Terrorism.

[BrettNortje]

Terrorism is a big problem today - all you need is a message that is distorted from a holy text, a few guns or bombs too. then you can launch political unrest as much as you like.

 

What are the goals of terrorists, and, do they ever work? was Hitler a terrorist? Was Stalin a terrorist? those are the only successful 'terrorists' there were ever that i can recall.

 

So, the goals are to be at the top of your people. this is what motivates them - being at the top. some don't mind being at the bottom, but they want to work their way up. this reminds me of the people that serve in parties too, they all sit at the bottom, hoping to be elevated eventually, unless of course there us something wrong with them in that the typical psychology of someone is different?

 

So, why follow? will you die? will you go to jail? why will you die or go to jail? why is it against the law, and, aren't these the laws of Moses? What makes the laws of Moses not relevant in today's climate? is it religious or purely political?

 

Let's look at it from a political side? if the laws are there to make life better for people, how will killing the entire sum of people in your way help them? won't it hurt them? if they were to live, and you were not to agree, then it is your gift of life you spend making them live your way? this is like slavery, something that we all agree is wrong. if slavery is right, then take slaves and get arrested - god has given you free will, and the state has made you free. how would you like to be a slave? if you take slaves, and tell them how to live, well, then they will hate you and the law will hate you, and their families will hate you, and so forth, but you will have slaves.

 

How much is a slave worth to you? they will kill you the first chance they get, through, well, terrorism. it is impossible to make all happy.

[AnssiH]

You seem to be wondering about why are there such things as terrorists?

 

Terrorist is a ridiculous umbrella term that is far too easy to throw around, and use it to make people stop asking any questions. Call someone a terrorist and they instantly have an idea in their head that causes them to stop asking further questions. The whole term is very much emotionally charged in the minds of most people.

 

A straightforward definition for the word "terrorist" is someone who tries to achieve their goals by creating terror in the minds of their opponents via violence or threat of violence.

 

But in actual fact everyone use the term terrorist to only refer to their opponents. No one calls those "terrorists" terrorists (see the above definition), that they happen to politically agree with.

 

The CIA torture was called "enhanced interrogation techniques done for the purpose of national security" when done by oneself. Yet the same thing is called terrorism when done by one's opponents.

 

So I would say there has been plenty of successfull terrorists, and I would not call Hitler or Stalin as successful. Succesful ones are the victors who do not see nor call themselves terrorists.

 

Beyond the definition I gave above, there is no good legal definition for terrorism because every country trying to create a legal definition would also have to somehow try and justify their own acts of terror, meaning they have to find a way to define terrorism in a way that doesn't apply to their own actions. The world is full of state-funded terrorism, so a humanistic legal definition is simply not possible.

 

When I see an article that such and such person was arrested because of connection to terrorism, with no further explanation, all I see is ignorance. Most people live in this weird bubble of semantical ignorance. If you think about it a bit, you will notice how one man's "free" is another man's "slavery".

 

After the 9/11 terror attacks, I was disappointed by how few people actually were interested of asking questions regarding what led to the attacks. Far too many people settled with "well they are evildoers". There are important issues that are worth understanding if we desire to increase global security in the world. But, thinking is hard...

 

I think the increase of global terrorism is mostly due to the world getting smaller (due to technology), and due to failures in global politics in mitigating the conflicts. Piss-poor foreign policies, arising from arrogant ignorance, create terrorism. I think bringing education instead of bombs into problem areas would be far more effective in long term.

 

But, I guess we need the oil now, not two decades from now. :I

[pgrmdave]

You seem to be wondering about why are there such things as terrorists?

 

Terrorist is a ridiculous umbrella term that is far too easy to throw around, and use it to make people stop asking any questions. Call someone a terrorist and they instantly have an idea in their head that causes them to stop asking further questions. The whole term is very much emotionally charged in the minds of most people.

 

A straightforward definition for the word "terrorist" is someone who tries to achieve their goals by creating terror in the minds of their opponents via violence or threat of violence.

 

But in actual fact everyone use the term terrorist to only refer to their opponents. No one calls those "terrorists" terrorists (see the above definition), that they happen to politically agree with.

 

The CIA torture was called "enhanced interrogation techniques done for the purpose of national security" when done by oneself. Yet the same thing is called terrorism when done by one's opponents.

 

So I would say there has been plenty of successfull terrorists, and I would not call Hitler or Stalin as successful. Succesful ones are the victors who do not see nor call themselves terrorists.

 

Beyond the definition I gave above, there is no good legal definition for terrorism because every country trying to create a legal definition would also have to somehow try and justify their own acts of terror, meaning they have to find a way to define terrorism in a way that doesn't apply to their own actions. The world is full of state-funded terrorism, so a humanistic legal definition is simply not possible.

