Message to Terrorists: "You Don't Scare Me

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, we have all heard the terrorists expressing their feelings about the west, so turnaround seems to be fair play. What would you like to say to them?

Here is my message.

You don't scare me. You may have tricked a good number of people into thinking that you are more than a bunch of penny thugs, but I know you for who you are. You are all a bunch of nuts who would have followed any cause that provides a common enemy. You need to hate and kill because that's who you are - any excuse would do. You may have had legitimate issues with US policy in the Middle East, but when you chose to attack the innocent, you proved yourselves to be unworthy of our sympathy or understanding. It is no longer about us, it is all about you.

Perhaps Prozac or anti-psychotic medications would help. In either case, you and your cause will die because you seek to destroy the human spirit and freedom, and that is a battle can that never be won. In the end, all good people will recognize you as vermin that you are.

I am laughing in your face.

Go crawl back into your cave and eat some bugs. As wild animals, that's where you belong.

 

[J77]

"Most of us don't all agree with Mr Blair."

In response to the above post - they haven't tricked us, the Western press tries to tick us. The West attacked them [Iraq]. Why should the US have a Middle East policy? Eat some bugs?!?

 

[TuviaDaCat]

"Most of us don't all agree with Mr Blair."

In response to the above post - they haven't tricked us, the Western press tries to tick us. The West attacked them [Iraq]. Why should the US have a Middle East policy? Eat some bugs?!?

they are here for the camels, have you not heard?

 

[ptabor]

"Most of us don't all agree with Mr Blair."

In response to the above post - they haven't tricked us, the Western press tries to tick us. The West attacked them [Iraq]. Why should the US have a Middle East policy? Eat some bugs?!?

I can't believe what I'm hearing.

You're saying that terrorism is the result of the US invasion of Iraq? Were you born yesterday?

WE got drawn into this fight BY THEIR ATTACK on our soil!

People such as yourself, who fail to see the situation as it really is, are the reason we will lose this war. As soon as more attacks on our soil come, such people will cry out "Oh please mr. terrorist, please don't hurt us! spare us our snivelling pathetic lives! We'll do whatever you want! We'll make our women walk 5 paces behind us, we'll chop off hands for theft, we'll leave women in their house to die if we can find 4 witnesses to testify to their lewdness"

 

[franznietzsche]

"Most of us don't all agree with Mr Blair."

In response to the above post - they haven't tricked us, the Western press tries to tick us. The West attacked them [Iraq]. Why should the US have a Middle East policy? Eat some bugs?!?

Huh?

You do realize that islamic terrorism has been ongoing since the 70s, right?

Or are you as ignorant of history as most people?

 

[physics_girl]

I think YOU are a VICTIM of the US Media...the US government has no business imposing their beliefs or laws in other countries, just look at Cuba, it is a great example...the same is with siding with Israel and doing every possible thing to take away the power from the oil countries (ie Most of Middle East).

Before making any further judgements and replying back, just do a bit of reading...I don't mean the entirely false USA Today or NY times, those are very biased papers...just think about the power that the media has...
TAKE A LOOK at fringe papers, or articles that don't often get published because their truths go against what the government wants us to think...it really is a conspiracy...www.whatreallyhappened.com

it is a great site that will offer you some insight into global perspectives on all the same issues...

www.whatreallyhappened.com <-- Check it out!

 

[Evo]

I think YOU are a VICTIM of the US Media...the US government has no business imposing their beliefs or laws in other countries, just look at Cuba, it is a great example...the same is with siding with Israel and doing every possible thing to take away the power from the oil countries (ie Most of Middle East).

Before making any further judgements and replying back, just do a bit of reading...I don't mean the entirely false USA Today or NY times, those are very biased papers...just think about the power that the media has...
TAKE A LOOK at fringe papers, or articles that don't often get published because their truths go against what the government wants us to think...it really is a conspiracy...

it is a great site that will offer you some insight into global perspectives on all the same issues...

<-- Check it out!

That link is not a valid news source and is most definitely slanted viewpoints.

I'm with Ivan, the terrorists are a blight on this earth.

 

[BobG]

Okay, we have all heard the terrorists expressing their feelings about the west, so turnaround seems to be fair play. What would you like to say to them?

