The broader issue of terrorism

[sui generis]

(This post is not intended to defend the rationale of political violence so please don't post anything to that effect)

Terrorists start as ideologues, usually with extremist points of view, whether that is religious or political.

The final goal of any terrorist group is to be the governing power, yet they don't typically represent any significant underground movement or large number of people. Terrorists are pathetic, provincial and adolescent, and ultimately it is a "power" trip -- the more important your enemies, the more important you feel. Leadership in terrorist groups capitalizes on a sense of outrage, hopelessness, and some form of social identification. The actual people who blow themselves up are usually stupid, naive teenagers or young adults who have convinced themselves that they are doing it for the greater good.

The facts that terrorist organizations fail to realize are that if they want credibility for their cause, they have to have a real political following and they have to work within the existing political system. Violence is a shortcut to nowhere.

And finally if you have a worldview that is so extreme that it requires violence to bring it into focus, that it requires forcing people to believe it or die, you can never have a successful government. This is a lesson that the U.S. can learn too.

[rkc3]

1. Are you talking about terrorists or the Bush administration?

With thoughts like:

they don't typically represent any significant underground movement or large number of people. Terrorists are pathetic, provincial and adolescent, and ultimately it is a "power" trip -- the more important your enemies, the more important you feel. Leadership in terrorist groups capitalizes on a sense of outrage, hopelessness, and some form of social identification.

It sounds a lot like Georgie and Uncle Dick.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Why terrorists choose extreme acts over the political process.

Expediency. Drama. Unwillingness to compromise goals as necessitated in political discourse and unwillingness to share power with groups outside of theirs. Modus operandi of manipulating followers who do whatever they are told and accept justification of unimagined violence as a vehicle for the greater good and/or payoff in Heaven.

[xchrom]

3. are these your thoughts?

[sui generis]

5. yes these are my thoughts

but it is ultimately about a grab for power. It gets tricky when you start to differentiate between "insurgency" and terrorism because many of the tactics of guerilla warfare are identical, except that terrorists don't usually employ militias.

If you remember when that abortion doctor was shot through his kitchen window by a freeper lurking in the bushes, as well as the on-line deathlist -- I personally don't distinguish that kind of terrorism at all from stupid kids blowing themselves up, foreigners, and blowing up their own fellow countrymen in Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Our very own Army of God terrorists who send "anthrax" to politicians and newscasters are no different.

Why do you ask? PM me if you need to -

[arbusto_baboso]

4. Terrosism is the tool of the weak..

When a group resorts to terror tactics, it is in blunt recognition of the fact that they haven't got the power, politically or militarily, to stand toe-to-toe with their perceived enemies. Thus, terrorism.

So, we're basically living in fear of folks who have ACKNOWLEDGED their own inferiority by dint of their methods.

[forgethell]

7. Who's living in fear??

Taking reasonable steps to protect yourself against someone who has expressed a desire to kill you is not "living in fear", but being intelligent. Whether or not the steps that * and Co. have taken are reasonable is certainly open to debate.

But just because someone has less power than you doesn't mean they can't kill you. And if you know they intend to, and you don't do something about it, then you are a fool.

[arbusto_baboso]

8. Actually, a good portion of Americans are living in fear...

or at least, that's the intention of the bi-weekly "terra alerts" from DHS and Tom Ridge.

Yes, sensible precautions are advisable. But, dammit, we should've known something like this was inevitable since 1972 and the incident at the Munich olympics. Most of Europe has been living with the threat of terrorism for at least 30 years (longer if you're a Brit and remember the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, and noticed how things changed around London since then...), so if you talk to Europeans, you'll find out 2 things:

1) They think we're ridiculous for burying our heads in the sand re: terrorism, for so long.

2) They think we're ridiculous for letting it effect so many of our actions and being fearful about it. Statistically, we're still in far more mortal danger driving to work every day. Hummers will likely kill us before terrosists do.

When you think about it, they're right.

[forgethell]

9. Well, there may be Americans

living in fear. I don't happen to be one of them. and I would like to know when information is available.

As for the Euro-weenies, I'm sorry, I can't help but think of them that way, what,exactly have they done to combat terrorism? In 30 years haven't they figured it out, yet?? Why is it still going on?

Look, I don't like George * Bush, I don't like his policies, I'm not going to vote for him. But I don't mind taking the fight to the enemy. The Europeans may be willing to appease the terrorists. They were certainly willing enough to appease Hitler, they were certainly willing enough to appease Stalin. Why should they change??

But most Americans are not. Even John Kerry says, knowing what we know now, he would have voted the same way on war powers. That's good enough for me.

[arbusto_baboso]

10. The "euro-weenies", as you call them...

are actually WAYYYYY ahead of us on combatting terrorism, and at getting to the root causes of it. (By the way, the mindless nationalism you showed in your last post is one of the reasons why we're hated around the world.)

