely break them (or some propaganda systems will report that the other side has done/is doing so.) The absolute demonisation of 'them,' the other side. the scum, the vile existents. the utterly immoral (also godless :roll: ) barbarians.
This causes levels of outrage that we often see manifest in the base 'mob mentality,' that all us so-called 'civilised folks,' so frown upon. Escalation and atrocity soon follow from both sides, which often has an exponential growth into 'all hell breaking loose,' and perhaps a full nuclear exchange and perhaps the extinction of our species.

Many nefarious people have studied the human relationship with horror and terror and how to use these very powerful tools to repress or destroy what they consider to be any threat to them, such as democratic socialism, secular humanism, economic parity for the masses, a united species, anti-elite movements, etc, etc.

I am interested in how people can be better educated, in how nefarious humans manipulate others to focus on fighting and slaughtering each other, whilst in the background, they hoard all the cream and riches and resources that the Earth has, and they intend to keep full control over such, for them and their descendants exclusively, (until Jesus returns or Allah ends this experiment, etc) until the end of time.

I have my own ideas (none of which are original .... probably), but I am also very interested in the thoughts of others on this. I hope this clarifies my intentions with this thread a bit more than my described opening thoughts do.

One can learn and unlearn horror. — BC

Terror, on the other hand, is too overwhelming a condition to be unlearned. One can become desensitized to terror, but this is not a desirable goal. — BC

Comments like these are examples of the ones that I think offer interesting room for discussion.

Desensitizing people to horror and terror tactics is indeed an outcome that we must avoid but all humans or (as many as can be made to understand), must expect and understand and allow for the 'kill, kill, kill the bastards and all they care about.' 'Utterly destroy them,' 'Erase them permanently from the face of the freakin planet, permanently!!!' and then not do or even try to pursue any of those goals/responses.
This has to be achieved at an individual, personal level. Especially when horror has been actioned, directly upon you or those you care about, either by design or just 'wrong place wrong time,' type scenarios.

Would humans gain better results and significantly reduce our existential threat if we learned more about how to respond more 'scalpel' like (for want of a better metaphor) to horror and the 'overwhelming condition of anticipatory terror?'

Or as I put it in the op:

Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples?
Do you have any notions about how everyday people could be 'prepared' for dealing with horror and terror tactics?
Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good? — universeness

So, you are not anthropocentric or misanthropic at all. I assume that includes during all time durations, past and present. So you are somewhere on the spectrum between these two placeholders or this range does not offer a metric by which your position can be quantified or qualified at all!

If that is true, are you declaring yourself inert, as far as your personal determination goes, to help ensure that your species endures? You have suggested that the point is moot, as developments in AI will make the point moot, and the fate of our species will be removed from any ability we have to influence such, due to an almost natural, inevitable, tech singularity emergent event. The 2001 monolith finally arrives in true messianic style!
If anything I have typed in this response is close enough to the position you currently hold, then my disappointment lies in the suggestion that you will not use all the skills you have, to fight for our survival and our future growth. You will simply lie down and accept that our fate is to become vastly reduced in number and significance, replaced with something as bland as an emotionless ASI, that just IS but has no motivation to boldly go, or just appreciate its surroundings or celebrate the fact that the unknown, remains unknown. I have always thought that if ever humans answer all questions then that will be our true ending. I think you would be a very interesting person to go on boozy sessions with 180proof. I think verbally, there would never be a dull moment.

No. We didn't seem able to duplicate the horror, terror, and surprise we experienced. — BC

I have heard people describe what they would do to punish those they hate most. It normally lies somewhere on a rage from slow vivisection to tortured every moment of every day, ETERNALLY, in hell-style imagineered manifestations. Has such intent, ever been sated? Those who have tried, always end up destroyed themselves, after they have achieved their vengeance, or during the pursuit of such. They never achieve 'closure,' do they?
Do you not think our species has to completely reassess our relationship with the traditional notions of horror and terror and our response to such? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

You have suggested that the point is moot, as developments in AI will make the point moot ... — universeness

:up:

Now, since your topic also refers to the mind, there''s a lot to say about how fear --independently of its intensity-- is produced and about the mechanisms of the mind involved in that. But I think this is not the intention of this topic. — Alkis Piskas

Well, perhaps the physical mechanisms involved from a neuroscience angle, are very important to fully understand. I don't know much about the details involved, other than a basic appreciation of the fight or flight instinct. Is our natural reaction to horror and terror beyond our ability to fully command and control? I find the depiction of such as the Vulcan Pon Farr in Star Trek, or the examples in the natural world of male species that die after mating, fascinating (to quote Mr Spock). Do humans have similar pressure to react in the ways they do when responding to horror and terror actioned upon them? Does neuroscience currently support such a proposal?