 

When I see an article that such and such person was arrested because of connection to terrorism, with no further explanation, all I see is ignorance. Most people live in this weird bubble of semantical ignorance. If you think about it a bit, you will notice how one man's "free" is another man's "slavery".

 

After the 9/11 terror attacks, I was disappointed by how few people actually were interested of asking questions regarding what led to the attacks. Far too many people settled with "well they are evildoers". There are important issues that are worth understanding if we desire to increase global security in the world. But, thinking is hard...

 

I think the increase of global terrorism is mostly due to the world getting smaller (due to technology), and due to failures in global politics in mitigating the conflicts. Piss-poor foreign policies, arising from arrogant ignorance, create terrorism. I think bringing education instead of bombs into problem areas would be far more effective in long term.

 

But, I guess we need the oil now, not two decades from now. :I

I'm not sure that there is an increase in global terrorism - I know that worldwide violence is down significantly over the past century or so.

 

As for a definition of terrorism, I think that the best definitions I've seen tend to include some combination of the following:

 

- committed by an organized group (not an individual)

- the act is designed to be public/advertising/etc. A murder in the middle of the night where a body is dumped in the river isn't terrorism, but that same murder done in the middle of the day, or where the body is left to be displayed gruesomely to the public after, could be. Terrorism isn't quiet, it's a media campaign of sorts.

- done to incite fear/terror in pursuit of goals - the act itself is rarely the goal. Killing the head of a rival gang so that you can take over territory? The actual elimination of the threat was the goal. Killing a bunch of rival gang members and sending their heads to their friends? That's an act, committed by an organized group, designed to be seen (by the target audience), and done in order to scare the opposition into becoming less of a threat.

 

Some acts of war fall under this definition, but most of them do not. Most fighting is done to achieve a military or political goal, not to have a goal of frightening the opposing side(s), and it's not frequently done in order to be public (even if it is done in the open).

[Eclogite]

Was the fire bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism?

[sanctus]

 

After the 9/11 terror attacks, I was disappointed by how few people actually were interested of asking questions regarding what led to the attacks. Far too many people settled with "well they are evildoers". There are important issues that are worth understanding if we desire to increase global security in the world. But, thinking is hard...

 

I think the increase of global terrorism is mostly due to the world getting smaller (due to technology), and due to failures in global politics in mitigating the conflicts. Piss-poor foreign policies, arising from arrogant ignorance, create terrorism. I think bringing education instead of bombs into problem areas would be far more effective in long term.

 

But, I guess we need the oil now, not two decades from now. :I

 

Completely agree on that, going to Afghanistan was the most stupid thing to do, revenge instead of thinking about what led to it (over-simplified by bush (does not deserve a capital b) as: eye for an eye or "with or against us" (the latter not allowing for any gray zone))

[CraigD]

To be scientific in the discussion of political things, it’s crucial to clearly define terms. The key one for this thread is abstract noun “terrorism”, and the related concrete one, “terrorist”.

 

When I was formally introduced to the terms, via a public school social studies class, I was given a pleasantly simple definition along the line of

“terrorism is activity intended to influence social, business, government or political behavior or policy though the use of fear of violence”.

For example, terrorists might destroy a plane or train, killing its passengers, to demonstrate that they could do so again, then demand a change in policy from the government of those passengers, such as ceasing support of a government the terrorists oppose, using fear of that future violence to influence that government.

 

By this simple standard, most acts or merely threats of war are terrorism, so the answer to plain question such as

Was the fire bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism?

is almost certainly “yes”. The fire bombing of Dresden, while officially claimed at the time to be intended to reduce German war effort manufacturing and transportation capability, was unofficially acknowledged to be intended to demoralize the German people and government by demonstrating that Allied bombers could strike targets at will, and that the German government should give up the war as unwinnable.

 

To distinguish violence and threats of violence of the kind in this 2nd example from that of the 1st, it’s common to add the requirement that terrorism be illegal. By this definition, an plane or train bombing by non-government individuals is terrorism, while a bombing by a legally authorized government-controlled military is not.

 

What are the goals of terrorists, and, do they ever work?

As I explain above, using a simple definition of “terrorist”, their goals are to influence social, business, government or political behavior or policy.

 

I believe terrorism does, sometimes, work.

 

Though my and all interpretations are controversial, based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden was influential in the planning and supportive of the 9/11 attacks, and from his published writing on the subject, the goal of those attacks was to provoke an attack by the US and its allies on many states in the former Ottoman empire, resulting in a rise of a pan-Islamic state. Assuming that ISIL is, as its leaders claim, such a state, these goals were achieved, by their expected means.

 

You seem to be wondering about why are there such things as terrorists?