As an army vet who's BEEN to Iraq, I can tell you that we will NOT rid ourselves of middle eastern terrorism by any military means. It'll take long term economic and diplomatic efforts to do it.

If that isn't bellicose enough for you, then I suggest you go down to a recruiting station and "take the fight to the terrorists" yourself. No young American should have to die on a fool's errand that makes NONE of us any safer.

[forgethell]

11. Way ahead of us??

Maybe, but they still haven't accomplished much, have they (Spain? Anyone?)?? Giving in to demands of blackmailers, extortionists, and terrorists only gets you more blackmail, extortion, and terror.

Mindless nationalism? Maybe, but frankly I don't really care if we are "hated" around the world, just so long as they don't take that hatred to the extreme of trying to kill us. I've met plenty of Europeans of various nationalities. I find that they can be just as nationalistic, jingoistic, and rudely insensitive as any American. For example, I would never go to another country and criticize it to the natives, especially if I did not know how the particular individuals I was talking to felt about the issue. Some of the Europeans I've known felt no such compunction.

Economic and diplomatic efforts? Great, I'm all for it. If we just ratify the the Kyoto Treaty (this is not a knock at Kyoto) the terrorists will lay down their arms!! Oh, and throw the Jews out of Palestine while you're at it.

IN the end, yes, we need other countries to help in the fight against terrorism. But those that assist the terrorists with money, sanctuary, weapons, etc, are the enemy and must be treated as such.

OH, and you didn't answer my question, not that I expected you to. Let me rephrase it: What have the Europeans done to COMBAT terrorism?

[arbusto_baboso]

14. It hardly matters what example I cite ...

since you'll not take them seriously.

But, as a for instance: Every single nation in Europe had dedicated anti-terroist military and police units before the United States did.

Both French and German anti-terrorist units have performed hostage rescue/terrosist elimination missions outside of the European continent. Further, THEIR efforts - unlike ours - actually worked.

Finally, through changes in policy, Europe has made itself not as big a target of terrorists. Call that "appeasement" if you wish, but you'll notice that Palestinian groups don't hit Europe the way they used to.

Of course, by mere proximity to the middle east, europe will ALWAYS be more susceptible to the acts of middle eastern extremists, and you'll be able to cherry-pick as many incidents as you wish to "support" your claims. But my final question to you is this: have any nations in Europe lost over 3000 people to a single terrorist act?

[forgethell]

15. As to your final question

Not that I know of. But how is that relevant?? Dedicated anti-terrorist military & police units? Ok. but we have them now, and we are using them, and not just to rescue hostages, either. Terrorist elimination missions? Like Afghanistan or Iraq? Must of missed it. And, puhleese, Saddam was a supporter of terrorism even if he had nothing whatever to do with 9/11, even if he had no weapons of mass destruction.

Changes in policy. OK, here is where we really come to a parting of the ways. Never, never, never, never change policy just because terrorists want you to. Kill them, instead. Giving in just creates more demands from them. Why should it work any different between peoples than it does between individual people?

I did notice that the Italian premier, or prime minister, or whatever his title is has been threatened with assassination. I notice that Spain was bombed. Why should the West, Europe or America, have to submit to even one terrorist incident? I cna't think of a single reason. Never appease these evil men.

Look, * screwed up. The war in Iraq, while justifiable, has not been fought well after the initial phases. Perhaps it would have been better to invade another terrorist-sponsoring state first, Iran tops my personal list, followed closely by Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the UN should have been given more time to not find any WMDs.

But at least something has now been done and the terrorists have paid a price. Europe wants to to fight terrorism as a criminal justice problem, yet they do not even have a death penalty.

[arbusto_baboso]

18. Spain did NOT submit to terrorism...

they shitcanned a leader who LIED to them!

And responsible changes in policy are NOT appeasement either! GODDAMMIT when will people get it thru their heads that we can't just go around imposing our will on the whole fucking planet!

And, btw, I still think if you're this all-fired enthusiastic about military adventurism (because that's what it is; Afghanistan was bothced and Iraq NEVER DID have ANYTHING to do with terrorism until after we invaded) then go sign-up.

[forgethell]

21. Sorry

I'm too old, they wouldn't have me. Besides, I already did my time in the Army.

Nobody is being drafted, so everybody over there has volunteered to fight. Your facts are wrong; your logic sucks; you do not answer questions, and you have no plan to destroy terrorism.

Fortunately, Kerry does.

[whosinpower]

13. Problem is

That taking the fight to the enemy is precisely what the enemy has been prophesizing all along - that the US seeks to invade the middle east. The fighting is creating far more terrorism than it is eliminating - and we cannot, in a moral conscience kill them all.
Each attack that the US perpetrates is a jolt of adrenaline into Al Quaida's recruitment goals.

