News Why do terrorists target civilians?

[kasse]

I try again. What are the reasons that terrorism exist? What are the motives of the terrorists? And how can we put an end to it?

 

[Cyrus]

3...2...1...warning.

 

[Esnas]

Instead of the word "terrorism" substitute "war and violence". I think that the answers are the same.

 

[kasse]

3...2...1...warning.

Wow! Congratulations on that one!

 

[Astronuc]

Along the lines of Esnas's response, one might ask "why does aggression exist?"

In psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain. Aggression can be either physical or verbal, and behavior is classified as aggression even if it does not actually succeed in causing harm or pain. Behavior that accidentally causes harm or pain is not aggression. Property damage and other destructive behavior may also fall under the definition of aggression. Aggression is not the same thing as assertiveness.

Aggression is a perplexing phenomenon. Why are people motivated to hurt each other? How does violence help organisms to survive and reproduce? After two centuries of theories and technological advances, psychologists and other scientists have been able to look deeply into aggression's biological and evolutionary roots, as well as its consequences in society.

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

How to mitigate anger/aggression - http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/b-anger.htm

Underlying anger is caused by a perceived loss of control over factors affecting important values. One could substitute values for beliefs, and it's not just religious beliefs, but could be cultural or tribal beliefs.

http://www.aboutourkids.org/aboutour/articles/aggression.html

I read recently that more than 100,000 Americans have been murdered during the last 6 years, or slightly more than 16,000 homicides/yr.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm

Certainly homicide rates are higher in other countries, particular in zones where war and conflict are ongoing.

And I heard some statistic that an estimated 4 million women in the US are subject to some form of abuse or violence each year, and "Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives."

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Certainly homicide rates are higher in other countries, particular in zones where war and conflict are ongoing.

They certainly are. According to this site, the US comes in 37th. There are caveats at the top of the page.
List of countries by homicide rate
Here's a page that shows the figures for US cities. It is way higher than the national average. There are obvious reasons why there would be a higher rate in the city, people are more crowded in there. But are people more aggressive in the city too? Are they angrier, are they more religious? Are they more typical Americans?
murder

 

[russ_watters]

That's off topic, jimmy, but the reason why there is more crime in the cities is simple: there is more poverty in the cities.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's off topic, jimmy, but the reason why there is more crime in the cities is simple: there is more poverty in the cities.

But the correlation between poverty and homicide doesn't hold between countries. Only between city and non-city within a country. The poor in US cities are richer than the rich in countries where the homicide rate is low.

 

[Astronuc]

The poor in US cities are richer than the rich in countries where the homicide rate is low.

Not so. It might be more accurate to say that the poor in US cities are richer than the poor in those countries where homicide rate is high.

Looking at the table of ten safest countries for (from?) murder on benbest.com

The richest people in these countries (particularly Hong Kong and Singapore which have a number of millionaires and billionaires) have wealth comparable to upper 20% in US.
(1) Slovenia 0.7
(2) Austria 0.9
(3) Sweden 1.8
(4) Switzerland 2.3
(5) Israel 2.3
(6) Hong Kong 2.4
(7) Norway 2.5
(8) Ireland 2.8
(9) Finland 3.7
(10) Singapore 4.3

 

[turbo]

I try again. What are the reasons that terrorism exist? What are the motives of the terrorists? And how can we put an end to it?

I'll try to put this in a bit of perspective. Let's say that country A has a well-financed, well-equipped military, and that they are using this military power against country B, which lacks the resources to confront country A on its terms. Country B then resorts to using an asymmetrical approach - it may target the military and civilians of country A using small-arms, explosives, etc. Often, in an asymmetrical conflict, the country without the resources to fight a conventional war is accused of using terrorism, as if blowing up a crowded market with a suicide bomb is somehow more terrible than blowing up a crowded market with a missile fired from a helicopter. It is important to note that the participants on both sides of an asymmetrical conflict consider themselves to be justified in their actions, or at least they have convinced enough of their countrymen to shut up and allow the conflict to proceed.