I think the question “why are there terrorists?” is more important than “does terrorism ever work?”

 

I believe people become terrorists when they feel disenfranchised, unable to have their needs and grievances adequately addressed by government and other legal agencies. In short, most terrorism is, I believe, a last resort by people unable to find a more socially acceptable alternative.

 

If this is correct, then the answer to an even more important question “how do we reduce terrorism?” is by promoting governments and other social agencies and systems perceived by their citizens as just and effective.

[pgrmdave]

By this simple standard, most acts or merely threats of war are terrorism, so the answer to plain question such as

is almost certainly “yes”. The fire bombing of Dresden, while officially claimed at the time to be intended to reduce German war effort manufacturing and transportation capability, was unofficially acknowledged to be intended to demoralize the German people and government by demonstrating that Allied bombers could strike targets at will, and that the German government should give up the war as unwinnable.

...

I believe people become terrorists when they feel disenfranchised, unable to have their needs and grievances adequately addressed by government and other legal agencies. In short, most terrorism is, I believe, a last resort by people unable to find a more socially acceptable alternative.

So the Allied Powers felt disenfranchised and used a last resort because they were unable to find a socially acceptable alternative?

 

I think a simpler explanation was earlier in your response: Terrorism does, sometimes, work. It can be terribly effective at *making yourself heard*. Maybe you don't achieve the end political goals, but you'll be sure that people will know who you are and what you want when you blow up planes/buildings/sporting events.

[AnssiH]

To distinguish violence and threats of violence of the kind in this 2nd example from that of the 1st, it’s common to add the requirement that terrorism be illegal. By this definition, an plane or train bombing by non-government individuals is terrorism, while a bombing by a legally authorized government-controlled military is not.

 

As I explain above, using a simple definition of “terrorist”, their goals are to influence social, business, government or political behavior or policy.

Still on the topic of "legal" definitions of terrorism, a legal definition indeed really is just an attempt to avoid calling one's own acts of terror terrorism. For example, if US had lost the war to Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, those two events would be considered the two biggest terror attacks in the history of the world, with quite comfortable margin. And even considering just the conventional attacks, Robert McNamara said himself that his superiors in charge of the conventional bombing raids in Japan were well aware that they would be charged and convicted for war crimes if they lose the war (implying Robert himself agrees).

 

The normal defense for not calling them terror attacks is just the usual meaningles semantics. "It was justified because X", "it saved lives", "it was war". While context is important in deeper understanding, as far as defining terrorism goes, adding these disclaimers just gets you into the land where the victors get to decide what's justified; exactly what "history is written by the victors" means. Semantics truly is a great weapon to confuse people into thinking A is not A.

 

On the topic of war crimes, the allied soldiers committed mass raping of german women after WW2, something also not too often mentioned. Although not really an act of terror as there was nothing politically to gain anymore, but just an interesting case of how some things about history are played down for political reasons.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany

 

Oh but don't worry, as most western scholars agree it was the Russians who dunnit! Yay us!

 

I believe terrorism does, sometimes, work.

 

Though my and all interpretations are controversial, based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden was influential in the planning and supportive of the 9/11 attacks, and from his published writing on the subject, the goal of those attacks was to provoke an attack by the US and its allies on many states in the former Ottoman empire, resulting in a rise of a pan-Islamic state. Assuming that ISIL is, as its leaders claim, such a state, these goals were achieved, by their expected means.

On that note, one really important factor to be conscious of is indeed that anyone committing an act of terror has got some expectations as to the outcome of those acts. For someone who wants to create an islamic state in the middle east, it is hard to gain support for the idea on the global theater by murdering few thousand people on the other side of the globe. For that reason I would assume these types of attacks are typically committed by somewhat delusional and desperate individuals.

 

Any sane person can recognize beforehand that the actual outcome of the act would be the exact opposite. That is why it is important to recognize that there really are people in the world who see it as politically useful to incite conflict. There are people who want exactly the kind of expected reaction that we got. If there were any people capable of basic logic behind the attacks, they would have not been people looking for support for islamic states.

 

The world history is full of well documented and well proven cases of such events. It would be not only naive but also plainly ignorant to think these things do not happen. I just think if you think what can happen game-theoretically (as in think of who can gain from what), that is yield pretty good expectations as to how people with power also behave.

 

On that segway, while I don't believe an organization like US government would have the capability of arranging covertly anything as elaborate as the 9/11 attacks, I do think they did exploit the terror-effects of the events unfairly and to their own political interests in semantically justifying the invasion of Iraq via terror threats, and implying Saddam's politics had a connection to the attacks.

