A definition of Terrorism for the 21th century

[Azarkon]

that's not true at all.  al qaeda is not called a terrorist group because they want change nor because they are an insurgent group.  they're called a terrorist group because they indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to terrorize (terrorize: to coerce by intimidation or fear) them.

 

That's certainly what the Bush administration says. The question you gotta ask if whether you believe it. If you can but tear your eyes and ears away for a moment from the hegemonic view of this nation, you would know the reason why much of the world is critical fo the US and its policies. Yes, there are organizations out there who use terror as their instrument of attack, but that category certainly does no comprise the current administration's umbrella of all who oppose the US.

 

contrary to your beliefs, the idea that the word terrorism is applied only to insurgent groups that are "unpopular" is the new definition applied only by people such as yourself, in an attempt to bring legitimacy to their actions.  in any rational belief system actions committed by terrorists are morally repugnant and worthy of the moniker terrorism.

 

Completely baseless. I would argue that the reason you believe thus is only because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the moral hegemony generated by government propaganda. The degree to which the Bush administration engages in this kind of over-simplification is blatant to the point of parody. For instance, when Bush claims that the world is divided between Us and Them, he is engaging in a gross categorization with the sole purpose of galvanizing a Good vs. Evil view. He relies on examples such as terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructures, while completely excusing the US army's own actions as being either accidental or necessary. In both cases, the distinction lies only in the presentation: the US army does not *target* civilian infrastructures *by choice* and without *military justification*, therefore they are just even if they target civilian infrastructures, as they often did in air raids and bombings in order to root out hiding terrorists. On the other hand, the terrorist attacks on US civilian infrastructures are *unjust* even though they are done for the same purpose of crushing the enemy economic-industrial war machine. In the end, the US inflicts MORE civilian casaulties than Al Qaeda ever did, but we write it off as the mere cost of war. Why then cannot Al Qaeda do the same? Remember, 9/11 was not the first casaulty of this war, despite what the Bush administration would like you to believe. They did not attack us out of the blue. The US has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle-East both economically and militarily since before the Cold War. If anything, we started this war. We've just been fighting it on foreign soil until they decided to take the fight to us.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

Azarkon, you can criticise taks for being some sort of victim of government propaganda, But you are simply showing your own ignorance in the rest of your document. You seem equally blinded by supping solely from counter-cultural sources. If you had any experience, whether first or second hand with the military and with terrorists you would understand there is a very real difference. It is not merely because we are us and they are them.

 

Military Marching types

 

When most disciplined militaries take actions which injure civilians they do so reluctantly. I'm not saying they do always, but by and large this is the case. It is certainly drummed into all NATO forces (and those who train with us) that civilians are neither a militarily useful, nor morally sound target. Indeed, one of the things which makes soldiers most riled about terrorists is that they hide among the civilians the soldiers are trying to protect, and kill those same civilians.

 

Political Terrorist Types

 

Terrorists I know of come in two delicious varieties. Those who take a 'military' view like you describe are the first. They are like the IRA and ANC. they say they try to avoid civilian casualties. They give warnings. Yet at the same time they try to give as little warning as possible because it makes the security services look bad if folks still get killed. They also have a huge inconstancy towards sticking to the rules on not killing civilians. Because behind the headline actions you will find event after event involving murder, kneecapping, necklacing, beatings and so on.

 

Revolutionary Types

 

The second type of terrorist is your full-octane revolutionary/apocalyptic cult (Al Qaeda are revolutionaries). Their aim is to cause maximum chaos as described before. They make zero distinction between a soldier in a tank and you or I. I'm not making this up; this is what they typically say in their public pronouncements. This is mainly so they can hit soft targets and go home feeling big about themselves (In my opinion). But it also serves to further their aim of inducing chaos and disruption, which they believe they can exploit by retaining the initiative, and gaining credibility.

 

Summary

 

The militarists and revolutionaries both consist of egomaniacs, psychos, and fools conned by the two preceding types into believing they have a duty to fight. The fools kill regular people because they are told to. The egomaniacs believe they have a destiny and a right to. The psychos do it because they want to. All of them are pretty fething far from right by any stretch of the imagination or culture. Even the civilian populations they live in recognise there is something wrong. Or at least I hope so, because in every single one of the 'struggles' I have studied the terrorists kill about four to ten times of 'their' own civilians; never minding the toll on the target group. Murder is and has been a crime in almost every culture man has ever created. terrorism, being essentially political murder, is IMO therefore probably bad wherever you stand.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

You seem like a smart guy. So I would politely suggest you get to grips with terrorism first hand, by reading interviews, reading their training manuals, and chatting to some (retired) ones first hand. You never know who you can dig up if you try. You may not agree with me when you do, but you'll sound less like an ass (donkey).

[Commissar]

I think Azarkon was making the point that not everyone involved with the insurgency in Iraq is a terrorist, which certainly seems to be the Bush administration's take on things at times. There are plenty of people on the ground over there who are hitting or trying to hit exclusively American military targets. That's guerilla warfare, not terrorism. And it sucks far more, in my opinion, because they're the ones more likely to gain support from the discontented portions of the populace, rather than the guys hitting anything that moves, including Iraqi civilians of a different political or religious persuasion.

[Walsingham]

But this is what I mean. Guerrilla warfare is merely a tactic. terrorism is merely a tactic. Go check out Algeria for some truly atrocious guerrillas. Actually, if I'm honest I am now lost about what my point is. If anyone knows what it is could they remind me?

[Azarkon]

Azarkon, you can criticise taks for being some sort of victim of government propaganda, But you are simply showing your own ignorance in the rest of your document. You seem equally blinded by supping solely from counter-cultural sources.  If you had any experience, whether first or second hand with the military and with terrorists you would understand there is a very real difference. It is not merely because we are us and they are them.

 

I'm not saying there is no difference between our military and theirs. But why is there a difference? How is it constructed? Those are my concerns, and my argument is that the method of construction is revealing, not the definition itself. It has nothing to do with getting my info from "counter-cultural" sources, because my sources are necessarily the medium of the propaganda. In other words, in order to criticize Bush, I must listen to what he and the military says. As such, my sources are the same as yours, but my interpretation is different, as I will demonstrate.

 

Military Marching types

 

When most disciplined militaries take actions which injure civilians they do so reluctantly. I'm not saying they do always, but by and large this is the case. It is certainly drummed into all NATO forces (and those who train with us) that civilians are neither a militarily useful, nor morally sound target. Indeed, one of the things which makes soldiers most riled about terrorists is that they hide among the civilians the soldiers are trying to protect, and kill those same civilians.

 

Here you are demonstrating my point: there is a clear distinction between the ideology behind military vs. terrorism, but only in the realm of ideology. When push comes to shove, the facts remain that ideology doesn't make a damn difference. The need to shoot before you ask, because they hide among civilians? Necessary self-defense. Must bomb buildings with civilian in them? Regrettable loss. We certainly SAY and make our soldiers FEEL that civilians are to be protected, but that line of thinking ends where our interests begin. Again, I make this argument:

 

If the US army were a third world freedom fighting organization going up against a Middle-Eastern superpower, would it do any different? If Al Qaeda was the dominant superpower invading a third world America, would it still rely on the ideology of terror? My answer is no and no.

 

When push comes to shove, governments and militaries have demonstrated that they could care less about what it takes to achieve victory, including wiping out entire civilian cities, regardless of what they feel or apologize for afterwards. The reason the US do not fall to terrorist tactics is because we can AFFORD not to, and because we NEED not to. To pursue a line of warfare other than NEED under the current state of the American ideology is political suicide: if you urged the destruction of civilians without excuses you will get your ass kicked out of the government in a matter of weeks. On the other hand, if America was being overwhelmed by a foreign power and we had the capacity to strike back at their civilian targets, you can bet your ass we will do so with brutal efficiency, because at that point, we will NEED to strike at their civilian targets.

