Dear Friends,
It seems one needs to put things in a historical perspective. Maybe the analytical philosophy of science is not going to be of a very substantial help in this regard. Regardless, the site of action (i.e. the perpetrators were from inside 'US' or outside 'US'), one thing seems beyond any doubt. And that is that there are some who are not substantially in agreement with the way things are 'done' or 'run'. The method for making their voice heard is beyond any comprehensible democratic way. That means there are issues such as 'Civilization', 'Barbarism', 'Progress', 'Decadence', 'The Fall of Human Morality' and etc. are at stake. In my view, to put the debate into a conceptual frame of discussion, Vico is not a bad point of departure. Vico's best-known work is the Principi di scienzia nuova d'intorno alla comune natura delle nazioni (Principles of a New Science Concerning the Common Nature of Nations,1725), usually called the Scienza nuova. In it he propounded a cyclical theory of history, according to which human societies progress through a series of stages from barbarism to civilization and then return to barbarism. Do you think is there anything substantial in his view that one can extract to what one today calls 'Barbarism' versus 'Civilization'?
Just a thought!
Kind
Seyed