Here is my message.

You don't scare me. You may have tricked a good number of people into thinking that you are more than a bunch of penny thugs, but I know you for who you are. You are all a bunch of nuts who would have followed any cause that provides a common enemy. You need to hate and kill because that's who you are - any excuse would do. You may have had legitimate issues with US policy in the Middle East, but when you chose to attack the innocent, you proved yourselves to be unworthy of our sympathy or understanding. It is no longer about us, it is all about you.

Perhaps Prozac or anti-psychotic medications would help. In either case, you and your cause will die because you seek to destroy the human spirit and freedom, and that is a battle can that never be won. In the end, all good people will recognize you as vermin that you are.

I am laughing in your face.

Go crawl back into your cave and eat some bugs. As wild animals, that's where you belong.

I agree.

Unfortunately, that kind of attitude is in the minority now a days. The prevailing attitude is that the idea of terrorism is scary enough to justify anything and everything - including warrantless surveillance and torture. The fear of terrorism has even extended to include the fear of anyone and anything from the Middle East, as exhibited when DP World bought the company performing US port operations.

Terrorism is a real threat and increasing security is only common sense, but some of the reactions to the threat of terrorism have gone way beyond the actual threat posed.

 

[JasonRox]

I can't believe this thread isn't locked.

 

[physics_girl]

"slanted viewpoints" is exactly it...its information and points of view that are being hidden and kept from us. aren't we intelligent enough to sort through information ourselves, why not provide us with all the information so that we may decide for ourselves...

I agree that terrorism is wrong and does not justify a cause or vice versa, but I do not agree with the way the United States imposes and enforces its views on other countries. Of course people will fight back, and terrorism is just one of those ways...unfortunately, it has violent consequences.

 

[Evo]

I agree that terrorism is wrong and does not justify a cause or vice versa, but I do not agree with the way the United States imposes and enforces its views on other countries. Of course people will fight back, and terrorism is just one of those ways...unfortunately, it has violent consequences.

No, unfortunately crazy terrorists chose to do violence to innocent people.

 

[Anttech]

You don't scare me. You may have tricked a good number of people into thinking that you are more than a bunch of penny thugs, but I know you for who you are. You are all a bunch of nuts who would have followed any cause that provides a common enemy. You need to hate and kill because that's who you are - any excuse would do. You may have had legitimate issues with US policy in the Middle East, but when you chose to attack the innocent, you proved yourselves to be unworthy of our sympathy or understanding. It is no longer about us, it is all about you.

Well I think you covered it nicely.

I would just add, that your philosophy (terrorists) is flaud, because we are all human, and humans can't be perfect...

 

[Zantra]

I can't believe this thread isn't locked.

because we might offend the terrorists ?

regardless of the beliefs a terrorist follows, the actions that are used in the pursuit of those beliefs cannot be justified under any circumstances. Nor can the genocide of innocents. How many of those lost on 9/11 were directly responsible for any US middle eastern policies? Ever? How about zero? Terrorists are scared bullies who are taking the beatings they got from their fathers out on the rest of the school kids unable to defend themselves. They can't attack the true target of their anger, so they lash out at whoever they can get to, which happens to be innocent civilians.

I don't pretend to know the mind of a terrorist, but I know that killing innocent people will not change america's freedoms. If anything it only serves to reinforce the resolution and faith in a system that favors equality. I don't personally believe it's our business to force the rest of the world to follow our belief system, but interference in our business justifies self preservation. We didn't pick the fight (as a whole not just our government) but we're not going to stand around and take a beating like a red headed step child.

People think it's about making people become like america. It's not. It's about freedom of choice, plain and simple. The ideal is bigger than any country. Slavery has many forms. I'd rather die a countryless free man then spend one second under tyranny and oppression, IMHO.

/rant off

 

[Anttech]

Huh?

You do realize that islamic terrorism has been ongoing since the 70s, right?

Or are you as ignorant of history as most people?

Huh? Dont you mean 40's?

 

[Bystander]

He meant 700s, as in 8th century.

 

[russ_watters]

The West attacked them [Iraq].

9/11 (not to mention the Cole and the first WTC bombong) happened before Iraq and Iraq wasn't directly about terrorism.