 

Now think on this from Al Qaeda's perspective. Do they NEED to strike our civilian targets, and if not, what targets can they strike to stop the US from meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs?

 

Revolutionary Types

 

The second type of terrorist is your full-octane revolutionary/apocalyptic cult (Al Qaeda are revolutionaries). Their aim is to cause maximum chaos as described before. They make zero distinction between a soldier in a tank and you or I. I'm not making this up; this is what they typically say in their public pronouncements. This is mainly so they can hit soft targets and go home feeling big about themselves (In my opinion). But it also serves to further their aim of inducing chaos and disruption, which they believe they can exploit by retaining the initiative, and gaining credibility.

 

In Bin Laden's public announcement as to why he initiated the 9/11 attack, he was very concrete about the goals of Al Qaeda and why he did what he did. It's available here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/...den.transcript/

 

Whether we believe him or not is inconsequential, the point is how can you claim that what they typically say in public announcements is that their goal is solely to cause chaos and disruption? Here he clearly states his goal: "US out of the Middle-East", proves justification: "Revenge", and states tangible propositions: "We won't attack you if you stop supporting Israel/attacking us". He demonstrates the ability to manipulate the public just as well as Bush can - in fact better, in some ways, since he seems to be aware of American opinion in a way Bush is not aware of Iraqi opinion.

 

Certainly you can make the argument that the *END RESULT* of his statements is chaos and disruption, but chaos and disruption is exactly the guerilla way of fighting. You seem to make the distinction between terrorists and guerilla insurgents without understanding the underlying connection that their goal, both, is to drive out the influences of a ruling power through disrupting said power's economic, social, and political gains. Whether they are constructed as terrorists or insurgents is what distinguishes them, not their inherent properties.

 

Summary

 

The militarists and revolutionaries both consist of egomaniacs, psychos, and fools conned by the two preceding types into believing they have a duty to fight. The fools kill regular people because they are told to. The egomaniacs believe they have a destiny and a right to. The psychos do it because they want to.

 

And you call me biased? And you call me ignorant? Such a generalization makes it impossible for me to take you seriously, and makes your interpretation of the situation no differen than Bush's - that "terrorist" organizations are all evil and composed of evil people with no redeemable qualities and who must be exterminated for the greatness of our civilization.

 

You seem colored by the fact that you read a few interviews, talked to a few ex terrorists. Well guess what, those interviews and those talks are given for political reasons, and they are spread - through the net or otherwise - for political reasons. Until you can argue objectively about those political reasons and the underlying forces that create them, their words are meaningless.

 

It's easy to read a line and say what it means. Difficult to undertand what created its meaning. That's the difference between those who can look at the administration and see through their propaganda, versus those who take it at face value simply because they saw a few supporting documents.

 

Recommendation

 

You seem like a smart guy. So I would politely suggest you get to grips with terrorism first hand, by reading interviews, reading their training manuals, and chatting to some (retired) ones first hand. You never know who you can dig up if you try. You may not agree with me when you do, but you'll sound less like an ass (donkey).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It sounds to me that you believe if I witnessed documents where the terrorists confess to their diabolical goals I will be happily transformed from a ignoramous into a hard-lined realist, when in fact that is exactly the opposite. The more I read about people who think they know what they're doing, the less I think they do. The reason for this is two-fold:

 

1. As I mentioned before, all documents of this manner are disseminated for a very political reason. There are very few sources indeed that have no political goals in selecting these documents, so to speak, and very few sources that will allow you to chat with ex-terrorists without first politicizing what they're going to say.

 

2. Understanding does not come from hegemonious knowledge. If I spoke to the average American about the definition of terrorism they would spill to me exactly what the propaganda of the government tells them. Now you may believe that this is the true definition, but replace terrorism with "Japan" and replace the US with "China" and quickly you realize the extent to which the majority of the people in a country think alike - and think alike erroneously. This is no different with terrorists. Propaganda affects them as it affects us as it affects everyone. No one would die for a cause they do not believe in. Conflicts do not exist between good and evil. You do not blow up your own people rationally. You do not kill 50,000+ civilians rationally and shrug it off as justified. The US is not the heroes and Al Qaeda are not the villains, or vice versa. People from one country do not intrinsically cheer when another country suffers. Nor do they intrinsically believe that the Middle-East must be "democratized" through war.

 

All of these attributes of modern society are products of propaganda, of cultural and moral hegemony, and fighting one brainwashed group with another brainwashed group does nothing but increase the enmity of the entire world. In the end, true peace comes from true understanding, from sympathy between people instead of ideas. Ideology itself is, in this respect, the real enemy of modern society - and it is about time people realized the extent to which they are blinded by it.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Azarkon

[Walsingham]

I'm not going to quote every single piece of your response in mine. If i did this would get even more unwieldy, although given it's probably only you and me arguing in here right now, it may not be worth worrying!

 

1. "In Bin Laden's public announcement as to why he initiated the 9/11 attack, he was very concrete about the goals of Al Qaeda and why he did what he did. It's available here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/...den.transcript/

 

Whether we believe him or not is inconsequential, the point is how can you claim that what they typically say in public announcements is that their goal is solely to cause chaos and disruption? Here he clearly states his goal: "US out of the Middle-East", proves justification: "Revenge", and states tangible propositions: "We won't attack you if you stop supporting Israel/attacking us". He demonstrates the ability to manipulate the public just as well as Bush can - in fact better, in some ways, since he seems to be aware of American opinion in a way Bush is not aware of Iraqi opinion.

 

Certainly you can make the argument that the *END RESULT* of his statements is chaos and disruption, but chaos and disruption is exactly the guerilla way of fighting. You seem to make the distinction between terrorists and guerilla insurgents without understanding the underlying connection that their goal, both, is to drive out the influences of a ruling power through disrupting said power's economic, social, and political gains. Whether they are constructed as terrorists or insurgents is what distinguishes them, not their inherent properties."

 

I don't follow this point at all. I wonder if you could rethink and rephrase for my benefit?

 

2. The second issue I have is with what i think is your point about good and evil being irrelevant in this context. But at the same time you refer in several places to the significance of intent. Intent is certainly important to my way of thinking, but can only be measured on moral grounds of good and evil! The example I would use is of the man who comes and cuts out your appendix. He may be a surgeon or a psychopath. He may kill or prevent a burst appendix. Whatever the result the main burden of our reaction falls on his intent.

 

3. You say our military would sacrifice all for expediency. This is simply not the case. Even if, as you suggest, we were to be in the inferior position, there examples right now of insurgents who manage to fight succesful campaigns against superior forces without indulging in brutality as a matter of course. The Maoists in Nepal are one example, according to independent reports. Similarly, I could point out that we are right now impeding operational effectiveness, and thereby jeopardising the entire stabilisation effort in Iraq by constraining our troops doctrine and weapons with humanitarian issues.

 

4. Finally, you suggest I have been coloured by 'a few books and interviews'. To which my only response would be to ask if I my views are suspect after years of first and second hand study, on what basis are your own constructed? Pure philosophical logic?

 

~~

 

I apologise for taking a rather snotty tone earlier, but I find myself frustrated at the constant havering I see on this forum over condemning terrorism. Good and evil are not completely arbitrary. A man who tortures and kills with no greater authority than his own opinion or inclination is not a good man.

