News Why does terrorism exist?

  • Thread starter kasse
  • Start date
366
0
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?
 
2,903
13
3...2...1...warning.
 
27
0
Instead of the word "terrorism" substitute "war and violence". I think that the answers are the same.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
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 [Broken]

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/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
854
16
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

Mentor
18,979
5,137
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.
 
854
16
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
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

Gold Member
3,028
45
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.
 
854
16
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
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 [Broken]


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
366
0
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 [Broken]

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/ [Broken]
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
366
0
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

Mentor
18,979
5,137
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.
 
Last edited:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,547
1,682
kasse said:
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 [Broken]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
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.
 
38
165
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.
 
366
0
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

Gold Member
3,028
45
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

Mentor
18,979
5,137
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

Mentor
18,979
5,137
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.
 
728
13
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.
 
1,424
1
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.
 

Related Threads for: Why does terrorism exist?

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
309
Views
69K
Replies
55
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
67
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Top