Why should the US have a Middle East policy? Eat some bugs?!?

Every country needs foreign policy.

For the OP, though, I more or less agree with everything in it, with the main objection being that "penny thugs" don't often kill more than a few people at a time.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Terrorists are so screwed up I can't even begin to understand their logic. A couple of weeks ago I saw this interview with the mother of a "martyr" (a suicide bomber, I think) and she was talking about how proud she was of her son, and how mothers of martyrs have special places of honor, and how pleased Allah was, and yadda yadda yadda. It was the anniversary of her son's death. At one point in the interview she started to cry. She said she was crying tears of happiness.

These people are completely mentally warped.

 

[russ_watters]

A couple of weeks ago I saw this interview with the mother of a "martyr" (a suicide bomber, I think) and she was talking about how proud she was of her son, and how mothers of martyrs have special places of honor, and how pleased Allah was, and yadda yaddda yadda. It was the anniversary of her son's death. At one point in the interview she started to cry. She said she was crying tears of happiness.

These people are completely mentally warped.

That's what scares me the most about terrorism. It is easy to dismiss guys like OBL as unique psychopaths, but the reality is that the way of thinking that supports terrorism is widespread. Brainwashing? Mass psychosis? I don't know, but watever it is, it is very difficult to deal with.

Anyone see "American History X"? It seems to be the same type of thing, to me (racism caused by a poor living environment). What gets the main character thinking in the movie is when someone he respects asks him: "what have you done to improve your situation?" It is easy to blame external sources, but trying to fix your issues yourself is hard. It is simple blame-shifting, and it seems like it is a common component of the human psyche.

 

[franznietzsche]

Huh? Dont you mean 40's?

Well, the earliest thing that popped into my memory was the Munich olympics, and the cruise ship in the mediterranean(just checked, that was actually '85, the Achille Lauro). The first Arab-Israeli plane high jacking was '68.

I don't recall, nor can I find any incidents of islamic terrorism predating that though (no, I'm not going to count the wars of the caliphates pre 1500 AD, that was organized state warfare). Of course, the act of terrorizing civilians to gain power has been around for millennia.

edit: Oh, i found what you were talking about. During British occupation of egypt in WWII, yes?

 

[BobG]

I don't pretend to know the mind of a terrorist, but I know that killing innocent people will not change america's freedoms. If anything it only serves to reinforce the resolution and faith in a system that favors equality. I don't personally believe it's our business to force the rest of the world to follow our belief system, but interference in our business justifies self preservation. We didn't pick the fight (as a whole not just our government) but we're not going to stand around and take a beating like a red headed step child.

People think it's about making people become like america. It's not. It's about freedom of choice, plain and simple. The ideal is bigger than any country. Slavery has many forms. I'd rather die a countryless free man then spend one second under tyranny and oppression, IMHO.

And in equal opportunity?

One thing different about the terrorist threat in the US is that there haven't been any home grown terrorist groups spring up in sympathy with the world wide movement. It makes it a lot easier to defend against terrorism if you're defending against an outside threat instead of an inside threat.

Which emphasizes the point that the US shouldn't respond to the threat of terrorism by forgetting who it is.

 

[Kurdt]

The west has actually been attacked due to its questionable foreign policy toward the middle east. So in a sense it has to take some responsibility for the whole issue, but other than that terrorism is a poor solution to any conflict. If they have a problem then its normally easiest and best to talk about it and I think both sides have been guilty of a lack of communication.

 

[franznietzsche]

Terrorists are so screwed up I can't even begin to understand their logic. A couple of weeks ago I saw this interview with the mother of a "martyr" (a suicide bomber, I think) and she was talking about how proud she was of her son, and how mothers of martyrs have special places of honor, and how pleased Allah was, and yadda yadda yadda. It was the anniversary of her son's death. At one point in the interview she started to cry. She said she was crying tears of happiness.

These people are completely mentally warped.

The situation in the Middle East reminds me of a paper I wrote a few years ago for my IB extended essay on post-independence mexico, and why up until a few years ago mexico was unable to form a stable democracy.