[Azarkon]

1. That was in response to your claim that revolutionary groups claim publicly that their intent is to cause chaos and disruption, when the leader of perhaps the most well-known revolutionary group at this junction in time made a claim that is completely different from chaos and disruption: 1. with actual goals 2. with justification (revenge) and 3. with a set of conditions. This makes them less the anarchists you characterize and more organizations with a clear political objective.

 

2. The danger with arguing anything on a good vs. evil basis is that intent is never as simple as criminal psychosis. Again this goes back to your bias that all terrorists are psychos, egomaniacs, or fools, when many of them, though of course not all, have very real political and social goals in mind, and are acting because they feel that the US has wronged them/their countries. Of course that too is often a product of propaganda, but to judge based on intent you must first understand why that intent has come about. This is why I make no distinction between the soldier and the terrorist in the real sense - because both are products of a propaganda that ultimately has misguided intents. Sure, the soldier thinks that he's doing good, but SO DOES THE terrorist, and both have this assumption because they were trained and drilled in that assumption. Therefore, to say that a terrorist kills because he has evil intents and a soldier does because he has good ones is off the marks, because neither operate on the basis of their personal intents but on the basis of a greater intent as imparted through propaganda - and this intent is almost always "righteous" in theory.

 

3. Again, it depends on the nature of self-interest. The US army can establish short-term gains by ignoring humanitarian concerns, but it will suffer long-term strategic defeats. Why? Because people at home will hear of it and the army will be forced to pull out as it did in Vietnam (a great example of what occurs when a war becomes a matter of survival; all kinds of atrocities were committed there by BOTH sides in the conflict). This is mainly because we're not talking about a matter of national survival here but a volunteer fight on foreign soil. If someone were to invade the US and successfully, we will then be in a similar state to the terrorists, and then I'll invite you to see what we will do in response.

 

4. Observations of underlying forces. First and second-hand study are useful, but they are never comprise a real conclusion until you put them in the framework of overall forces. The analogy I would give you is the man who studies flocks of animals and publishes his observations of how animals behave, versus the man who studies flocks of animals and derives the theory of evolution. I'm not claiming to be the latter man, but I do believe in his method - that in order to arrive at something, you must look at the whole picture instead of simply what you observe and find the underlying causes and effects of things.

 

I apologise for taking a rather snotty tone earlier, but I find myself frustrated at the constant havering I see on this forum over condemning terrorism. Good and evil are not completely arbitrary. A man who tortures and kills with no greater authority than his own opinion or inclination is not a good man.

 

Perhaps, but isn't that what's in question here: *whether* terrorists operate on his own opinions/inclinations? Isn't this is the key observation: that propaganda determines the actions of its receivers? I may not have had as much first hand experience of terrorists as you do, but even so I think I'm justified to say that most terrorists - especially the ones that sacrifice their lives - do not act on the basis of their own opinions but by the power of a greater authority whether it be the organizations whose cause they serve, or the Allah whose jihad and heavenly rewards they believe in. Perhaps this is the only thing that divides the merely criminal from the political militant, but regardless of how misguided this type of ideology is, it certainly is in the same class of ideologies a soldier would go to war for: a greater cause that he believes in.

 

Hence the ultimate conflict is not between people, but ideas. US Imperialism - that's an idea from the point of view of those who hate the US. Freedom and democracy - that's an idea from the point of view of those who support us. These ideas are not the root causes of our conflicts (natural resource and territorial power are much more fundamental, since they're a feature of all animals), but what is used to control and direct our world. They are what divides the world. It is only when we realize them for what they are that we can even begin to change the way the world is. You won't get *anywhere*, I argue, by going about fighting terror and dictatorship where you see them, so long as what you replace terror and dictatorship by is your own version of the same kind of ideological control. Yes, you might one day achieve a united and peaceful world. But then so might have Hitler done if he wiped out other ethnic groups. In either case, might is not right, and perhaps that is a moral absolute.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Azarkon

[taks]

That's certainly what the Bush administration says.

i could care less what the bush administration says. my point stands as is. al qaeda existed before bush, so did hamas and so did the IRA. they were all three called terrorist organizations before bush, so how did he "redefine" the word?

 

The question you gotta ask if whether you believe it.  If you can but tear your eyes and ears away for a moment from the hegemonic view of this nation, you would know the reason why much of the world is critical fo the US and its policies.

really now. that must be it. i'm just clueless, right? maybe the rest of the world is critical of the US because we have, and use, more than they do? maybe they're just jealous? maybe? maybe if you'd tear yourself from the hegemonic view of the rest of the world, you would know the reason, too. pretty easy to just lump it all into "you're brainwashed, we're all right and you just can't see it."

 

as it is, that the rest of the world is critical of the US is irrelevant. what makes them right and us wrong? why is it that as soon as there's someone threatening them, they suddenly have no problem looking to us to help out? i think the rest of the world's view is at best, hypocritical.

 

Yes, there are organizations out there who use terror as their instrument of attack, but that category certainly does no comprise the current administration's umbrella of all who oppose the US.

tell me which organizations are labeled terrorist but really aren't.

 

Completely baseless.  I would argue that the reason you believe thus is only because you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the moral hegemony generated by government propaganda.

not baseless at all. i have already backed up my point with numerous examples. i could care less what the government says, i know what happens. people that strap bombs to their chests and walk into streetside cafes are terrorists by definition. you're attempting to make a case that their views are simply unpopular or against the grain somehow. there is no moral belief system that would ever except such actions as merely "unpopular." hence, you are apologizing for their indefensible behavior.

 

For instance, when Bush claims that the world is divided between Us and Them, he is engaging in a gross categorization with the sole purpose of galvanizing a Good vs. Evil view.

so what.

 

He relies on examples such as terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructures, while completely excusing the US army's own actions as being either accidental or necessary.  In both cases, the distinction lies only in the presentation: the US army does not *target* civilian infrastructures *by choice* and without *military justification*, therefore they are just even if they target civilian infrastructures, as they often did in air raids and bombings in order to root out hiding terrorists.

now you're trying to place a moral equivalency on military actions vs. terrorist actions. first of all, there's no equivocation between walking into a cafe with a bomb strapped to your chest, whose only purpose is to kill civilians, and taking out a power plant. none. the distinction is not in the presentation, it is in the actual actions.

 

also, you mention they are trying to "root out hiding terrorists." tell me, really, how many military personnel intentionally hide among civilians? how many hole up in schools? how many take hostages? none? really? wow. you can't draw a moral equivalency no matter how apologetic you are. it just doesn't hold water.

 

 

On the other hand, the terrorist attacks on US civilian infrastructures are *unjust* even though they are done for the same purpose of crushing the enemy economic-industrial war machine.

excuse me? how is walking into a cafe an attempt to crush the enemy economic-industrial war machine? how is flying into the wtc related to anything other than a symbolic strike on US soil? terrorists are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. they want to cause fear and unrest. they wanted us to end up with less freedom. but they never, ever, thought that they could even dent our economic base or our so-called "war-machine." to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

In the end, the US inflicts MORE civilian casaulties than Al Qaeda ever did, but we write it off as the mere cost of war.  Why then cannot Al Qaeda do the same?

intent sir, is the reason.

 

Remember, 9/11 was not the first casaulty of this war, despite what the Bush administration would like you to believe.  They did not attack us out of the blue.  The US has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle-East both economically and militarily since before the Cold War.  If anything, we started this war.  We've just been fighting it on foreign soil until they decided to take the fight to us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so has nearly every other country on earth. out of curiosity, what claim does al qaeda have to any war in the middle east? OBL's home nation disavows any connection to him (as does his own family). he's a loner with no country. he rose to fame fighting the russians in afghanistan. he favors palestinians in gaza, yet they're originally egyptians. he's an outcast and simply picks up on the crisis du jour for his own self aggrandizement.