Well, perhaps the physical mechanisms involved from a neuroscience angle, are very important to fully understand. — universeness

Well, I will disappoint you here. Neuroscience deals with the brain. It has nothing to do with the mind. :smile: (Just that. Don't expect from me to elaborate.)

I don't know much about the details involved, other than a basic appreciation of the fight or flight instinct. — universeness

Yes, this is what is also called "instinct of survival". Theres no muuch to know about i as a mechanism, since it is automatic; like reflexes. However, its force and magnitude, as well as the reactions that follow it can vary a lot, depending on various factors.

Is our natural reaction to horror and terror beyond our ability to fully command and control? — universeness

Do all people react in the same way in horror movies or the view of cruel crimes, war scenes, ugly accidents, etc.?
People react differently even in the simple sight of blood.
And of course we can control it. Imagine a surgeon who cannot tolerate the sight of blood! :grin:

And of course we can control it. Imagine a surgeon who cannot tolerate the sight of blood! — Alkis Piskas

Then if that's true, perhaps in the future, a country like Israel and its people can respond to the recent absolute terrorist horror, inflicted on almost 2,000 of its citizens, by targeting only Hamas, and not respond to the massacre of its innocent civilians by mimicking such atrocity, and massacring thousands of innocent Palestinians, to get to kill the much fewer, actual members of Hamas they have managed to kill so far.
You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo.
We need to all get much much better at locating, targetting and punishing the guilty only, or else we play right into the hands of Hamas and they're like, who obviously want a war between Israel and all arabic/muslim peoples surrounding Israel, which definitely does have the potential to expand (and exponentially escalate,) via outrage, into WW III. Outrage nurtured via designed terrorist actions, deliberately applied at the level of deranged horror, onto civilian rather than military targets. A level of horror that is easily comparable with the actions and behavior of the worst psychopaths, we know of from history. This has, and is, also happening to civilians in Ukraine and in many other conflicts that we hardly hear about in other countries. This physical horror/terror, is not happening to the vast majority of the human population alive today, but the level of 'fear-mongering,' currently being employed by authorities and elites all over the planet is another matter, and also continues to be an area that the masses have to talk to each other about, a lot more than they do at present. Too many prefer to ignore all of that and just 'enjoy their life,' as best they can!

You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo. — universeness

Certainly. Unfortunately, military people have invented the term and concept of "collateral damage" to lessen and justify that effect of such criminal actions. You see, it benifits all parts. It also soothes the pain from the loss, esp. of those who lose their own people. And what is even worst, this term has found its way and is used in non-military context as well.

Too many prefer to ignore all of that and just 'enjoy their life,' as best they can! — universeness

I believe there are a lot of people who indeed ignore all that, as well as a lot who even enjoy it (terrorists, criminals, insane, psychopaths), but not the great majority of the people. Those may see to ignore what is happening and just continue to enjoy their life as you say, but it is not actually true. They are all sad about it, only they can't do anything about it and accept life as it is.
See, it's not only the horror of the war. It's the horror also of criminality, the horror of sickness, the horror and of ugly accidents, tho horror of catastrophes, individual and massive ones ...
It's the horror of life itself.

by targeting only Hamas, and not respond to the massacre of its innocent civilians by mimicking such atrocity — universeness

This is the problem of asymmetric warfare: a surprise attack by a small force can wreak great damage. The more powerful side will counterattack with either technology (planes and bombs) or ground forces. Precisely identifying the agency behind the attack is extremely difficult, so... the innocent are slaughtered.

Russia vs. Ukraine is a more symmetrical style of war, as were WWI and WWII, and many other wars before those two. Asymmetric warfare isn't new, but given the mechanized, technologically enhanced armies of the "have" powers, it's the best option for "have nots".

There is no moral solution to the problem "in the world as it is" -- a world packed with injustices and grievances. Long standing (and grave) injustices would have to be unwound, which is a utopian goal. Nice, but highly unlikely.

I also find it interesting that the animal kingdom don't seem to have the revenge pressure that we have. — universeness

On a side issue, humanity is part of the animal kingdom. Animals are not 'other' to 'us'. We are animals.