If you want to stop terrorism, you have to put an end to the inequalities and oppression that breed terrorism, and you have to make it in the best interests of the parties in conflict to resolve their differences and work together cooperatively. Given the economic, social, and political pressures and the complex histories of some regions in which asymmetrical conflicts are fought, that's a tall order. Declaring a "War on Terror" makes a nice sound-bite for the unwashed masses, but any reduction in asymmetrical conflict will come not from applying more military force (which increases the impetus of the "terrorists" to ramp up their attacks and improve their tactics), but from diplomacy, partnership, trade, etc. When the leaders of political groups are unwilling or unable to bargain with one another, continued conflict is assured.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Not so.
So. I didn't say:

The poor in US cities are richer than the rich in ALL countries where the homicide rate is low.

What I said was:

The poor in US cities are richer than the rich in countries where the homicide rate is low.

For instance, Indonesia. QED.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/worldhotnews/read.php?newsid=30038100

Singapore's population of millionaires surged by 21.2 per cent last year to 66,000, the fastest growth rate of any nation. The city-state was followed by India with 20.5 per cent growth in millionaires last, Indonesia with 16 per cent and Russia with 15.5 per cent.

303. Halim, Rachman and family, Indonesia, 55, $1.4, tobacco

But then there are more billionaires in:
28. Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong, 74, $7.8, diversified
42. Kwok, Walter, Thomas and Raymond, Hong Kong, unknown, $6.6, real estate
88. Lee Shau Kee, Hong Kong, 75, $3.7, real estate
101. Kadoorie, Michael and family, Hong Kong, 62, $3.3, diversified
123. Wang, Nina, Hong Kong, unknown, $2.8, real estate
137. Wang, Patrick, Hong Kong, 52, $2.6, micromotors
236. Cheng Yu-tung, Hong Kong, 77, $1.7, real estate
303. Ho, Stanley, Hong Kong, 81, $1.4, gaming


137. Khoo Teck Puat, Singapore, 86, $2.6, banking
236. Kwek Leng Beng and family, Singapore, 62, $1.7, hotels
256. Lee Seng Wee and family, Singapore, 78, $1.6, banking
329. Wee Cho Yaw, Singapore, 74, $1.3, banking


http://www.bestoftulsa.com/html/forbes_list_of_billionaires.shtml


turbo hit upon a key point - that being a disparity between two groups and the perception of injustice which breeds resentment and contempt (or ill will).

There is also the issue of control - and the use of violence to impose control. And violence begets violence.

 

[kasse]

Along the lines of Esnas's response, one might ask "why does aggression exist?"

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

How to mitigate anger/aggression - http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/b-anger.htm

Underlying anger is caused by a perceived loss of control over factors affecting important values. One could substitute values for beliefs, and it's not just religious beliefs, but could be cultural or tribal beliefs.

http://www.aboutourkids.org/aboutour/articles/aggression.html

I read recently that more than 100,000 Americans have been murdered during the last 6 years, or slightly more than 16,000 homicides/yr.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm

Certainly homicide rates are higher in other countries, particular in zones where war and conflict are ongoing.

And I heard some statistic that an estimated 4 million women in the US are subject to some form of abuse or violence each year, and "Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives."

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

But there's one fundamental difference between aggression, conflicts and wars on one side, and suicide attacks on the other side: Suicide bombers actually want to die themselves. In a war setting, soldiers want to kill as many as possible, but also survive.

I know that terrorists are mad at the US and European countries because of their way our way of life. But so are we, aren't we? I am - for one - mad at their stoning innocent people to death, power misuse, brainwashing in school etc etc. But we don't go down there committing suicide bombing. We try to conerse and convince them that democracy is a better way to run a society.

 

[kasse]

I'll try to put this in a bit of perspective. Let's say that country A has a well-financed, well-equipped military, and that they are using this military power against country B, which lacks the resources to confront country A on its terms. Country B then resorts to using an asymmetrical approach - it may target the military and civilians of country A using small-arms, explosives, etc. Often, in an asymmetrical conflict, the country without the resources to fight a conventional war is accused of using terrorism, as if blowing up a crowded market with a suicide bomb is somehow more terrible than blowing up a crowded market with a missile fired from a helicopter. It is important to note that the participants on both sides of an asymmetrical conflict consider themselves to be justified in their actions, or at least they have convinced enough of their countrymen to shut up and allow the conflict to proceed.