 

taks

[taks]

I think Azarkon was making the point that not everyone involved with the insurgency in Iraq is a terrorist, which certainly seems to be the Bush administration's take on things at times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but he's going too far in claiming that terrorism has been redefined. it has not, and to suppose as such is ludicrous.

 

certainly there are real "freedom fighters," however disillusioned they may be, trying to get the US out. and yes, they do target the military primarily (though their tactics are not nearly as defensible as true military operations).

 

just because it seems bush's view is as such does not matter. and we aren't talking solely about iraq, either. al qaeda is only a part-time player over there anyway, but iraq is a notorious source of funding and channeling of terrorists. stability in that country will go a long way to improving the odds of at least putting the overall terrorist picture in check (i'm not so foolish to think they will ever go away).

 

taks

[Azarkon]

i could care less what the bush administration says. my point stands as is. al qaeda existed before bush, so did hamas and so did the IRA. they were all three called terrorist organizations before bush, so how did he "redefine" the word?

 

tell me which organizations are labeled terrorist but really aren't.

 

By saying that everyone who's fighting against the US in Iraq are barbarians? By stating that the Taliban was a terrorist government and so was Saddam? By coining the term War on Terror that isn't really much of a war on anything other than going into Middle-Eastern countries that don't bow down and obey to US demands? Bush AND his predecessors far expanded the definition of terrorism so as to cover everyone who's fighting him. If we were just after Al Qaeda, why the hell is the majority of our attention diverted to creating a US-friendly government in Iraq? Because it helps in our search? Give me a break.

 

You don't hear him calling the insurgents in Iraq freedom fighters. You don't hear him making a distinction between Al Qaeda and other organizations. The only distinction he makes is between people who support the US (the freedom loving, democratic Iraqis!) and those who don't (terrorists, barbarians, insurgents). They're all our enemies - each and every one of them, regardless of whether their cause is just or has a point. As long as they oppose the US, Bush will demonize them. It's no surprise that most of the US population thinks that Middle-Easterners are in general prone to terrorism. That's the construction at work.

 

as it is, that the rest of the world is critical of the US is irrelevant. what makes them right and us wrong? why is it that as soon as there's someone threatening them, they suddenly have no problem looking to us to help out? i think the rest of the world's view is at best, hypocritical.

 

Ah yes, US exceptionalism at its best. Well guess what, I don't buy it, and the reason I don't buy it is not because I listen to the rest of the world but because I try to understand the underlying forces that generate the opinions of both the US AND of the rest of the world, whereas you only look at the US side and think that what we're doing must undeniably be right. Well it's not. Nor is what the rest of the world is saying undeniably right. What's right is what lies beneath the two propaganda machines, the political-ecnomic structure that operates off of ideologies and nations instead of between people.

 

not baseless at all. i have already backed up my point with numerous examples. i could care less what the government says, i know what happens. people that strap bombs to their chests and walk into streetside cafes are terrorists by definition. you're attempting to make a case that their views are simply unpopular or against the grain somehow. there is no moral belief system that would ever except such actions as merely "unpopular." hence, you are apologizing for their indefensible behavior.

 

Who the hell is apologizing for their behavior? Let me tell you something, taks, your attacks on my character are getting old. The world is not divided between terrorist haters and terrorist supporters. We don't live in Bush's vision of US against THEM. If you continue to try and pidgeonhole me the latter, I will start ignoring your posts, period. And then you can go off and ignore me too, if you will, since you are intent on doing that anyways.

 

so what.

 

Read.

 

now you're trying to place a moral equivalency on military actions vs. terrorist actions. first of all, there's no equivocation between walking into a cafe with a bomb strapped to your chest, whose only purpose is to kill civilians, and taking out a power plant. none. the distinction is not in the presentation, it is in the actual actions.

 

also, you mention they are trying to "root out hiding terrorists." tell me, really, how many military personnel intentionally hide among civilians? how many hole up in schools? how many take hostages? none? really? wow. you can't draw a moral equivalency no matter how apologetic you are. it just doesn't hold water.

 

I already went over this with Welsingham. The actions we take are the result of our superior position of power. We do what is necessary to win the war and for us that does not involve hiding in civilians or suicide bombing, both of which are contrary to our war effort. For the terrorists, it does involve that, so that's why they do it.

 

excuse me? how is walking into a cafe an attempt to crush the enemy economic-industrial war machine? how is flying into the wtc related to anything other than a symbolic strike on US soil? terrorists are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. they want to cause fear and unrest. they wanted us to end up with less freedom. but they never, ever, thought that they could even dent our economic base or our so-called "war-machine." to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

Walking into a cafe = attack enemy morale.

Flying into the WTC = destabilize national economy and taking the fight to the enemy so that they actually have a STAKE in the fighting

 

On that subject, terrorists could care LESS about how whether America is democratic , free, etc. or not. I have yet to hear of a single terrorist proclaiming that the goal of the Middle-East is worldwide domination. What they want is the US out of the Middle-East and that has been the only goal I've ever seen proclaimed by Al Qaeda and subsidiary organizations. If the US did not meddle in ME affairs, and did not support Israel, and the terrorists are STILL hitting us - then you'd have a point. But since that has never been historically true, I can only go by what I think are the underlying factors.

 

intent sir, is the reason.

 

Al Qaeda's proclaimed intent: "We are fighting for our freedom, to stop the US from meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs."

 

Our understanding of their intent: "No, you're barbarians. Savages. Terrorists. You fight against the free world for the sake of chaos and disruption."

 

Intent is a construction, and the intent of a enemy is seldom the intent we attribute to the enemy. Therefore, only actions can speak for themselves.

 

so has nearly every other country on earth. out of curiosity, what claim does al qaeda have to any war in the middle east? OBL's home nation disavows any connection to him (as does his own family). he's a loner with no country. he rose to fame fighting the russians in afghanistan. he favors palestinians in gaza, yet they're originally egyptians. he's an outcast and simply picks up on the crisis du jour for his own self aggrandizement.

 

I daresay Al Qaeda has more claim in the Middle-East than the US does, seeing that they're an organization that's based in the ME, whereas we're a foreign organization that has nothing to do with the Middle-East geographically but is happy to meddle in their affairs ANYHOW. In fact, the only "claim" the US ever had on anything in the Middle-East is the UN decision to put Israel smack in the middle of their historical enemies, which subsequently became a US ally and thus, through its own wars against the surrounding nations, so dragged the US into it as well.

 

Argue it anyway you want, but in the end it's a matter of US intervention in the Middle-East. The terrorists justify their actions through believing that they're fighting a holy war against the Christian/Jewish invasion. We gave them that incentive. And then we painted the world between US and THEM, and so made the war a matter of good vs. evil, instead of our specific national interest in keeping Israel where it is and in keeping the Middle-East "friendly" to US capital.

 

stability in that country will go a long way to improving the odds of at least putting the overall terrorist picture in check (i'm not so foolish to think they will ever go away).

 

Because the terrorists were a problem before we started meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs, right? Look at the root of the problem instead of its manifestation. You can defeat Al Qaeda. You can defeat the IRA. You can defeat all the terrorist organizations in the world, but in the end unless you solve the root of the problem, they'll keep coming back in forms you won't expect.

[julianw]

Okay. The secondary title for this thread needs to go now.

