Why do terrorists target civilians?

[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.

 

[devil-fire]

I don't recall anyone suggesting terrorism was justified.

what does it mean if terrorism is or is not justified anyway? its not like it being declared unjustified will make it less common, or vise versa.

 

[russ_watters]

The answer to the question is self-evident, but the question is nevertheless important for deciding what to do about it. That's the whole reason people intentionally obfuscate the definition.

 

[russ_watters]

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

That sounds a lot like what the US does in the world incidentally. That's why people call the US a terrorist state.

No one who matters. If people who mattered really believed that, the UN would be opening up war crimes actions against the US.

Again, you are simply blame-shifting and abusing the definition.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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

If you'd like to call the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorism, be my guest. But you'll still need to differentiate it from what we see today: No one died at the Boston Tea party and it does not change the nature of what is going on today.

Yes, there is a thin line between vandalism and terrorism in some cases (see: ecoterrorism), but that line is not something that is relevant to this thread. In this thread, we are talking about the obvious, self-evident brand of terrorism against people. Intentionally obfuscating the discussion by bringing up things that come close to the fuzzy line doesn't do anything to change the nature of things that smack the definition right in the center.

 

[Astronuc]

Well - Bin Laden appearance stirs uneasiness in Arab world
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070909/ts_nm/binladen_arabs_dc

DUBAI (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden's first video in almost three years has drawn enthusiastic support from al Qaeda supporters but other Muslims in the Arab world seem less impressed, and wary of new violence.

Marking the sixth anniversary of the group's September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities, the Saudi-born militant described the United States as vulnerable, a message some of his followers saw as a sign a new operation might be approaching.

Analysts were divided as to whether the appearance was intended to inspire new attacks.

. . . .

Many repeated the same phrase verbatim, while others expressed happiness at seeing bin Laden, who is widely believed to be hiding out in mountains on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

It seems that the majority of folks are tired and weary of the belligerent, arrogant and hostile rhetoric of bin Laden and associates. Not to mention the insincerity.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The bomb that bomb-maker is making is intended for use in a terrorist act.

The Lockheed Martin employee (lets assume he builds warplanes, though you didn't specify) is building legal military devices.

The line between the two is crystal clear. They are not the same.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The bomb that bomb-maker is making is intended for use in a terrorist act.

The Lockheed Martin employee (lets assume he builds warplanes, though you didn't specify) is building legal military devices.

The line between the two is crystal clear. They are not the same.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to ask for further clarification.

Inasmuch as the players in this conflict are concerned, by whose definition are the military devices "legal"?

 

[BobG]

Well - Bin Laden appearance stirs uneasiness in Arab world
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070909/ts_nm/binladen_arabs_dc
It seems that the majority of folks are tired and weary of the belligerent, arrogant and hostile rhetoric of bin Laden and associates. Not to mention the insincerity.

That makes we wonder about the surge's impact on the Anbar province. The bulk of the surge was intended to stabilize Baghdad and provide an environment where the government might function and 4,000 out of the surge were to aid a Sunni anti-Al-Qaeda movement that started last fall. There's more to the push against Al-Qaeda than just the violence they cause. It's also a push against overly controlling Islamic fundamentalism. Whatever else you might say about Sunni Iraq, it's recent history has been a secular culture that wanted to enjoy the wealth created by oil - at least until Hussein invaded Kuwait and isolated Iraq to a large extent.

A government with a more religious emphasis might go over better in the Shiite sections that were more likely to be repressed than to reap the benefits of a good economy, but even in the Shiite sections it would be more of a class conflict than a secular-religious conflict. Al-Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't be the likely beneficiaries since they are much more tightly bound to the idea of Sunni Islam than the international Al-Qaeda movement.

Regardless of the motivations for souring on Al-Qaeda philosophy, I think Charles Krauthammer has a better chance of being right about the impact than those fearing we're just arming a future enemy - The Partitioning of Iraq. In fact, if you project out long enough, I'm sure Iraq will break up into three separate nations. The only question is whether the process happens in the next 5 to 15 years (which would fall in the normal range for ethnic civil wars) or whether it takes another one or two hundred years or so (how long it takes if one side maintains Iraq as is by wiping out the ability of the other two sides to fight). Krauthammer might be overly optimistic that a shell of a government would be enough to keep Iraq's neighbors from interfering, though - especially considering the problems between Turkey and Kurds.