If you want to stop terrorism, you have to put an end to the inequalities and oppression that breed terrorism, and you have to make it in the best interests of the parties in conflict to resolve their differences and work together cooperatively. Given the economic, social, and political pressures and the complex histories of some regions in which asymmetrical conflicts are fought, that's a tall order. Declaring a "War on Terror" makes a nice sound-bite for the unwashed masses, but any reduction in asymmetrical conflict will come not from applying more military force (which increases the impetus of the "terrorists" to ramp up their attacks and improve their tactics), but from diplomacy, partnership, trade, etc. When the leaders of political groups are unwilling or unable to bargain with one another, continued conflict is assured.

Many good points here. However, it doesn't explain it all. Most inhabitants in these oppressed countries aren't likely to commit terrorism. They're friendly people who only want peace. The terrorists are the extreme ones; those who have blind faith in a holy book, and who learn in school that they'll go straight to paradice if they blow themselves up in the air and take as many civilians as possible with them.

Off course this phenomena wouldn't exist without inequalities and poverty. But under the "right" circumstances, terrorism will show up when there is religious conviction that a supernatural power is on their side and that they're acting in the name of Allah.

Putting an and to inequalities and American/European influence in the Islamic world is probably the only way to stop terrorism. War on terror is actually the same as ****ing for virginity.

 

[russ_watters]

But the correlation between poverty and homicide doesn't hold between countries. Only between city and non-city within a country. The poor in US cities are richer than the rich in countries where the homicide rate is low.

That's true, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

 

[Astronuc]

We try to conerse and convince them that democracy is a better way to run a society.

Does one mean coerce? If so, it's not working in Iraq or Afghanistan, which are institutionally and politically unstable. The Shii and Sunni have a political and social conflict, and even among Shii there are rival groups fighting each other. The Taliban are at odds with the central government which cannot control the regional warlords. And then throw in indiscriminant use of military force by the US, and the Iraqis are not endeared to democracy.

Even looking within recent US history, even as late at the 1970's, African-Americans were harrassed by the white power structure, particularly in the southern states. The Southern Poverty Law center still tracks the KKK, Aryan Nation and other similar groups.

On August 12, 2007 a Mexican-American was beaten by several white males who claimed they were part of the Aryan Nations.

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/24/08242007wacwestfollow.html

or
Aryan Nation leader reaches out to al Qaeda
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/

or how about Eric Rudolf
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/25/schuster.excerpt.01/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

One can claim that examples from the US are exceptions, but then so are the terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere.

 

[turbo]

Many good points here. However, it doesn't explain it all. Most inhabitants in these oppressed countries aren't likely to commit terrorism. They're friendly people who only want peace. The terrorists are the extreme ones; those who have blind faith in a holy book, and who learn in school that they'll go straight to paradice if they blow themselves up in the air and take as many civilians as possible with them.

Off course this phenomena wouldn't exist without inequalities and poverty. But under the "right" circumstances, terrorism will show up when there is religious conviction that a supernatural power is on their side and that they're acting in the name of Allah.

Putting an and to inequalities and American/European influence in the Islamic world is probably the only way to stop terrorism. War on terror is actually the same as ****ing for virginity.

You're making some assumptions here that are fundamentally wrong. You can find religious or political extremists willing to resort to terrorism anywhere in the world. For instance, there are people in this country that are willing to kill doctors, nurses, and social workers who are involved in arranging or providing abortions.

There are people in our own government who are willing to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people to get access to the natural resources of another country. The people of that country might justifiably accuse our troops of terrorism, though the media portrays the military actions as "peace-keeping", "stabilization", etc. Terrorism involves keeping people insecure and fearful to compel them to act in a way that will satisfy the aggressor's political or economic (usually) aims. Our government destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and dismantled its governmental and military organizations. People in Iraq fear being killed by our military, the paramilitary mercenary "contractors", and militias from rival sects or even rival clans within a sect. That's terrorism. So don't lay that label on others lightly. The difference between "military action" and "terrorist attack" often lies in the bias of the person doing the labeling.

 

[edward]

He who has the most bombs doesn't have to use terrorists tactics to kill their perceived enemy. Shock and awe seems to work quite well.

Terrorism and the suicide issue has strong religious ties. I doubt that there are any atheists walking around wearing belts loaded with C4.