 

I also do think it is entirely possible that the Bush government chose to not follow up on well known security risks because they knew that if a terror attack happens, it would be useful for them.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us/august-01-brief-is-said-to-warn-of-attack-plans.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

They might not have a way of knowing how big an attack it would be, but anything could be useful in the argument to invade Iraq. It is well documented that invasion of Iraq was their goal a long time before 9/11 purely for political reasons.

 

I think the question “why are there terrorists?” is more important than “does terrorism ever work?”

 

I believe people become terrorists when they feel disenfranchised, unable to have their needs and grievances adequately addressed by government and other legal agencies. In short, most terrorism is, I believe, a last resort by people unable to find a more socially acceptable alternative.

 

If this is correct, then the answer to an even more important question “how do we reduce terrorism?” is by promoting governments and other social agencies and systems perceived by their citizens as just and effective.

Indeed. I think promoting education and social well-being across the globe would be far more effective in reducing terrorism than bombing people and making their lives even more miserable.

 

It is truly amazing to me that such high caliber people as Dick Cheney can defend the CIA torture policy on the grounds that those acts yielded answers they needed to improve national security. Ignoring entirely how many new terrorists they created with that policy alone.

 

Like I said before, I think the world is becoming smaller, and geo-politics are not up to speed with reality. I think we have seen the ill-effects of seriously failed policies in the last 15 years.

 

You don't combat uneducated people with bombs, you combat them with education. Every bomb dropped on a terrorist will create new terrorists out of his neighbors. If your policy is to use bombs to destroy terrorism, you can't stop until you are the only one on earth. And still there would be one terrorist left...

[pgrmdave]

Indeed. I think promoting education and social well-being across the globe would be far more effective in reducing terrorism than bombing people and making their lives even more miserable.

Except that multiple experts disagree. The data suggests that neither education nor poverty are leading causes of terrorism.

[AnssiH]

Except that multiple experts disagree. The data suggests that neither education nor poverty are leading causes of terrorism.

That's quite interesting information. Especially considering that the correlation between poor conditions and radicalism is also quite obvious. In poor conditions more people are ready to go into more extreme lengths to improve their prospects, and that's where radical movements gain popularity.

 

Perhaps international high profile terror attacks are more likely to be executed by more educated (but equally frustrated) people? Maybe these people are more likely to get through the vetting process in terror organizations to execute international attacks? Or maybe the more educated people who find themselves in a country with poor prospects and unemployment, are also more aware of how things are in the outside world and thus are more likely to perceive their problems as resulting from international geopolitics?

 

I thought this article contains a lot of reasonable thoughts about this issue;

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2009/9/summer%20fall%20radicalism%20taspinar/summer_fall_radicalism_taspinar.pdf

 

I do agree with the writer that pretending that lack of education and poverty has got no connection to radicalism is quite silly. And it's interesting observation that there are a lot of educated young people in messed up countries who have just educated into unemployment and frustration over their situation.

[Eclogite]

For thousands of generations humans have had to fight. It's not the only thing we evolved to do, but we got quite good at it. In a world that is, for most people, surprisingly peaceful, this leaves an unresolved instinct to be satisfied. (If you doubt this, consider what kind of computer games are most popular.) It is therefore unsurprising that a proportion of people decide to engage that instinct. It doesn't need a reason, other than "it feels right".

[HydrogenBond]

A terrorist is a coward, who needs bluster, to appear more than they are. The bully will pick on the kids who will not or cannot fight back. This looks tough, on the surface, because of the fear in the victims eyes, but is really an illusion of tough. Terrorists needs to pick on the women and children, because these can't or won't fight back. 

 

One can appear to rise above if you can force your adversary to stand in a hole. The bully picks on kids in the hole (can't compete this way), so he appear to be taller or tougher. He will not pick on those on the same level. 

 

The school yard bully will terrorize the weak kids. The bully knows they can beat these kids. Since this looks tough, due to the fear and bluster, other students will be caught up in the fear and may try to befriend the bully, because it is better to be a bully's friend, than his next victim.

 

Now the bully has a gang of loose associates, who are there for their own self defense against the bully. Some may even point out the next victim to avoid the bully seeing them. Now as a gang, the bully can pick on the slightly bigger and tougher kids, who are less in a hole, because the gang becomes an extension of the bully. This larger bully image inhibits a full response from the stronger victim. If he hits the bully and knocks him down, the fear is the gang will come in, pin him down, to be beat 10 times worse by the bully; he is placed in a hole by the gang. 

 

Because of the bluster of the bully and his gang, the tougher victim may not understand the gang wants the victim to fight back, and kick the bully;s butt, so they can be free. They are only there out of fear and would like to escape the bully, but can do so only if he loses. They will sit back and wait to make sure before they act, hoping to escape but prepared to remain associates if the bully is able to win.  

Edited March 22, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[pgrmdave]

I don't understand, are you talking about the US and NATO?