The root causes of terrorism

[Aurel]

Terrorism, historically, can be classified in three categories:

#1- Geographical terrorism: a minority group is fighting for its independence against an oppressor that is more powerful. Since the minority group does not have an organized army, it uses terrorism to fight against its oppressor. The examples of this are numerous: The Irish against the British, the Palestinians against the Isareli, the Basques against the Spaniards, The Corses against the French…

#2- Ideological terrorism: a group with radical ideas wants to impose their ideology to the rest of their country, or to the world. Examples are communists, like the Rote Armee Faction, anarchists like the home-grown US terrorists, Religious like the Aum in Japan.

#3- Lone nut cases, or little groups with no special ideology or cause: School shootings are one example.

In the case of Al Quaeda, categories #1 and #2 could apply, and I believe that this is where a good debate can take place. There are those who say that if they were left alone in the first place, they would mind their own business, and all they want is `No infidels in their Holy Land`. And there are those say that what they want is destroy the western civilization, impose a radical version of Islam to the entire planet, which forces us to invade them and `democratize` them before they invade us…The irony of the whole situation, of course, is that they happen to be sitting on the world largest oil reserves. As a consequence, leaving them alone is not an option, and it almost looks like a happy coincidence that they are so threatening. But now, imagine what would happen if they spontaneously decided without any outside help to adopt all western values, democracy, abandon terrorism, and practice free trade of their oil, selling to the Japanese in Yens, to the Europeans in Euros, to the Chinese in Yuans and to the Americans in dollars. Would that be a satisfactory outcome to all of you ?

Aurel

[joeclarke]

This is an interesting topic Aurel.

I expect that (as with all things human) many situations defy such ready classification of cause and effect. I also expect that such defiance is further complicated by the fact that conditions and factors are constantly changing and evolving.

So as the example of how Jews went from being the scapegoats for the financial disenfranchisement of the german people to being something much more significant, so have other situations probably evolved from simple downtrodden Davids vs. tyrant Goliaths to debates of good vs. evil.

It's always much simpler to rally people around concepts of good and evil than to debate the validity of individual actions. People also embrace these concepts easily because they remove burdens of guilt or rational accountability for our actions. This concept is seen here on this board where people are physically revolted by some violent action against an American yet feel no such revulsion about thousands of Iraqis meeting a similar fate at our hands. The latent "goodness" of our actions excuses us the need to feel any real guilt.

So, as we rally support for "war" against terror or against Iraqis on the basis of good vs. evil, the terrorists use a similar tactic to rally against us. So the tangible, pragmatic reasons to take umbrage with each other that have exisited easily become twisted into epic idealogical struggles. Terrorism rooted in your type (1) becomes type (2) or even (3).

The cure in the minds of many is to eliminate the cause. Stop abusing people and the skilled leaders out there (and they are legion and endless) can get no traction to foment hatred against us. Invading a Iraq is probably as far from that approach to problem solving as you can get...

[john70t]

Interesting question, but it wouldn't work.
The Iraqis are still a majority Shiite, which links them hand-in-hand to the ruthless Muslim ideoligist structure in the region which has adopted regional fighting and an anti-western/jewish hatred as a way of life. They aren't willing to share even a couple hundred square miles to something non-arab.

It would also mean handing over all control of their oil profits to U.S. companies who need to recoup loss from that expensive war. When I fill up, I don't think that's a bad idea, but only because there's no alternative unfortunately. I also worry if all the major oil-producing countries turned on the U.S. at the same time. All the eggs would be in one basket.

I heard some socialist once say "imagine if their was worldwide peace, no competition between peoples, and everyone worked 3 hours a day and got paid the same". Ummmm right.

[tabs]

I just thought a Terrorist was a guy whose dog p!ssed on him when he was a kid.....and is trying to get back at the world for his humilation.

[joeclarke]

I just thought a Terrorist was a guy whose dog p!ssed on him when he was a kid.....and is trying to get back at the world for his humilation.

yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying. So, as the biggest dog, all we have to do is stop pissin' on people.

[tabs]

Thats a real Liberal position U got there Joe...a Clinton position of "I feel your pain" and "because you had a tough childhood it's all right to blow things up" ....America is truly to blame for everything that is bad in the world.... BIG BAD AMERICANS...

[tabs]

BTW It's the pi$$ing on other people that keeps U in your Porsche...JOE!

Otherwise you'd be pi$$ing in the little house out back....or *****ting in a hole in the floor...

Now what exactly is the definition of the word "pi$$ing" in the context of this message?

[joeclarke]

aw, I was just taken a little liberty with your tongue-in-cheek comment about the roots of terrorism. The opportunity to segue that into a US-as-the-aggressor analogy was just too tempting.

I'm not sure how you equate pissin' on other people with the quality of either my toilet habits or my car; as your remarks in other contexts have lead me to believe that you do not subscribe to a zero-sum view of macro-economics. I'm sure that (as a good capitalist) you would be the first to acknowledge that Americans are economically successful in accordance with their own industriousness as opposed to us having truck with the fiscal exploitation of our planet-mates.