 

[kasse]

You're making some assumptions here that are fundamentally wrong. You can find religious or political extremists willing to resort to terrorism anywhere in the world. For instance, there are people in this country that are willing to kill doctors, nurses, and social workers who are involved in arranging or providing abortions.

There are people in our own government who are willing to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people to get access to the natural resources of another country. The people of that country might justifiably accuse our troops of terrorism, though the media portrays the military actions as "peace-keeping", "stabilization", etc. Terrorism involves keeping people insecure and fearful to compel them to act in a way that will satisfy the aggressor's political or economic (usually) aims. Our government destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and dismantled its governmental and military organizations. People in Iraq fear being killed by our military, the paramilitary mercenary "contractors", and militias from rival sects or even rival clans within a sect. That's terrorism. So don't lay that label on others lightly. The difference between "military action" and "terrorist attack" often lies in the bias of the person doing the labeling.

I know there are people in the US willing to kill doctors who help women with abortions. Why is that? It's bacause they're fundamentalists, that is: they have blind belief in holy scriptures, which they read literally. I think fumdamentalism is the main reason why terrorism exists. It isn't enough with inequality and poverty. It also takes some madness. So, to fight terrorism, we must fight fundamentalism. We must encourage reason and rationality in those countries were terrorism has many of its roots.

And yes, you're right: media makes us think that only the arab countries are terrorists. From their point of view, the western countries are the real terrorists, while THEY are fighting a war for freedom.

 

[turbo]

And yes, you're right: media makes us think that only the arab countries are terrorists. From their point of view, the western countries are the real terrorists, while THEY are fighting a war for freedom.

The British probably viewed the American colonists as terrorists, too. To meet the British troops and their Hessian mercenaries in formation in empty fields would have been disastrous. A better tactic for the inferior force is to hide behind rocks, trees, and fences and ambush the enemy. Darned terrorists!

 

[devil-fire]

terrorism exists because it can be an effective tactic for political change. blitzkrieg was an effective tactic in world war 2 and was used with great short term effectiveness to facilitate political change. it was used until opposing forces made a strategy to counter the tactic. unfortunately terrorism is not a simple military tactic and simple military counter tactics don't seem to be vary effective at combating terrorism at the moment.

the motives of a terrorist are often not the reasons behind terrorism. often, young people are duped into becoming terrorists with false information (eg. boons in an afterlife, financial support for family members, or that the targets are deserving of attack). the specific cause of terrorism is tough to pin down exactly, but it can have a lot to do with a perceived lack of other options of attack.

 

[russ_watters]

The British probably viewed the American colonists as terrorists, too. To meet the British troops and their Hessian mercenaries in formation in empty fields would have been disastrous. A better tactic for the inferior force is to hide behind rocks, trees, and fences and ambush the enemy. Darned terrorists!

That's a bastardization of the definition of the word "terrorist". Colonial soldiers were organized into a military structure and wore uniforms. And more importantly, they only attacked other soldiers. That's nowhere close to the definition of "terrorism".

I'm always the pedant when it comes to this word, but people intentionally misuse it here. It has an objective definition. Stick to it. Intentional misuse is transparent.

 

[russ_watters]

He who has the most bombs doesn't have to use terrorists tactics to kill their perceived enemy. Shock and awe seems to work quite well.

That's true, but incomplete. Terrorists, by the typical definition, do not target the military, they target civilians. So it isn't just about the tactics.

 

[fourier jr]

That's a bastardization of the definition of the word "terrorist". Colonial soldiers were organized into a military structure and wore uniforms. And more importantly, they only attacked other soldiers. That's nowhere close to the definition of "terrorism".

I'm always the pedant when it comes to this word, but people intentionally misuse it here. It has an objective definition. Stick to it. Intentional misuse is transparent.

Here's how the US defines it, as of 2004:

1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/toc.html
That sounds a lot like what the US does in the world incidentally. That's why people call the US a terrorist state. I feel bad for the American politicians who have to try to define terrorism in such a way to make it ok for the US to do what it does, but nobody else. Tthe Americans colonists fighting the British were terrorists also according to this definition.

 

[Werg22]

And more importantly, they only attacked other soldiers.