After 3 months and about 10,000 pages of research material the conclusion I reached boiled down to a figurehead problem: the dissolution of the absolute power of the spanish monarch and the church left a power vacuum where no one could maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people--only the church and the kind had those things. The opposing factions would never recognize each other as legitimate no matter what the outcome of elections were. The simple fact was that culturally, the country was not capable of democracy. They lacked the 17th-18th century set of english philosophers that had created a very different culture in the british colonies that permitted elections and stable transitions of power from one faction to another. The culture in mexico had always been one of absolute power, from the days of cortez onward, and so the country could not form a stable government on the basis of anything less than absolute power. The government had always been run on the basis that certain people were above others, by birthright. They could not form a government on the basis of universal equality.

The problem in the middle east is the same, IMO. The culture is one such that the will of the people means roughly nothing. In iraq, the different religious factions will not recognize each other as legitimate. Culturally, the region is not capable of democracy because it is not a culture that recognizes the equality of all people, it does not recognize that all people are equally unfit to rule any others. The religion of islamic terrorists is kinda like Calvinism--everyone else is scum. Go forth and slaughter, and enslave.

 

[franznietzsche]

The west has actually been attacked due to its questionable foreign policy toward the middle east. So in a sense it has to take some responsibility for the whole issue, but other than that terrorism is a poor solution to any conflict. If they have a problem then its normally easiest and best to talk about it and I think both sides have been guilty of a lack of communication.

Ultimately the west was attacked because of the thoroughly bungled end of colonialism, on the part of the British, which resulted in unnatural national boundaries--followed by the efforts of the nations of the west to maintain those boundaries in the pursuit of their own economic interests. But that's splitting hairs. If you want to go back tot he roots of the majority of the problems in the world to day, they can almost universally be blamed on 400 years of european colonialism around the globe. If you want to get even better, you can go back and blame the isolation of China in the late 1400s which was really what allowed the european powers to conquer most of the world, as the chinese were far more advanced and capable at the time. Or you can go back even farther, etc. ad infinitum. But it is neither productive, nor useful to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

After 3 months and about 10,000 pages of research material the conclusion I reached boiled down to a figurehead problem: the dissolution of the absolute power of the spanish monarch and the church left a power vacuum where no one could maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people--only the church and the kind had those things. The opposing factions would never recognize each other as legitimate no matter what the outcome of elections were. The simple fact was that culturally, the country was not capable of democracy. They lacked the 17th-18th century set of english philosophers that had created a very different culture in the british colonies that permitted elections and stable transitions of power from one faction to another. The culture in mexico had always been one of absolute power, from the days of cortez onward, and so the country could not form a stable government on the basis of anything less than absolute power. The government had always been run on the basis that certain people were above others, by birthright. They could not form a government on the basis of universal equality.

The problem in the middle east is the same, IMO. The culture is one such that the will of the people means roughly nothing. In iraq, the different religious factions will not recognize each other as legitimate. Culturally, the region is not capable of democracy because it is not a culture that recognizes the equality of all people, it does not recognize that all people are equally unfit to rule any others. The religion of islamic terrorists is kinda like Calvinism--everyone else is scum. Go forth and slaughter, and enslave.

That's a big discussion, but what of Japan? You may be right, but the fact that Japan had no democratic tradition before WWII gives me hope that perhaps democracy can be based on human nature alone.

 

[russ_watters]

If you want to go back tot he roots of the majority of the problems in the world to day, they can almost universally be blamed on 400 years of european colonialism around the globe.

Agreed, and for most countries in the world, you can examine the transition and pinpoint what went wrong.

-After WWII, especially, Europe simply packed-up and left a lot of countries, leaving them with no government. Most of Africa still hasn't recovered from that.
-Countries that led successful rebellions (the US, India) often fared the best, having a unifying ideological force that helped keep them together after the parent force left. People often forget that the US failed in its first (and arguably second) incarnation, but the unifying force of patriotism kept it together for another try.
-Countries where there was a slow wane in influence by the parent generally did well (Canada, Australia), but that can be tricky (Ireland).

 

[Zantra]

And in equal opportunity?

One thing different about the terrorist threat in the US is that there haven't been any home grown terrorist groups spring up in sympathy with the world wide movement. It makes it a lot easier to defend against terrorism if you're defending against an outside threat instead of an inside threat.