[Commissar]

I think Azarkon was making the point that not everyone involved with the insurgency in Iraq is a terrorist, which certainly seems to be the Bush administration's take on things at times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but he's going too far in claiming that terrorism has been redefined. it has not, and to suppose as such is ludicrous.

 

certainly there are real "freedom fighters," however disillusioned they may be, trying to get the US out. and yes, they do target the military primarily (though their tactics are not nearly as defensible as true military operations).

 

just because it seems bush's view is as such does not matter. and we aren't talking solely about iraq, either. al qaeda is only a part-time player over there anyway, but iraq is a notorious source of funding and channeling of terrorists. stability in that country will go a long way to improving the odds of at least putting the overall terrorist picture in check (i'm not so foolish to think they will ever go away).

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall any Iraqi terrorists hitting American targets, to tell you the truth. And it's fairly well-documented that Hussein rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but once again, that's not really our turf war, is it?

[metadigital]

Kaftan: Terrorism is the strategem whereby one (disenfranchised) group tries to use terror as a means to extort their goals (power, money, whatever). It is "the end justifies the means", writ large. The Romans are past masters at it; they would literally kill every man, woman, child and beast in a revolting township in an occupied land, until the population saw sense. Same with Carthage: they flattened the entire city and concreted over it after they won the last Punic war. Terrorism? Yes. Effective? Yes.

 

It wouldn't be extortion if it wasn't "an offer they couldn't refuse". The problem is that extortion works: hello MAD.

 

 

A little rambling perambulation

For example, it is true that you might call the fledgling US soldiers fighting for their independence from Britain revolutionaries.

 

Anyone who committed atrocities to scare the opposition down is guilty of terrorism, whether it be scalping (which was a method of proving how many indigenous Americans an early European invader had killed, initially, and only subsequently adopted by the victims in retaliation) or bombing civilians in Nagasake with a Hydrogen atomic bomb (although you may argue forever about the details: vertainly I wouldn't be here today if the US hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, my father would have perished in the war).

 

This doesn't help with your definition, though. I would recommend a bit of our old friend Niccolo Machiavelli. He didn't make the rules, he just wrote it like he saw it.

 

Society has to grapple with the good of the many balanced against the good of the few; it always gets sticky when the few in charge start making special provisions for themselves (e.g. special pension arrangements) and when the average citizen is placed in more discomfort than they would endure in a revolution, then the revolution happens.

 

Of course, in war, there are no rules. Much as humans have tried to frame warfare in fairness, this comes unstuck when fighting someone who has a different ultimatum to cross. (The Germans didn't invent win-at-all-costs, they were just better at it.)

 

PS Happy to help check grammar and such.

[Dark Moth]

By saying that everyone who's fighting against the US in Iraq are barbarians? By stating that the Taliban was a terrorist government and so was Saddam? By coining the term War on Terror that isn't really much of a war on anything other than going into Middle-Eastern countries that don't bow down and obey to US demands? Bush AND his predecessors far expanded the definition of terrorism so as to cover everyone who's fighting him.  If we were just after Al Qaeda, why the hell is the majority of our attention diverted to creating a US-friendly government in Iraq? Because it helps in our search? Give me a break.

 

You don't hear him calling the insurgents in Iraq freedom fighters.  You don't hear him making a distinction between Al Qaeda and other organizations.  The only distinction he makes is between people who support the US (the freedom loving, democratic Iraqis!) and those who don't (terrorists, barbarians, insurgents).  They're all our enemies - each and every one of them, regardless of whether their cause is just or has a point.  As long as they oppose the US, Bush will demonize them.  It's no surprise that most of the US population thinks that Middle-Easterners are in general prone to terrorism.  That's the construction at work.

 

Hmm...so what is your problem with Bush calling the Taliban terrorists, again? I guess even though both regimes treated their people barbarically and without morality is a void point to you, huh? Just out of curiosity, did you honestly expect Bush to call them freedom fighters, seeing what these people are like? If your definition of freedom fighters is people who drag people from their cars and shoot them in the head, decapitate people and air it on TV, butcher and hang bodies of civlians from bridges, and set off bombs purposely near children, then I guess maybe Bush should call them freedom fighters.

 

Perhaps your argument would carry some weight if Bush behaved in that matter. Lots of countries oppose the U.S. You didn't hear him calling Germany, France, or other countries who were against the war effort terrorists, did you? How about any other country, for that matter? Maybe you should go home and reconsider your argument.

 

I already went over this with Welsingham.  The actions we take are the result of our superior position of power.  We do what is necessary to win the war and for us that does not involve hiding in civilians or suicide bombing, both of which are contrary to our war effort.  For the terrorists, it does involve that, so that's why they do it.

 

They recently found a weapons factory in a school. Do you condone that? Let me tell you something: if we wanted to, we could have just blown the entire country of Iraq sky high. But we didn't. We, unlike many of the people we face now, tend to avoid targeting civilians. Perhaps if these terrorists (that's right, I said it) were actually fighting for a just cause, maybe I would condone their actions. The only reason we're in Iraq now is to keep the country stable. You seem to fail to realize that so far the biggest victims of the insurgents have been Iraqis. These people purposely target not just the U.S., but their own people!!! You honestly think they can be called freedom fighters?

 

On that subject, terrorists could care LESS about how whether America is democratic , free, etc. or not.  I have yet to hear of a single terrorist proclaiming that the goal of the Middle-East is worldwide domination.  What they want is the US out of the Middle-East and that has been the only goal I've ever seen proclaimed by Al Qaeda and subsidiary organizations.  If the US did not meddle in ME affairs, and did not support Israel, and the terrorists are STILL hitting us - then you'd have a point.  But since that has never been historically true, I can only go by what I think are the underlying factors.

 

They probably don't care about freedom. What they do care about is that we are Christian and that we are Americans, and we support Israel. That's right. Tell me, are you saying that we had it coming when it came to 9/11? We have done NOTHING to deserve 9/11. There is no reason they had to do what they did. What they did was motivated by a religious fanaticism and bloodthirsty quest to secure their own interests in the Middle East. In fact, what they did in 9/11 only served to increase U.S. interference in the Middle East, as the entire world can see. Bin Laden thought (and not without reason) that the U.S. was a "paper tiger" who would run away from the fight. Under Clinton, maybe. But not now.

 

Because the terrorists were a problem before we started meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs, right? Look at the root of the problem instead of its manifestation.  You can defeat Al Qaeda.  You can defeat the IRA.  You can defeat all the terrorist organizations in the world, but in the end unless you solve the root of the problem, they'll keep coming back in forms you won't expect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have news for you: terrorists today are little more than a new face on an old enemy: radical Islam. Islam used to be a dominating force in the world, and the Muslim/Middle Eastern nations were among the most enlightened people in the world. And look at them now. Their regions are replete with corrupt, manipulative, and repressive governments, their education is in ruins, their military is a joke, and their economy depends on oil.

 

The people like Bin Laden represent more than just a political agenda: they represent an outdated form of religious zealotry that mandates that they kill the infidels and make Islam a dominant force. Before its downfall, the Middle East didn't have to resort to "terrorist tactics" to achieve its goals. But now, they have to resort to hiding in proverbial caves, launching an attack here and there to make us cover our faces in fright, because that is all they are capable of as of now.

 

End rant mode.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Mothman

[Azarkon]

Hmm...so what is your problem with Bush calling the Taliban terrorists, again?  I guess even though both regimes treated their people barbarically and without morality is a void point to you, huh?  Just out of curiosity, did you honestly expect Bush to call them freedom fighters, seeing what these people are like?  If your definition of freedom fighters is people who drag people from their cars and shoot them in the head, decapitate people and air it on TV, butcher and hang bodies of civlians from bridges, and set off bombs purposely near children, then I guess maybe Bush should call them freedom fighters. 