It's a bit hard to go after non-soldiers when there are practically none. Aside from that , I am of a contention similar to turbo-1's, though there are a few additional points I'd like to make. First and foremost, terrorism is an all encompassing term. To pursue the discussion further, I think it will be necessary to sort out what kind of terrorism we are all speaking of. This said, some truths are transcendental; terrorism arises from conflicts in which one side considerably overpowers the other. This conflict needs not to be military, it can very well be of ideological nature. And what's more, terrorism can evolve in scope and in ideals. This happens, for example, when those at the control of large organized groups, namely religious factions, take side with those labeled as terrorists. Religious ideas start tangling with the original ideals and before long a dogma absorbs another.

 

[Esnas]

That's a bastardization of the definition of the word "terrorist". Colonial soldiers were organized into a military structure and wore uniforms. And more importantly, they only attacked other soldiers. That's nowhere close to the definition of "terrorism"...

When the conflict first started, the old history books tell us that the “colonial resistance” dressed as so called “Indians” and raided the British ships throwing precious commodities overboard. It took a while before the rich Colonial landed gentry could provide uniforms for the cause. In the meantime, Loyalist did not fare too well with the Colonial resistance even if they were civilian. Not everyone agreed with the cry for independence. If a civilian was suspected of harboring sympathies for the British he could be assassinated for treason! That is if the civilian was white. The First Nations people (Native Americans) shared a different fate. If some or many of the men of villages sided with the Loyalists, then men, women and children of the village were attacked as enemy. If the entire nation was neutral, they were also attacked and/or driven out. (Let them go to Canada!) Those nations that sided with general G. Washington and the revolution were also driven out (can’t be trusted). This means that their homes, cornfields, and other agricultural lands were put to the blaze. I could go on to talk about the general’s attacks on Canada but I think that this is enough. If this interest you, you may read any reliable history book on the American Northeast Nations of the Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Mohawk, Massachuset, Abenaki, etc for more information.

My question is this:
In accordance with your definition does this count as terrorism?

 

[Moridin]

Terrorism in a world where resources are scarce and identifying labels are strong is not really that strange.

 

[DaveC426913]

When the conflict first started, the old history books tell us that the “colonial resistance” dressed as so called “Indians” and raided the British ships throwing precious commodities overboard. It took a while before the rich Colonial landed gentry could provide uniforms for the cause. In the meantime, Loyalist did not fare too well with the Colonial resistance even if they were civilian. Not everyone agreed with the cry for independence. If a civilian was suspected of harboring sympathies for the British he could be assassinated for treason! That is if the civilian was white. The First Nations people (Native Americans) shared a different fate. If some or many of the men of villages sided with the Loyalists, then men, women and children of the village were attacked as enemy. If the entire nation was neutral, they were also attacked and/or driven out. (Let them go to Canada!) Those nations that sided with general G. Washington and the revolution were also driven out (can’t be trusted). This means that their homes, cornfields, and other agricultural lands were put to the blaze. I could go on to talk about the general’s attacks on Canada but I think that this is enough. If this interest you, you may read any reliable history book on the American Northeast Nations of the Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Mohawk, Massachuset, Abenaki, etc for more information.

My question is this:
In accordance with your definition does this count as terrorism?

I do not believe that driving a people off their land is the same as terrorism.

The concept behind terrorism is to hurt the civilians so that that they desire to effect change in their government.

 

[Esnas]

I do not believe that driving a people off their land is the same as terrorism.

The concept behind terrorism is to hurt the civilians so that that they desire to effect change in their government.

Sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear by the word "attacked". Native Americans were wounded and killed if and when they were found in their villages. No change was desired in their self government. The American Colonial resistance fighters just wanted them eliminated. (By the way, these " Colonial freedom fighters" were no better and no worst than warring people in general.)

 

[Astronuc]

I do not believe that driving a people off their land is the same as terrorism.

Well, it is called 'ethnic cleansing'. Terrorism is one method of encouraging people to leave their land/home - or else they face being killed.

The concept behind terrorism is to hurt the civilians so that that they desire to effect change in their government.

Well, Europeans (colonial and British/French) attacked Indian villages (and opposing Indian tribes were certainly encouraged to do the same) and slaughtered women and children as well as men. This not only destroyed the local Indian population, but it certainly sent a message to other villages that they had better leave or else. Now that is what I would consider terrorism.

And colonists who advocated an American government independent of the British monarchy certainly did target civilian loyalists.