Which emphasizes the point that the US shouldn't respond to the threat of terrorism by forgetting who it is.

Are you saying we don't favor equal opportunity or just expanding my sentence?

I can imagine it's harder to see the american POV when you live in a country where human rights don't exist. I'd imagine it's hard to sympathize with terrorism when you live within the U.S., and get first-hand knowledge of how much freedom we have. And I do agree that we have to develop a more global sense of self and awareness in general. However the rest of the world overall tends to have a skewed picture of america. Watching CNN does not make one an expert on americana. And a large percentage of americans disagree with the way the government has handle things in general over the last 5 years. But people associate the thoughts of one man with an entire nation, and prejudices are formed.

 

[franznietzsche]

That's a big discussion, but what of Japan? You may be right, but the fact that Japan had no democratic tradition before WWII gives me hope that perhaps democracy can be based on human nature alone.

Quite wrong.

In Japan it boils down to the role of the emperor. Because the US allowed the emperor to retain a symbolic role, the central figurehead remained (distinctly not the case in post-independence mexico). When the emperor said, 'Ok, now we surrender to the demands of the americans' the people followed. Further, the reconstruction of the japanese government was unique. The military and civilian leaders/politicians were thrown out. But the massive beauracracy was not. It is the beauracracy of the government ministries that rules Japan, not the elected government. Cabinet ministers have been removed for bucking heads with their supposed underlings, lifelong beauracrats in the government ministries. Such conflicts have crippled government functioning at times. Had we tried to remove the emperor and those beauracrats, I sincerely doubt japan would have gone so smoothly.

edit: I should say that it is the beauracracy that runs the country (Japan), rather than rules.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the OP, though, I more or less agree with everything in it, with the main objection being that "penny thugs" don't often kill more than a few people at a time.

The quality of the individual and the justness of a cause are not measured by the size of the bombs used.

But character issues aside, there are probably thousands of street gangs who would gladly wreak as much havoc. AFAIC, the terrorists are nothing but another gang who got lucky.

During 1993--2000, the age-adjusted homicide rate for the six NVDRS states decreased 29%, from 7.0 to 5.0 per 100,000 population (Figure). During 2000--2002, the age-adjusted homicide rate for the same states increased 6%, from 5.0 to 5.3. In 2003, the six states recorded 1,952 homicides, representing a further increase of 4% (95% CI = -2%--11%) above 2002 rates (Table). In four of the six states, homicide rates increased in 2003, but only an increase in New Jersey was statistically significant. The largest increase in rates was among males aged 0--24 years (18%; CI = 5%--32%); young males accounted for nearly all of the overall homicide increase in 2003. During 2000--2003, the trend test for homicide rates was significant, primarily because of the substantial increase in homicides among males aged 0--24 years.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5415a1.htm

1952 homicides in six states.

And for the record, I was on one of the first flights after 911. I chose to fly on American Airlines. You can be sure that every one of us on that plane were ready to do battle. The pilot suggested using our laptop batteries as weapons if needed.

I also flew out of LaGuardia on about a 7AM flight on American Airlines, on 9/11, 2002.

 

[slugcountry]

Huh?

You do realize that islamic terrorism has been ongoing since the 70s, right?

Or are you as ignorant of history as most people?

well.. if you want to nit pick, modern terrorism was invented by israeilis when they were outing a british occupation at the turn of the last century =)

 

[franznietzsche]

well.. if you want to nit pick, modern terrorism was invented by israeilis when they were outing a british occupation at the turn of the last century =)

Palestinians (to distinguish from the modern israeli state), but yes, as already noted.

 

[slugcountry]

The west has actually been attacked due to its questionable foreign policy toward the middle east. So in a sense it has to take some responsibility for the whole issue, but other than that terrorism is a poor solution to any conflict. If they have a problem then its normally easiest and best to talk about it and I think both sides have been guilty of a lack of communication.

lol, terrorism is the unfortunate result of an imperialistic policy that has by definition no desire to listen to the whims of the conquered.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This isn't about US policy any more. Sure, many of us in the US feel trapped by a corrupt system, but this doesn't make each of us guilty.