 

[devil-fire]

The answer to the question is self-evident, but the question is nevertheless important for deciding what to do about it. That's the whole reason people intentionally obfuscate the definition.

i guess i wasn't vary clear with my question. what i meant to ask with "what does it mean if terrorism is or is not justified anyway?" is "what is the different in reaction to an attack in which people are the target and died and an attack which people died but were not the target". basically, if a conventional attack which damages military resources/personnel as well as kills 10 people as collateral damage, how is this more acceptable then if 10 people are killed in a terrorist attack?

 

[russ_watters]

Inasmuch as the players in this conflict are concerned, by whose definition are the military devices "legal"?

By the internationally recognized definition.

This is not an open question. I'm very confused by your asking it.

 

[russ_watters]

i guess i wasn't vary clear with my question. what i meant to ask with "what does it mean if terrorism is or is not justified anyway?" is "what is the different in reaction to an attack in which people are the target and died and an attack which people died but were not the target". basically, if a conventional attack which damages military resources/personnel as well as kills 10 people as collateral damage, how is this more acceptable then if 10 people are killed in a terrorist attack?

Intent is everything in any crime.

 

[Art]

No one who matters. If people who mattered really believed that, the UN would be opening up war crimes actions against the US.

Again, you are simply blame-shifting and abusing the definition.

That the US has not been charged by the UN is not an indication that all the UN members are happy with the legality of the US's foreign policy such as the illegal invasion of Iraq or in anyway condones such US actions. To suggest the absence of legal procedings makes US actions legal is ridiculous.

Apart from the fact the US never signed up to the World Court, despite being happy to deliver citizens of other countries to stand before it, there is also the non-trivial matter of the US's seat on the permanent security council with it's accompanying veto.

Ultimately though the reason why Bush and co will never face an international court of justice is because when one cuts through all the crap the old maxim of 'might is right' is as true today as it ever was.

 

[Art]

Intent is everything in any crime.

So per your statement if you kill someone through reckless driving you think you won't have committed a crime as it wasn't your intention to kill someone?

I think you're in for a surprise if you ever find yourself in that situation.

 

[Art]

Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The bomb that bomb-maker is making is intended for use in a terrorist act.

The Lockheed Martin employee (lets assume he builds warplanes, though you didn't specify) is building legal military devices.

The line between the two is crystal clear. They are not the same.

Funny, I thought Hamas were the democratically elected governing party of the Palestinian Authority so a bombmaker working for them has equal legitimacy (or if you will illegitimacy) to a bombmaker working for the elected US gov't.

It seems you have fallen for the propaganda always spouted by both sides in a conflict whereby each side claims God is on their side and the other side are terrorists. Most people on this forum are intelligent enough to see through this type of negative marketing campaign and form their own opinions on what actions constitute an atrocity rather than fall for the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' Bush style rhetoric.

For instance in moral terms it can be argued that Hamas have far greater justification for their struggle in Palestine than the US has for their's in Iraq. Hamas are fighting against an occupying force whereas the US are an occupying force.

 

[Hurkyl]

So per your statement if you kill someone through reckless driving you think you won't have committed a crime as it wasn't your intention to kill someone?

You're being silly; barring extenuating circumstances, of course you've committed a crime: criminal negligence. But you certainly haven't committed murder.

 

[Art]

You're being silly; barring extenuating circumstances, of course you've committed a crime: criminal negligence. But you certainly haven't committed murder.

No Hurkyl, this is what was silly

Intent is everything in any crime

. I was merely pointing out the consequences of such a statement.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't see how that rebuts my assertion your post was silly.

 

[Art]

I don't see how that rebuts my assertion your post was silly.

I'm glad to see you agree with me. The statement I quoted, if it were true, would indeed lead to preposterous outcomes. In your post you stated that a crime would have been committed and so you affirm my view that 'intent is everything in any crime' is a nonsensical statement. Nice to have your support.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm confused; why did you quote me saying

I don't see how that rebuts my assertion your post was silly.

if you weren't planning on writing anything related to it?


P.S. I don't see where I agreed with you.

 

[Art]

Read post 68 I explained how there. Then again I was assuming your post actually related to what I had written rather than it just being a random thrown out comment. Perhaps if your interjections consisted of something more than one-liners they would convey greater clarity and less ambiguity and so facilitate a more apt response.

To this end to avoid possible misinterpretations whilst trying to fill in the blanks perhaps it would be more propitious if I just ignored your comments where I believe there is insufficient commentary to understand your actual meaning.

p.s. kind of hard to keep the link between our posts alive when you delete / severely edit the posts I'm replying to.