Both sides used partisan warfare but the Americans were particularly effective at suppressing Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Armies.2C_militias.2C_and_mercenaries

In later years, the American military continually attacked Indian populations to drive them from the land. Consider the dispossession of the Cherokee nation and the post-Civil War era, when the US Calvary attacked Indian villages and killed as many civilians as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CRIMINOLOGY OF TERRORISM: HISTORY, LAW, DEFINITIONS, TYPOLOGIES
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/429/429lect01.htm

Terrorism has been around as a major nuisance to governments as long as recorded history. The Bible advocates terror, assassination, and annihilation in several places (see the book of Numbers and book of Joshua). Regicide, or the killing of kings by rivals, and the brutal suppression of loyalists afterwards, has been an established pattern of political ascent since Julius Caesar (44 B.C.). The Zealots in Israel (100 A.D.) fought Roman occupation with hit-and-run tactics in public places. The Assassins in Iraq (1100 A.D.) fought the Christian Crusaders with suicide tactics. The Thuggees in India (1300 A.D.) kidnapped travelers for sacrifice to their Goddess of Terror, Kali. The Spanish Inquisition (1469-1600) dealt with Heretics by systematized torture, and the whole medieval era was based on terrorizing a countryside. The Luddites (1811-1816) destroyed machinery and any symbol of modern technology. A Serb terrorist (1914) started World War I. Hitler's rise to power (1932) involved plans for genocide. Nations like Ireland, Cyprus, Algeria, Tunisia, and Israel probably would have never become republics if not for revolutionary terrorism, and more than a few people would say the United States was founded on terrorism. However defined, it is clear that terrorism has helped shape world history in a variety of ways, and it has long meant different things to different people.

The academic field of what Ross (2006) calls terrorism studies has grown substantially in recent years. Two scholarly journals focus almost exclusively on the subject -- Terrorism and Political Violence and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. . . . .

Hmmm. History seems to repeat itself.

 

[drankin]

Terrorism can be a matter of perspective. But I think we can all agree that killing unhostile, unarmed, defenseless civilians purposefully is a close definition of terrorism.

Going into a market place with a bomb strapped on you with the intent of killing people because they don't agree with their brand of Islam or whatever else, that's terrorism.

How is it stopped? It can't be stopped without a complete annilation of those communities that practice religious conversion by fear of death. So it won't ever be stopped now that world powers are directed by world opinion. It's good, it's bad, it's the way it is.

One day there will be world peace, I believe that, but it may not happen in our lifetime.

 

[fourier jr]

Terrorism can be a matter of perspective.

That's more like it. The Americans to take part in overthrowing a foreign government, attempting to assassinate foreign leaders or bombing hospitals etc aren't terrorists in their own minds. Their victims might disagree though.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, no. Overthrowing a government is NOT the same as terrorism. I think there's a critical component in terrorism that delibertaely targets those who are not seen as responsible. So, attacking a government, by definition, would not be terrorism. It would be war.

 

[Hurkyl]

Attacking an enemy is not terrorism.
Attacking an enemy's family/friends/associates/etc is.

 

[devil-fire]

Well, no. Overthrowing a government is NOT the same as terrorism. I think there's a critical component in terrorism that deliberately targets those who are not seen as responsible. So, attacking a government, by definition, would not be terrorism. It would be war.

the USA and several other countrys' of forum regulars here have supported organizations that target people for killing other then government employees or people involved in forming/enforcing federal policy. i just mean to say the idea of "USA fights evil terrorists on behalf of the greater good" is not founded on history

Attacking an enemy is not terrorism.
Attacking an enemy's family/friends/associates/etc is.

is that not a way to attack your enemy though? not through his weapons systems, his logistical support or communications systems but attacking his will to resist by attacking his family?

"Attacking an enemy" is an extremely broad statement.

 

[Hurkyl]

is that not a way to attack your enemy though? not through his weapons systems, his logistical support or communications systems but attacking his will to resist by attacking his family?

I think there's a fairly clear line between the two; I assume my meaning was clear, despite the semantic loopholes.

 

[kasse]

This clip shows how fundamentalists think:

No wonder why there's war in our world...

There are people all around the world willing to kill you and me -and themselves - because they are motivated by what they think is the highest ideal. Of course politics are important. But as we wake up to this huge challenge to our civilized values, don't let's forget the elephant in the room. An elephant called religion.