The difference between us and them is that they each personally choose to harm innocent people. In my book, that's the definition of slime.

 

[Kurdt]

They choose to harm others under the banner of a religion so one can argue the point that they have not made an informed decision. Rather the system as to which they comit the acts on behalf of has decreed that these acts should take place and anyone claiming to be part of that system should do their bit to defend it. ultimately this comes down to education and rationalising information that is fed to you. The education system in many countries is severely biased and amounts to no more than brain washing.

Unfortunately it seems that whatever they teach can convert people bor in Europe or the US to comit similar atrocities after only a few weeks 'training'. I understand many Muslim's feelings about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I can't believe that from the education they receive in their respective non-middle east countries they can still comit such acts.

There have to be some serious questions asked of a religion that can incite cush acts. with no tangable evidence for the existence of a God a religion is still just an idea, but I get the feeling many people are reluctant nowadays to challenge ideas and certainly by the religious protests we have seen recently, (not just Muslim, but christian and others) many will not have them challenged. In a world that will not further its its pursuit of truth through rational discussion of ideas and principles either from those outside or those inside these organisations then there really is no path forward.

 

[BobG]

Are you saying we don't favor equal opportunity or just expanding my sentence?

I can imagine it's harder to see the american POV when you live in a country where human rights don't exist. I'd imagine it's hard to sympathize with terrorism when you live within the U.S., and get first-hand knowledge of how much freedom we have. And I do agree that we have to develop a more global sense of self and awareness in general. However the rest of the world overall tends to have a skewed picture of america. Watching CNN does not make one an expert on americana. And a large percentage of americans disagree with the way the government has handle things in general over the last 5 years. But people associate the thoughts of one man with an entire nation, and prejudices are formed.

Just expanding on it.

Of the five events that could conceivably be considered terrorist acts since 9/11 only two involved American citizens. The Malvo and Muhammed beltway sniper attacks is kind of dubious as a terrorist act, since it had no political motivation. The only real terrorist act in the US by an American was a single isolated American Muslim opening fire in the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building on Jul 28th this year.

Even the terrorist attacks by foreigners were by single isolated individuals. You had a single Egyptian gunman in the Los Angeles airport in 2002 and the two SUV attacks this year.

The last semi-organized terrorist attack by Americans in the US was the Oklahoma City bombing. Before that, you have to go back another 20 years to the activities of the Black Liberation Army in the late 60's and early 70's and Puerto Rican FALN in the 70's to find any American terrorist group making repeated attacks.

It's hard to organize much of a terrorist group unless you can point to serious injustices and/or lack of any opportunity to improve your life.

One of the reasons terrorism has increased world wide in recent years from Europe to Asia is there's large populations of Muslims that feel their own country has marginalized them. They're already receptive to the kinds of messages Al-Qaeda puts out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It has come to my attention that my words are taken by some in completely the wrong light. Even my wife Tsu described the opening post as “dripping with hate”. Someone else said that he was “shocked by the depth of the hatred”. In return, this interpretation of my words has really shocked me.

As I sat here writing that first post, I was not feeling hatred. I was speaking from a much more practical POV. My message is not that your deeds make me hate you. It is that your actions only serve to convince me that you are subhuman by any standards that I know. Ah, but what of the cultural differences? To that I say, when you attacked NY you took that card off the table. Culture is no excuse for what you have done or what you desire to do. I see the “you have to understand the culture” argument as a complete cop out. There are times when words like this no longer have any meaning. It is as if to say, they don't really know what they're doing. Sure they do. They are each like each of us. We all make our choices about who and what we are.

I have known many Muslims and consider them to be my friends. In fact, two of my best friends grew up in Iran. In all, I have had or still have friends from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the UAE, Libya, Turkey, Pakistan, and probably a few other countries in the area, and I have had no problem working around or understanding our cultural differences. On occasion we have talked openly about our differences and learned to understand each other a little better than before. We have talked plainly about terrorism and US policy in the ME, and I felt anger towards my own government and what we have done. In the end we always find that we have more in common that not; but then they don’t seek to kill innocent people as a matter of personal choice.

Now, if you want to talk about hatred, get me going on Bush and the people controlling him. That’s when I feel hatred.