And insofar as appeasing Hitler - let us not forget that the US stood idly by while Europe burned AND fought Hitler until the US was attacked by Japan. Sure, they tried appeasement, but when it became clear that Hitler was not an honest broker, and was bent on global domination - they fought. The US did not jump in eagerly riding a moral high horse when Germany invaded Poland or France.

You know there is a certain arrogence that seems to occur when the US is protected by two oceans. Perhaps the US would have a entirely different viewpoint of war if it was fought in their own backyard. Perhaps then we would not be so uprighteous in condemning attempts at appeasement and peace.

[forgethell]

16. So?

It is better to fight them in the ME than in West Virginia. And we can, in good moral conscience, kill all the terrorists for as long as they bear arms against us. We did it to German and Japanese soldiers. What makes the Mid-East terrorists special.

True, the US stood by far to long. But it was not the US that was immediately threatened. The Euros were, and they did nothing, then we had to rescue them at great cost to ourselves.

Nobody likes to go to war. Screw that arrogance thing, we were attacked. 3000 died. But we have been attacked for 30-49 years by the same people. And we did nothing. How many Americans should we be willing to sacrifice a year to appease the terrorists? Are you willing to be one of them so the Marines can come home?

[radar]

20. Not All Terrorist's Come From The Middle East...

...A couple groups here in the United States are "whiter" than most Americans

Aryan Nations, Mountaineer Militia, Army of God(?)....


http://freelebanon.org/articles/a167.htm
Complete List of Terrorist and Insurgency Groups Worldwide

http://www.specialoperations.com/Terrorism/Terrorist_Groups/Default.htm
...groups that were designated foreign terrorist organizations on 8 October 1997 pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996..."

http://www.specialoperations.com/Terrorism/SOCGuide/Default.htm
Special Operations.Com Guide to International Terrorist Organizations

[forgethell]

22. What's your point?

What state is backing them? Should we invade ourselves? We do have agencies to control them. If the Mid-East states controlled their terrorists, maybe we wouldn't have to.You left off ELF and ALF from your little list. Do you not consider them to be terrorists?

I think the terrorists must be destroyed like the Klan. I am willing to admit that I don't know the best way, but I do know that it isn't by addressing their "root causes". Hell, the segregationist South had its grievances, too, but that didn't stop the US Government from enforcing its will.

[whosinpower]

25. Those that are bearing arms

In Iraq....those are insurgents, not terrorists. Let us be clear on that. The likes of Al Sadr and his militia are fighting against the occupation. It is naive to think otherwise.

And the policy of going to the middle east to fight them there will fail. Why has our alert gone orange??? There will be another attack on US soil.

3000 died from an attack on Osama Bin Laden - not Saddam Hussein. How many Arabs have to be innocently killed to appease the Americans??? Why does American blood hold more value than Afghani blood or Iraqi blood? How many civilians were killed???

They attack the marines because the marines have taken over their country. They attack against the occupation and against the puppet government of Allawi. Each counterattack by the Americans results in more terrorists flooding into Bin Laden's groups. The policy is not working - so why continue it??? If you were invaded in West Virginia by a forein nation who stated your government was responsible for the deaths of thousands, was a danger to the world and they had to go in and force a regime change...how long would you fight??? At what point would you swallow your national pride and cooperate with that foreign nation??? How long would it take you to turn the other cheek when the torture photos came out from that very nation that was "liberating" you???

[forgethell]

26. Insurgents that use

terrorist tactics are terrorists. If we can't agree on this we have nothing to discuss.

How do you innocently kill someone. Many innocent people have been killed, of course, but America has done a magnificent job of sparing civilians. I credit the military for this, not George*.

The marines go where they are ordered by the government of the United States. That doesn't mean they have to let 'insurgents' kill them just because the government is wrong.

Guerrillas have been around a long time. and, in international law they are considered as 'illegal combatants' just like terrorists.

And, for myself personally, I could see becoming a guerrilla in the circumstances you mention, but never a terrorist defined as someone who deliberately targets innocent civilians. No matter what the provocation.

[liontamer]

12. most americans live in fear

Even before all these terror alerts. We're disproportionally afraid of violent crime. This fear affects how many people live their lives and is generated largely by the media to boost news ratings.

[forgethell]

17. People that live in fear

are cowards and fools. I don't think that most Americans do that. I don't think most people anywhere do that. I think most people keeep a awareness of the risks involved in living in whatever their situation is, and then go on with their lives.