 

Perhaps your argument would carry some weight if Bush behaved in that matter.  Lots of countries oppose the U.S.  You didn't hear him calling Germany, France, or other countries who were against the war effort terrorists, did you?  How about any other country, for that matter?  Maybe you should go home and reconsider your argument. 

 

If you believe that everyone who fights against the US is, in your words, "people who drag people from their cars and shoto them in the head, decapitate people and air it on TV, butcher and hang bodies of civlians from bridges, and set off bombs purposely near children", then it seems that the propaganda machine of the US has worked quite well. But in reality, there is a huge distinction between those who fight the US's presence and those who take advantage of the chaos in Iraq to unleash their criminal intents - a distinction that Bush does not make.

 

And Bush has quite implicity stated that countries that does not stand with the US against terrorism are supporters of terrorism. He may not have called France or Germany terrorist countries outright, but the implication is there: those who do not support the US in its War on Terror are either cowards or terrorist-supporters. This has in fact shaped the US conception of the rest of the world - that is, that they're consumed by jealousy and hypocrisy, and are thus incapable of understaning US righteousness - as if the US was righteous in the first place.

 

They recently found a weapons factory in a school.  Do you condone that?  Let me tell you something: if we wanted to, we could have just blown the entire country of Iraq sky high.  But we didn't.  We, unlike many of the people we face now, tend to avoid targeting civilians.  Perhaps if these terrorists (that's right, I said it) were actually fighting for a just cause, maybe I would condone their actions.  The only reason we're in Iraq now is to keep the country stable.  You seem to fail to realize that so far the biggest victims of the insurgents have been Iraqis.  These people purposely target not just the U.S., but their own people!!!  You honestly think they can be called freedom fighters?

 

I already covered this with Walsingham. How many times do I have to repeat myself about the reason why the US does not "blow Iraq sky high"? It's not like we HAVEN'T done that in the past with Japan.

 

As for the targetting of Iraqis by insurgents - do you understand the difference between the insurgents and the Iraqis? The insurgents do not see themselves as defending a country called Iraq. They see themselves as defending their holy land of the Middle-East. Most of them who are fighting in Iraq aren't even native Iraqis, so I'm not surprised that they could care less about the people there. Protecting the people is not their cause, nor is it the US's. In both cases, we have groups fighting for the sake of an ideology (in the US's case, of spreading democracy; in the insurgents case, of purging their land of US influence), which is the problem in the first place.

 

And as for calling them freedom fighters - of course they can be. And are, by those who support them. Of course, in the Middle-East, the term freedom fighter is not nearly as provocative as a link to Allah, which is exactly what many of these suicide bombers are called by their supporters muhajedin: the holy warriors.

 

Tell me, are you saying that we had it coming when it came to 9/11?

 

That requires a value judgment of whether US intervention in the Middle-East justified an attack against our soil. I can't make that judgment because I don't know the details of the damages our intervention did in the Middle-East. Apparently, though, Al Qaeda feels that our intervention deserves far worse, which is why you see Osama Bin Laden comparing the WTC to the two towers the Israel invasion of Lebanon destroyed.

 

However, seeing that history remembers what it's like to be a victim of European/American imperialism, I very much understand the world's stance towards any attempts at the dissemination of American intervention. The course of US foreign policy is such that you cannot but help notice the extent to which the US has forcibly meddled with the Middle-East. We, in many ways, put people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power in our attempts to contain Communism back in the days of our "glorious" role as the champion of democracy admist the Cold War. From this perspective it is wholly understandable that there are people out there who hold justifiable hatred towards the US and would, in their mind, see the US as the equivalent of a foreign empire that must be stopped regardless of costs to their people or ours.

 

I have news for you: terrorists today are little more than a new face on an old enemy: radical Islam.  Islam used to be a dominating force in the world, and the Muslim/Middle Eastern nations were among the most enlightened people in the world.  And look at them now.  Their regions are replete with corrupt, manipulative, and repressive governments, their education is in ruins, their military is a joke, and their economy depends on oil.

 

The people like Bin Laden represent more than just a political agenda: they represent an outdated form of religious zealotry that mandates that they kill the infidels and make Islam a dominant force.  Before its downfall, the Middle East didn't have to resort to "terrorist tactics" to achieve its goals.  But now, they have to resort to hiding in proverbial caves, launching an attack here and there to make us cover our faces in fright, because that is all they are capable of as of now. 

 

End rant mode.

 

Radical Islam is no worse than radical Christianity, or any other radical religion for that matter. Both have committed atrocities over the course of history, the difference being that one side managed to become a set of first world nations while the other side fell into a disparate collection of third world states. First world nations are by their very nature more "enlightened", or should I say more prone to peace due to their socio-economic infrastructure. But this has nothing to do with the incapability to change. As you yourself said, the Middle-East used to be the most enlightened people in the world. As China had been. As Rome/Greek had been. As the US/Europe was and perhaps still is. The difference, then, lies not in any underlying ideological principle but in the mode of production, in the rise of industry and science in *place* of religion.

 

In this respect, the one and only way for a part of the world to become peaceful and prosperous is through their own initiative to change. It cannot be forced upon them - imperialism failed, ultimately, though it managed to spark the rise of nationalism as a mode of resistance against Western exploitation. And US intervention in the Middle-East - our attempt to force them into the molds of democracy, will likewise fail. This is because civilizations are built upon the dignity of the people, and the dignity of the people cannot be "given" by another, or it is not dignity at all. Change can only come about when people get tired of their present social state, and in that respect what is necessary from the rest of the world is understanding, sympathy, aid, and patience.

 

Violence on our part fuels the propaganda of the dictators who will use US aggression as their instrument of control. Misunderstanding on our part fuels the division of the world into sides that will fall deeper into the hands of those who can exploit people's ideologies. This is why I say that ideology is the enemy of the modern world, because ideology constructs reality instead of representing it. Ideology divides people even as it unites them, and leads to both ignorance and war. It is European ideology that led to the Age of Imperialism and the subsequent world wars. It is American and USSR ideology that led to the Cold War and the wars of containment in Asia. It is American ideology now that guides it in the War against Terror. In all of these cases ideological control is at the heart of why two nations both filled with peace-loving people would go to war for the sake of an idea, and it is this ideological control that must ultimately be destroyed for any progress to be made. This is a cause that *I* think is worth fighting for - the disruption of propaganda, the shattering of silence, and connecting people AS PEOPLE through the avenues of modern technology (ie the internet). Not a fight for democracy that simply becomes an oligarchy. Not a war for national interest that becomes the interest of the few and the powerful. Not a struggle for freedom that ends up in the thrall of a different kind of control via propaganda and capital.

 

The grand, fundamental reason behind war is the economic struggle for resources. But what allows wars to happen, what justifies them and their brutality, is alienation between people. What allows a man to murder his neighbor in cold blood is his lack of sympathy for his fellow man, the alienation of one man from the humanity of the other. Because the murderer cannot see the world from his neighbor's eyes, because he cannot put himself in his victim's shoes, his nefarious deeds become possible. And so it is with war. When we cannot see the people of a nation as people but as followers of an ideal, it becomes possible for us to destroy their livelihoods. When we do not treat our enemies as human beings but as barbarians and savages, it becomes possible to kill without batting an eye. And just as the terrorist is alienated in this way from the Western world, so is the US in the thralls of this alienation from the Middle-East. Fortunately, there are those in the US who care more about people than ideology, just as there are people in the Middle-East who do the same. And it is these people who understand the costs of this war and its underlying futility. But for everyone of them you can probably also find someone who screams Death to all Muslims, and to hell with the Islamic Middle-East. They are the equivalent of the US terrorist - only lacking in the courage to blow themselves up.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Azarkon

[SteveThaiBinh]

Im currently working on building a world that is to be used in anything from a future computer game(in school) to a fiction novel. It takes place in the usual bleak future where nothing is good and everything is true.

