> The same reduction occurs when we imagine the enemy as "irrational."
> Irrational actors are by definition without rhyme or reason, and
> there's no point in reasoning about them on the way to fighting them.
> The better course is to think of these men as bearers of a rationality
> we reject because its goal is our destruction. If we take the trouble
> to understand that rationality, we might have a better chance of
> figuring out what its adherents will do next and preventing it."
Irrational actors have reasons, but the reasons aren't rational and are psychologically anchored in a way that makes them immune to rational critique. For example, you won't be able to get Fish to change his mind about these claims by pointing to this mistake and to the self-contradiction involved in claiming both that there are no rational foundations for belief and that there are rational foundations for beliefs about the "rationality" of those responsible for 9/11 so that "if we take the trouble to understand that rationality, we might have a better chance of figuring out what its adherents will do next and preventing it."
Ted