[Gregorian]

6. I think life is rather simple.

I don't think people like fighting. I think they like to eat, and sleep. I also think that when people exhibit behaviour in ways that differ from the basic needs and wants, that something is out of equilibrium. I also think that this occurs from external events. What I'm saying is that I don't think terrorism just happens. People make other people do it, when they have given up, and have no other recourse. I've already made this more complicated than it needs to be. If people were considerate, and treated others like they themselves would like to be treated, there would be no terrorism. I know there is such a thing as scarcity. Thereing lies the problem. When more than one person exists on the planet, and there is only one of something, there is potential for problems. And now that there are way more than two people, the potential has gone WAY up. But essentially, I think that when we stepped on the Middle East, and meddled where we weren't wanted, that's how it got started. And the answer is quite simple- leave these people to live their lives, and terrorism disappears. Maybe I'm not dealing with a full deck, but it seems to be about that simple, in my mind. We can throw in the religion and ideology, but the basics are still the same. But then, if we were clear on terrorism, we'd have to change our lives. The answer is that in order for terrorism to stop (given a snapshot of today), life as we know it is going to have to be somewhere between living the way they do (ie. mud hut), and the way we do (ie. Humvee/Shop till you drop).

Edit- sp there/their/they're always gets me }:-Þ

[theboss]

19. Modern Islamic terrorism is growing increasingly nihilistic

To me, that is the greatest concern as we begin a new century. There have been successful "terrorist" uprisings in the past; in fact there is some credence to the one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter argument.

For example, on a board filled with progressives, I am sure that there is some underlying sympathy for the IRA (come on... I know you're out there). The IRA has established credibility with some people because they have tied themselves to larger political and social issues than simply violence for violence sake. (Though there has been a lot of violence for its own sake in that conflict too).

The fact that terrorists are now identified as "people who blow themselves" up should tell you all you need to know about the modern state of Islamic terror. No colonial minuteman, John Brown raider, Irish Republican, Israeli freedom fighter, Basque separatist, or even early Palestinian liberator would consider a victory to be mass slaughter that ends in your own death.

And that ties not even to the hopelessness at the heart of the cause, but the lack of a cause itself. Palestinian liberation is more of a rallying cry at this point than a cause. And apparently no suicide bomber can envision a world in which their action creates a Palestinian homeland. Because if they did, they wouldn't kill themselves with their targets.

Likewise, Al Quaeda's goals are of the vaguest sort and if achieved would only lead to a replacement of one form of oppression for another.

There is a serious feeling of hopelessness in the Islamic world and that's what makes this age so dangerous. A member of the IRA would never set off a nuclear bomb in Belfast, because - ideally - he wants his children to live in Belfast. An Islamic terrorist would set off a nuke in the West Bank, because who wants to live there anyway?

[Jacobin]

23. It could also be simple revenge for outrages....

hopelessness, despair, outrage, helplessness, and the right mindset.

The war in Israel is just that: a war between the invaders and the indigenous population. "Terrorists" is just a word used to disparage guerilla warfare, demean it, and make fun of those who have less armed might in the conflict.

The "terror" thing now directed at the U.S. will amount to a few, distantly placed attempts to rip our guts out by those who you so accurately describe. It boggles my mind that so many people still think invading Iraq had anything to do with that small group of pissed off fanatics who attack the U.S.

[MadHound]

24. And just how much have you studied about terrorism?

Being a terrorist is in the eye of the beholder, quite frankly. It is a term with unpleasant conotations, and is thrown around by the government in power in order to demonize those who are out of power. Our revolutionary forefathers were labeled as terrorists by the British. The Irish were and are labled as terrorists by the British, even though it was the British who annexed their land and killed the Irish people in the millions. We are labeling some of the Iraqi factions as terrorists, even though it is the US who illegally and immorally invaded, occupied, and lotted their land. The Palestinians are labeled terrorists, even though they were thrown out of their land.

And what is the act of terrorism itself? Killing of civilians? Then the US is the largest terrorist state around. The targeting of non-military targets in order to promote fear and panic? Can you say Hiroshima and Nagisaki? Or as one respected historian said, is it simply the way a weaker combantant fights an overwhelmingly stronger one? Then that too would apply to the US, specifically our Revolutionary War was, in essence, a successful terrorist operation.

And funny, you can apply your defining statements to the American Revolution as well. Our founding fathers started as idealogues, with what was considered at the time, extremist points of view. Their goal was to be the governing power, and they didn't have the majority of the population agreeing with them, only aprox. thirty percent(not that that matters, the majority of Irish agreed with the various groups of people the British have labeled as "terrorists"). And yes, the Americans were thought of as quite provincial and pathetic, as were the Irish, the Iraqis, and Ghandi, who was also thought of as a "terrorist".

Instead of using such loaded, demonizing, prejudicial terms as terrorists, why not call them what they are, your enemies, fighting a battle that they have decided to make up close and personal. Labeling a whole group of people as terrorists simply glosses over very complex issues with a veneer of demonizing simplicity, thus preventing any real meaningful chance of bringing about peace.