 

I was thinking of the politics that such a world might have and I came up with the question of how they would define terrorism. Naturally this is meant to poke at the real world and what might happen here, as any good sci-fi novel would

 

 

Im looking for feedback on this, mostly grammatical in nature since Im not a native english speaker.

 

A definition of terrorism for the 21th century.

 

A terrorist:

 

An individual acting under an ideal that is in opposition with that of the authorities or goverment, whose actions or words lead to or may be presumed to lead to, or who may be considered to encourage; violence and/or a radical change in society.

 

Terrorism

 

An ideal or political movement whose agenda can be presumed to support and/or encourage violence and/or a radical change in society, and that can be considered to be in opposition with that of the authorities or goverment

I'd say that it doesn't give the government a distinctive personality - it's too neutral. You need to find a voice or style for your fictional government, and then phrase the definition of terrorism in its own terms, perhaps exaggerated a little for satirical effect. For example, our beloved Leader Tony Blair is fond of certain words in his speeches, for example 'new', 'values' and 'hardworking families' are buzzwords at the moment. So he might define a terrorist as 'An individual who denies the values of our great society, endangers hardworking families and threatens our project of building together a new and peaceful age'.

[metadigital]

I'd say that it doesn't give the government a distinctive personality - it's too neutral.  You need to find a voice or style for your fictional government, and then phrase the definition of terrorism in its own terms, perhaps exaggerated a little for satirical effect.  For example, our beloved Leader Tony Blair is fond of certain words in his speeches, for example 'new', 'values' and 'hardworking families' are buzzwords at the moment.  So he might define a terrorist as 'An individual who denies the values of our great society, endangers hardworking families and threatens our project of building together a new and peaceful age'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty good, Steve. I'd add to it a little more explanation for those outside the UK to make more from it, though:

• "hardworking families" is the ideal that all members of society compare themselves to; in the past, political parties and governements have used "working class" and "honest, decent", "man in the street", etc. Think workers controlling the means of production, realised. (Of course big business runs most of society collectively, only when one corporate sticks its head up out of the pack does the government get a clear shot at it to bring it down to size.)
  
• "new" is trying to re-define the political landscape, rather than tired old "left" and "right" nomenclature (which is taken from the original French revolutionary National Assembly: left and right), i.e. a "new" third or "middle" way.
  
• "Terr0rzr1stz" are the enemy of the "free people", which (co-incidentally) is what the state is representing and protecting.
  Therefore enemies of the state are enemies of the people, or so the logic goes.
  

I think the term "Terrorist" is being slowly changed from its original literal meaning of "someone who uses fear to leverage extortion", into "enemy of the state". Pity.

 

But it is equally assinine to argue that a "freedom fighter" is fighting for their own freedom, at the expense of the society in which they live. That isn't a freedom fighter, it's a selfish anarchist.

[Commissar]

They probably don't care about freedom.  What they do care about is that we are Christian and that we are Americans, and we support Israel.  That's right.  Tell me, are you saying that we had it coming when it came to 9/11?  We have done NOTHING to deserve 9/11.  There is no reason they had to do what they did.  What they did was motivated by a religious fanaticism and bloodthirsty quest to secure their own interests in the Middle East.  In fact, what they did in 9/11 only served to increase U.S. interference in the Middle East, as the entire world can see.    Bin Laden thought (and not without reason) that the U.S. was a "paper tiger" who would run away from the fight.  Under Clinton, maybe.  But not now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're not all Christian. In fact, our profile as a "Christian" country has only been raised in the past five years - I don't recall Clinton wandering around randomly inserting God into speeches on tax hikes, to tell you the truth. Secular countries like Britain and Spain have gotten attacked on a smaller scale, don't forget. You just made my point about why bringing religion into this on our side is such a bad idea. Millions of uninformed, highly religious nuts in this country think that we were attacked just because they like to go around talking about Jesus.

 

We support Israel and we had guys in Saudi Arabia. We did and still do a lot more in the Middle East than that, but that was their basic motivation. They didn't hit us because we're supposedly Christian, man. By that logic, they should've gone after Poland. Believe it or not, they do have certain goals. I love the rhetoric from the chickenhawks that claims they're indiscriminately killing just for the love of it. That's not the case, and you'd be better off informing yourself about the aims of aQ and its allies than spouting complete tripe. Know your enemy, ever heard that? You serve your argument better if you're not buying into specious claims.

 

You contradict yourself several times in that paragraph - "There is no reason they had to do what they did. What they did was motivated by a religious fanaticism and bloodthirsty quest to secure their own interests in the Middle East." So they had no reason to do it, but the reason they did it was to secure their interests in the Middle East? They have goals.

 

And knock off the "Clinton wouldn't have done anything" rhetoric. 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers got killed back in 1983, and if I recall correctly, Clinton wasn't in power back then, and yet we didn't overthrow any terrorist-supporting governments. We didn't do anything at all, save throw a few shells from the New Jersey into Lebanon. In point of fact, the French did more by way of response than we did in that particular incident.

[Dark Moth]

Well, we are a majority Christian nation, whether you want to admit it or not. Many of these Islamists view the war on terror as a crusade against Islam. If you don't believe me, just look at their statements. Radical Islam views Christians and Jews as perversions of the Islamic faith and mandates that its followers carry out Jihad against them. That's a fact. Regardless of whether you think so or not, a lot of their actions are religiously motivated. And I never said that was the soul reason, either. I merely stated it as one of many.

 

You contradict yourself several times in that paragraph - "There is no reason they had to do what they did. What they did was motivated by a religious fanaticism and bloodthirsty quest to secure their own interests in the Middle East." So they had no reason to do it, but the reason they did it was to secure their interests in the Middle East? They have goals.

 

Oh, get over yourself already. I meant that they had no reason they had to do it other than to SECURE THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS. They have goals, but it's not the noble goals they want the rest of the Middle East to think they have.

 

And knock off the "Clinton wouldn't have done anything" rhetoric. 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers got killed back in 1983, and if I recall correctly, Clinton wasn't in power back then, and yet we didn't overthrow any terrorist-supporting governments. We didn't do anything at all, save throw a few shells from the New Jersey into Lebanon. In point of fact, the French did more by way of response than we did in that particular incident.

 

Clinton didn't do crap to stop Bin Laden. He launches a few missiles, and that's it. The reason I even bother to mention Clinton is that he had 8 years to do something about Bin Laden and didn't, even after the WTC was bombed. And then, the idiot starts criticizing Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9/11, when he mostly just sat back on his fat ass turning a blind eye toward Bin Laden.

[Judge Hades]

The problem here is a lot of people in this thread see things as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong when things are not. One man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter. One man's good is often another man's evil. It is all relative to one's perspective and in the end there is no single person right or wrong. There is only death and tragedy.

[Dark Moth]

The problem here is a lot of people in this thread see things as black and white, good and evil, right and wrong when things are not.  One man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter.  One man's good is often another man's evil.  It is all relative to one's perspective and in the end there is no single person right or wrong.  There is only death and tragedy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, well these people aren't fighting for "freedom". You can't always say that good can be evil and vice-versa. Sometimes, there are clear distinctions between the two. It's not always relative. <_< What if I said the guy stealing that eggroll wasn't wrong? "

Edited October 9, 2005 by Mothman

[Judge Hades]

What is one man's freedom is another slavery. Depends on what you wish to be free of.