The suicide bomber is convinced that in killing for his god, he will be sent directly to a special martyr's heaven. This isn't just a problem of Islam. This is the process of non-thinking called faith, which is also common in Judaism and Christianity.

 

[Art]

Attacking an enemy is not terrorism.
Attacking an enemy's family/friends/associates/etc is.

You really need to explain what you mean by enemy. For example would you classify the following as acts of terrorism or justifiable acts of war?

a) assassinating a Hamas bombmaker.
b) murdering employees of Lockheed Martin

Obviously the thing they both have in common is though neither group are direct combatants both do support frontline forces.

 

[Astronuc]

This clip shows how fundamentalists think:
No wonder why there's war in our world...

That is how one person thinks, and there are others who share similar views. The person being interviewed does make some gross and absurd generalizations about atheists.

There are people all around the world willing to kill you and me -and themselves - because they are motivated by what they think is the highest ideal. Of course politics are important. But as we wake up to this huge challenge to our civilized values, don't let's forget the elephant in the room. An elephant called religion.

If not religion, it is likely that people filled with hate will find some other justification, e.g. race, ethnicity, . . . .

[/QUOTE]The suicide bomber is convinced that in killing for his god, he will be sent directly to a special martyr's heaven. This isn't just a problem of Islam. This is the process of non-thinking called faith, which is also common in Judaism and Christianity.[/QUOTE]But there are many more in those religions who do not practice violence and who do not want to destroy. Don't condemn a large population based on the actions of a minority.

Going back to the OP - Why does terrorism exist? Perhaps one could ask - what are the conditions or what is the environment that breeds terrorism? What is it that causes one to hate another so much?

I think in some/many cases it has much to do with the harsh living conditions - economic deprivation, lack of opportunity, constant fear of attack, . . . . perception of injustice.

Then why not ask - what can we do to mitigate the conditions that lead to terrorism? And then do so.

 

[DaveC426913]

How is it stopped? It can't be stopped without a complete annilation of those communities that practice religious conversion by fear of death.

No. This is the perfect recipe for continuing it.

 

[Evo]

All through history there have been attacks on single people, families, neighboring communities, it was simply a way of life. The difference is that before airplanes, all of this was localized to some extent. Although viking raiders came by boat, most came on foot or horseback long distances and since there were no bombs, there were no cowardly secret attacks, it was pretty much hand to hand combat. Or getting skewed by a sword if you were unarmed. The Romans actually improved living conditions for the people they conquered.

The invention of easily made and concealed explosives, the ability to fly around the world to attack the innocent victims that aren't involved in whatever their perceived gripe is, and instant communication is what makes it terrorism now. They aren't doing it for conquest of land, or food or wealth, which back in history was the most common way of getting ahead. You knew your attackers and you usually had a chance to retaliate.

Terrorists are doing it for some skewed notion that they somehow have the right to make random meaningless attacks on mostly civilian targets, don't really have a clear rational goal and don't bring about the desired results. These groups are relatively small and most don't even have the same cause, some are just plain crazy.

 

[DaveC426913]

Terrorists are doing it for some skewed notion that they somehow have the right to make random meaningless attacks on mostly civilian targets, don't really have a clear rational goal and don't bring about the desired results.

Well, that's a bit disingenuous. There is a sort of rationale in what they're doing - whether we like it or agree with it. They have given up demanding that the West leave their country alone, and have instead concluded that exterminating the west is their only recourse. This being the case, they have further determined that civilians are not inncoent. Any civilians that support the west's ecomony and politics that allows them to occupy the Middle East are the enemy that they are at war with. We may not like it, but that's the rationale.

 

[Werg22]

Well, that's a bit disingenuous. There is a sort of rationale in what they're doing - whether we like it or agree with it. They have given up demanding that the West leave their country alone, and have instead concluded that exterminating the west is their only recourse. This being the case, they have further determined that civilians are not inncoent. Any civilians that support the west's ecomony and politics that allows them to occupy the Middle East are the enemy that they are at war with. We may not like it, but that's the rationale.

Innocent or not doesn't have much to do with it. It's the fact that civilians are more vulnerable that counts.

