- #1
kasse
- 384
- 1
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?
cyrusabdollahi said:3...2...1...warning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AggressionIn 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.
They certainly are. According to this site, the US comes in 37th. There are caveats at the top of the page.Astronuc said:Certainly homicide rates are higher in other countries, particular in zones where war and conflict are ongoing.
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.russ_watters said: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.
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.jimmysnyder said:The poor in US cities are richer than the rich in countries where the homicide rate is low.
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.kasse said: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?
Astronuc said: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.
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.
Astronuc said: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]
turbo-1 said: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.
That's true, but it doesn't have anything to do with what I said.jimmysnyder said: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.
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.kasse said:We try to conerse and convince them that democracy is a better way to run a society.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/24/08242007wacwestfollow.html [Broken]On August 12, 2007 a Mexican-American was beaten by several white males who claimed they were part of the Aryan Nations.
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.kasse said: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.
turbo-1 said: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.
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!kasse said: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.
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".turbo-1 said: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 true, but incomplete. Terrorists, by the typical definition, do not target the military, they target civilians. So it isn't just about the tactics.edward said: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.
russ_watters said: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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113b/toc.html1) 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
russ_watters said:And more importantly, they only attacked other soldiers.
russ_watters said: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"...
Esnas said: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?
DaveC426913 said: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.
Well, it is called 'ethnic cleansing'. Terrorism is one method of encouraging people to leave their land/home - or else they face being killed.DaveC426913 said:I do not believe that driving a people off their land is the same as terrorism.
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.The concept behind terrorism is to hurt the civilians so that that they desire to effect change in their government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Armies.2C_militias.2C_and_mercenariesBoth sides used partisan warfare but the Americans were particularly effective at suppressing Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.
Hmmm. History seems to repeat itself.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. . . . .
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.drankin said:Terrorism can be a matter of perspective.
DaveC426913 said: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.
Hurkyl said:Attacking an enemy is not terrorism.
Attacking an enemy's family/friends/associates/etc is.
Terrorists target civilians because they believe it will help them achieve their political or ideological goals. By attacking innocent civilians, they hope to spread fear and panic, weaken governments, and gain publicity for their cause.
Yes, there are several reasons why terrorists choose to target civilians. These include the belief that civilians are responsible for the actions of their government, the desire to create chaos and disrupt society, and the belief that attacking civilians will generate more media attention.
No, not all terrorist groups target civilians. Some may focus on attacking government or military targets, while others may target specific groups or individuals that they see as enemies. However, targeting civilians is a common tactic used by many terrorist organizations.
Terrorists often use religious or political ideologies to justify their actions. They may believe that their cause is more important than the lives of innocent civilians, or that the ends justify the means. Some may also see civilians as collateral damage in their larger goal of achieving their political or ideological objectives.
There is no clear consensus on whether targeting civilians is an effective tactic for terrorists. While it may create fear and chaos in the short term, it can also lead to backlash and condemnation from the international community. Additionally, targeting civilians may also turn public opinion against the terrorist group and undermine their support and legitimacy.