[Commissar]

Well, we are a majority Christian nation, whether you want to admit it or not.  Many of these Islamists view the war on terror as a crusade against Islam.  If you don't believe me, just look at their statements.  Radical Islam views Christians and Jews as perversions of the Islamic faith and mandates that its followers carry out Jihad against them.  That's a fact.  Regardless of whether you think so or not, a lot of their actions are religiously motivated.  And I never said that was the soul reason, either.  I merely stated it as one of many. 

 

You contradict yourself several times in that paragraph - "There is no reason they had to do what they did. What they did was motivated by a religious fanaticism and bloodthirsty quest to secure their own interests in the Middle East." So they had no reason to do it, but the reason they did it was to secure their interests in the Middle East? They have goals.

 

Oh, get over yourself already. I meant that they had no reason they had to do it other than to SECURE THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS. They have goals, but it's not the noble goals they want the rest of the Middle East to think they have.

 

And knock off the "Clinton wouldn't have done anything" rhetoric. 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers got killed back in 1983, and if I recall correctly, Clinton wasn't in power back then, and yet we didn't overthrow any terrorist-supporting governments. We didn't do anything at all, save throw a few shells from the New Jersey into Lebanon. In point of fact, the French did more by way of response than we did in that particular incident.

 

Clinton didn't do crap to stop Bin Laden. He launches a few missiles, and that's it. The reason I even bother to mention Clinton is that he had 8 years to do something about Bin Laden and didn't, even after the WTC was bombed. And then, the idiot starts criticizing Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9/11, when he mostly just sat back on his fat ass turning a blind eye toward Bin Laden.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Poland, as I said earlier, has a higher percentage of Christians than the US, and a lot of other countries, and yet I don't recall any Polish Sept. 11 to date. Maybe radical Islamists are acting against the supposed Christians who are actually, you know, in their countries? And don't forget that FSM is gaining converts every day, so your initial statement might not prove true down the road.

 

As far as being motivated by self-interest...name one country that doesn't act based on self-interest? How long did we sit around before joining in on World War II? Remind me what we did during the slaughtering in Rwanda? And tick off the units sent into Darfur recently. Self-interest is the name of the game in any international move, you know. Even if you buy the propaganda that we went into Iraq solely to spread freedom dust, why there and not elsewhere? Perhaps because a democratic Middle East would have great benefit for us? (I'm actually not sold on that idea.)

 

Bush didn't "do crap" to stop Bin Laden before Sept. 11, either - perhaps a massive attack on American soil spurred him on to finally address the problem?

[Dark Moth]

I don't doubt that Poland has a high Christian population, but there are many reasons why they wouldn't strike Poland. For them, America is the "great Satan". We are supposed to be the symbol of all that is hated and evil to them. We are also the ones who get involved in affairs around the world, and we are the ones who attract far more attention. It's all about Politics, my friend. They're goint straight for the big dog. Striking America in our homeland is going to make a much bigger statement on their part than striking Poland. And as for Spain and England, they were attacked because of their support of the Iraq War. But I'll say it again, us being Christian isn't the sole reason, but it is a reason.

 

As far as being motivated by self-interest...name one country that doesn't act based on self-interest?

Well, isn't that a revelation? So what? That only proves my point even more. Bin Laden, Al-Quaida, Al-Zarqawi, they're all the same. They claim they are fighting for their own freedom. The only thing they're fighting for is to help their own selfish cause of killing others. The only thing they care about is removing all outside influence from their country so they can remain a power in the Middle East. The insurgents in Iraq aren't freedom fighters. They are murderers. These people deliberately target other Iraqis, and yet claim they are freedom fighters?

 

Even if you buy the propaganda that we went into Iraq solely to spread freedom dust, why there and not elsewhere? Perhaps because a democratic Middle East would have great benefit for us? (I'm actually not sold on that idea.)

 

A democratic Middle East is a lot safer than a non-democratic one. If you look at the Middle East, the majority of the people there just want to live their lives, not get involved in some war against the west. However, the Middle East is filled with corrupt governments who repress their own people and spread anti-west propaganda everywhere. It is they, as well as these terrorists, that stir these people to hating America and the West.

 

Bush didn't "do crap" to stop Bin Laden before Sept. 11, either - perhaps a massive attack on American soil spurred him on to finally address the problem?

 

Well, Bush didn't do anything to stop 9/11 either. The difference between him and Clinton though, is that Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden even after he struck U.S. targets. Bush was the one who actually went into Afghanistan to hunt him down. We haven't caught him yet, but he did far more than Clinton ever did. My main gripe, however, was that Clinton criticized Bush's "lack of action" when he didn't do anything himself, either.

[Commissar]

As far as being motivated by self-interest...name one country that doesn't act based on self-interest?

Well, isn't that a revelation? So what? That only proves my point even more. Bin Laden, Al-Quaida, Al-Zarqawi, they're all the same. They claim they are fighting for their own freedom. The only thing they're fighting for is to help their own selfish cause of killing others. The only thing they care about is removing all outside influence from their country so they can remain a power in the Middle East. The insurgents in Iraq aren't freedom fighters. They are murderers. These people deliberately target other Iraqis, and yet claim they are freedom fighters?

Killing others isn't their cause, it's their method. You've really drunk the Kool-Aid if you believe killing people is the primary goal of anybody over there. Terrorism is a tool, a method. And you've essentially stated that; you said that they want to remain in power. Nevermind that none of the three people/organizations you mentioned are actually in power in a governmental sense, but I get your point. You're exactly right - there are many members of the insurgency fighting for control of Iraq. Self-interest. We're there out of self-interest too, don't forget; you admitted that by granting my premise.

 

A democratic Middle East is a lot safer than a non-democratic one.  If you look at the Middle East, the majority of the people there just want to live their lives, not get involved in some war against the west.  However, the Middle East is filled with corrupt governments who repress their own people and spread anti-west propaganda everywhere.  It is they, as well as these terrorists, that stir these people to hating America and the West.

It's incredibly naive to think everyone who hates America in the world is motivated by anti-American propaganda. A lot of Western Europe thinks we're absolutely nuts, too, don't forget. Maybe they hate us for our freedom, too? No matter how you spin it, a significant portion of the Middle Eastern population is never going to like us due to establishment and continued support of Israel, among numerous other reasons.

 

Furthermore, a completely democratic Middle East will most likely result in even higher oil prices. The tacit agreement has always been that we don't go in and kick around despotic regimes, and in return we get our oil at low prices from those same regimes.

 

Well, Bush didn't do anything to stop 9/11 either.  The difference between him and Clinton though, is that Clinton didn't do anything about Bin Laden even after he struck U.S. targets.  Bush was the one who actually went into Afghanistan to hunt him down.  We haven't caught him yet, but he did far more than Clinton ever did.  My main gripe, however, was that Clinton criticized Bush's "lack of action" when he didn't do anything himself, either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reagan didn't do anything about Islamic fundamentalists hitting U.S. targets back in '83, and I don't hear you pitching a fit about that. Furthermore, the attacks during Clinton's administration weren't nearly on the scale of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks; I very strongly doubt that the American public would've supported a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan as a result of the USS Cole, for example. There was widespread dissent about the decision to help out with Kosovo, for example. Wasn't related to terrorism, of course, but it does help make my point that we're not the selfless world-helpers you seem to think we are.