 

[devil-fire]

Innocent or not doesn't have much to do with it. It's the fact that civilians are more vulnerable that counts.

what does vulnerable have to do with anything? being vulnerable has no impact on the legitimacy of a strategic target in a conflict of force

 

[BillJx]

I don't know anything but that doesn't stop anyone else from having an opinion. Why should I be special? So here goes my simple thoughts:

1) America does have enemies.
2) Going head to head on the battleground with the U.S. military isn't really an option. So they are pretty well confined to some kind of guerilla warfare.
3) In general, war is good for psychopaths. Guerilla warfare is particularly up their alley. So a guerilla war is likely to propel psychopaths into positions of influence. The original cause then becomes a cloak of righteousness for a new cause: mayem.
4) Any country and any culture produces a percentage of people who are attracted to violence.
5) Any country and any culture produces a percentage of people who are prone to moral extremism. These people seem to lack a type of judgement - - it's all or nothing. We all know at least a few of these radical extremists who've taken some moral issue to heart. In some countries, the outlet for such personalities is the opportunity to die gloriously.
5) Cause + psychopathic perversion of the cause + idealistic volunteers = terrorism

Terrorism can not be justified by its cause. If those who fight for a cause want to be heard, the world must demand that they purge the psychopaths from their ranks. War, unfortunately, still has its place in world politics. Guerilla war is as valid as any, provided the targets are valid. But terrorism is a perversion of war.

 

[DaveC426913]

Terrorism can not be justified by its cause.

I don't recall anyone suggesting terrorism was justified.

If those who fight for a cause want to be heard, the world must demand that they purge the psychopaths from their ranks. War, unfortunately, still has its place in world politics. Guerilla war is as valid as any, provided the targets are valid. But terrorism is a perversion of war.

Yeah, all you people-fighting-for-your-beliefs - you better follow the rules. :grin:

 

[Evo]

Wow Dave, you killed the entire P&WA forum. Not a single post has been made all day.

 

[BobG]

That is how one person thinks, and there are others who share similar views. The person being interviewed does make some gross and absurd generalizations about atheists.

If not religion, it is likely that people filled with hate will find some other justification, e.g. race, ethnicity, . . . .

The suicide bomber is convinced that in killing for his god, he will be sent directly to a special martyr's heaven. This isn't just a problem of Islam. This is the process of non-thinking called faith, which is also common in Judaism and Christianity.

But there are many more in those religions who do not practice violence and who do not want to destroy. Don't condemn a large population based on the actions of a minority.

Going back to the OP - Why does terrorism exist? Perhaps one could ask - what are the conditions or what is the environment that breeds terrorism? What is it that causes one to hate another so much?

I think in some/many cases it has much to do with the harsh living conditions - economic deprivation, lack of opportunity, constant fear of attack, . . . . perception of injustice.

Then why not ask - what can we do to mitigate the conditions that lead to terrorism? And then do so.

Is religion the motivation for terrorism or is terrorism the motivation to become religious -http://www.slate.com/id/2173561/nav/tap2/.

One of the things Bin Laden likes to boast about is the increased rates in people converting to Islam since 9/11. There's also an awful lot of converts that become suicide bombers. It's almost as if a little success draws all of the crazies out of the woodwork and assigning them suicide missions gets the scariest out of the hair of the terrorists as well as fulfills a mission for the terrorists.

Those that think Bin Laden doesn't matter any more are wrong. As long as Bin Laden and Al-Qaida appear successful and remain fashionable, a large number of the borderline deranged no longer just wander around spouting things they'd like to do - they actually see a channel to focus their anger through. Eliminate Bin Laden and let Al-Qaida go out of fashion and terrorism drops back to low levels (at least until some other group manages a success that captures the headlines for extended periods of time).

 

[drankin]

Man, what happened to the days when crazies just drank KoolAid and were done with it?

 

[Astronuc]

Is religion the motivation for terrorism or is terrorism the motivation to become religious -http://www.slate.com/id/2173561/nav/tap2/.

I think it more a matter of the converts feeling alienated in their respective cultures and thus are susceptible to a charismatic leader or movement. I don't see those prone to terrorism as necessarily being 'religious', but rather nihilistic, and certainly zealous. I also see a lack of conscientiousness, and more of a pathological behavior.

If one believes that one's culture or community is defective or deficient, then one should find a positive way to change it rather than try to destroy it.