See, it's not only the horror of the war. It's the horror also of criminality, the horror of sickness, the horror and of ugly accidents, tho horror of catastrophes, individual and massive ones ...
It's the horror of life itself. — Alkis Piskas

Thats way too far for me. Any notion of horror that people might associate with natural illness, accidents, natural catastrophe etc are quite different from horror and terror as deliberately employed by nefarious or evil humans, as a means of achieving a goal they covet.
In general terms, life for most humans is not horrific, but I agree that horror and terror are aspects of life and living that may affect an individual personally, in a myriad of ways. I want to resist any attempt, deliberate or accidental, to edge this discussion towards one about nihilism or antinatalism.

This is the problem of asymmetric warfare: a surprise attack by a small force can wreak great damage. — BC

Not really, all wars are asymmetric imo. They all contain atrocity in all shapes and forms.
Conquering armies of the past were not often kind to the conquered civilian populations.
Did the allies during WW II do the same to German pow's as the Germans did to the jews? Where was the symmetry in that? I could offer many many other historical examples of asymmetric treatment used in the history of war. The phrase 'the evil that men do,' comes to mind.

There is no moral solution to the problem "in the world as it is" -- a world packed with injustices and grievances. Long standing (and grave) injustices would have to be unwound, which is a utopian goal. Nice, but highly unlikely. — BC

Could you envisage a grievance process, that had global reach, that is a lot more robust and effective than any we have today or have had in the past? I think this is a way forwards. We already have some good war crime authorities that have had past successes, such as brining horrors such as Slobodan Milošević to justice (even though he died in his cell first). The trials at nuremberg etc.
Do you not think such a robust and highly effective global authority could be achieved?
How about an authority that can declare economic war on any individual or group in a position of authority, who is deemed to be employing the kind of horror and terror tactics that Hamas have performed. Do you think that future tech, including AI, could be used to strip all assets and resources from such a group in the future, far more successfully than we can now?

Sorry, but your imo, unnecessary point, deserves a 'no shit Sherlock,' response.

Not really — universeness

Yes, really.

This is the asymmetry: Hamas does not have capacity to defend the Palestinian people in Gaza, or anywhere else. It is embedded in Gaza but funded by external sources -- Qatar and Iran for instance. It has a small armed force compared to Israel, and no tanks or airplanes. It does have rockets, guns, and explosives. While it can attack Israel, there is no chance of it defeating Israel (by itself). It can, as we have seen, stage an effective limited attack on civilians.

Israel, on the other hand, has the capacity to destroy Gaza and Hamas by bringing overwhelming force to bear. I suppose it could deploy nuclear bombs, if it was existentially threatened. In the meantime it has the iron dome, lots of bombs, enough airplanes, and so on. If Hamas has Qatar and Iran, Israel has the US and other western powers.

If Israel has overwhelming air power, Gaza's environment presents major difficulties for Israel. Urban warfare is a very difficult bloody business, especially with a 'dug in' adversary. The urban environment goes a long ways to reducing the asymmetry in terms of on-the-ground operations. My understanding of Hamas's tunnel system is that it would be difficult to destroy it by bombing alone.

Asymmetry would be further reduced if Hezbollah were to open a full attack on Israel.

3 recent victors in asymmetrical war: The Taliban managed to survive and win against the United States and Nato. The Islamic State was defeated with great difficulty. The Viet Cong won against overwhelming odds.

The stronger power in asymmetrical war is compelled to use brutal force because it has little alternative. Israel can neither lose nor leave Palestine,

Again, I don't think the human v animal demonstration/comparison of the notions of horror and terror, have much more to offer, than the contributions already made. — universeness

I'm just commenting that 'human v animal' is an odd way of putting things, when humans are animals.

I am interested in how people can be better educated, in how nefarious humans manipulate others to focus on fighting and slaughtering each other, whilst in the background, they hoard all the cream and riches and resources that the Earth has, and they intend to keep full control over such, for them and their descendants exclusively, (until Jesus returns or Allah ends this experiment, etc) until the end of time.

I have my own ideas (none of which are original .... probably), but I am also very interested in the thoughts of others on this. I hope this clarifies my intentions with this thread a bit more than my described opening thoughts do. — universeness

Got ya. I have nothing. Good luck.

:up:

Thats way too far for me. — universeness

You are right. "The horror of life itself" was badly expressed. I meant "The horror in life", horror as part of life.

As for the horror created by natural causes and horror created by man, they are both part of life, aren't they? Sometimes, we cannot even tell one from the other. Only when there is intention behind the cause, i.e. deliberate action, we can say that man is responsible for it. Even then, can we render psychopaths and insane people, who cannot tell right from wrong, who can act as animals, responsible for their actions? And wars, haven't they existed since the dawn of Man? Doesn't all that make them part of our nature?
So, whatever is the cause of horror, it is part of life.