Pissin' in my context refers to events like Iraqnam. Pissin' on peoples sovereignty or economic well-being in a bogus context of doing what's best for them or for poster children like freedom, democracy and world peace. Iraqnam is the epitomy of such pissin'. There are many, many other examples of such pissin' and such pissin' has greatly gained momentum since the 1960's.

Bear in mind that I'm a union bustin', money lovin' capitalist myself. I just don't happen to think that our way of relating to the world is sustainable since Sept 11th. Technology makes us all too vulnerable to be cocky about foisting our idealogy on or trying to lead the world around by the nose. If we try to turn world domination into a zero-sum game we will all go the way of the dodo well before our time.

[araine901]

How many terror attacks have we had here in the states since the war with Iraq started. It seems like we have flushed most of them out into one killbox. Terror attacks happen every day over there. Why arent they happening here?

[Aurel]

Terror attacks happen every day over there. Why arent they happening here?

I don`t know. I was wondering about that myself. It is hard for me to beleive that the USA is so much more secure than it was before 9/11. One possible answer is that Al Queada likes to take time to plan things. Another answer is that Al Quaeda does not really exist as an ennemy, that it is a giant governement conspiracy to invade oil rich countries. After all, we have already seen that deception and manipulation can happen, with the WMDs

Aurel

[araine901]

Could it be when you have a big stinky terd it attracts fly's. Thereby the flys are gathering over there and not here. Which to me seems like a good thing.

Dont even start with deception and manipulation. If the Intel was bad it had been bad for a long time. You cant with good concious blame this on the current admin. If he had no WMD's why did Cliniton launch Cruise missles? For fun? For a good time? to spend our money? Come on you need to do better than that.

[Aurel]

I understand your theory of terds and flies, but it assumes that the flies are really very stupid to gather all at the same place. Remember, thoses are the sames flies that were able to pull 9/11. And also, the idea that gathering them all at the same place and killing them will solve the problem is rather naive: bear in mind that each terrorist killed has a brother, a father or an uncle that can become terrorist in turn. I don`t see how this circle could end like that. Attacking the roots of terrorism seems like a more efficient strategy, hence the title of the thread. Now, what are those roots ?

Aurel

[araine901]

Well my friend, until it seems logical to strap explosives to ourselves and willingly blow up civilans and avoid military targets, in the name of god, we will never understand the true roots of terrorisim. As a memebr of the armed forces I understand the reasoning in attacking military targets. as horrific as it was I did not have a problem with the terrorists attacking the Pentigon, It is a military target. I take great exception in the choice of the WTC. That had absolutly no military value. As you can see I will never be able to see eye to eye with the terrorist. I suspect you dont either.

Now as to the roots point, if you are impoverished and have nothing better to live for than to die as someelses minion than life sucks. You dont see too many suicide bombers that are rich. Yes there are rich terrorists and sponsors of terror. But the rich ones let the poor ones die becuase they have nothing to live for. But if you improve thier living conditions and give them somthing to live for than you reduce the chances for youth to grow into terrorists. Its similar to the gang mentality, where they will do anyting for those that give them what they cant get in the world becuase they feel there is no oppertunity. In the 80's-90's this happend in Poland and a disease spread through the iron curtian called rising expectations that the soivet union could not meet with thier idiolgy. If by chance we succeed and Iraq becomes a thriving democracy where people can make as much as they want to, what will the neighboring countries that live in squaler want. You guessed it, a better life.

there is a book written by Joel Rosenthal called "the last Jihad" that discuses a hypothetical war with Iraq and a hypothetical plan for peace in the middle east. It was written a few years ago and I would bet that Pres Bush read it (well maybe he had to read to him, you know how those yale grads score on IQ tests) as well. If you havent read it, you should.

PS: I know my grammer and spelling suck, you have commented on it before, I apologize but I was in special ed during some of the developmental years of my life and missed some valuble learning. I will continue in my attempt to improve.

[Aurel]

Araine,

I can feel in your writing how sincere you are, and the grammar does not matter at all as long as your heart is at the right place. Sorry for commenting on it: I did not know you yet. I`ll read the last Jihad, when I get a chance.

Aurel

[fintstone]

Originally posted by araine901
PS: I know my grammer and spelling suck, you have commented on it before, I apologize but I was in special ed during some of the developmental years of my life and missed some valuble learning. I will continue in my attempt to improve.

Quit whining..he called me a t*rd. Consider it a badge of honor...He only resorts to that crap when you have beaten him.

The reason there are terrorists is simply because it works. It is just like what Bin Laden said after Somalia when Clinton did nothing....he said that he made tens of thousands of our troops run like Frenchmen by killing a few of them. He said it worked...will work again..and as thus, they would keep doing it.

That is why we can never let it work. No matter how tough it gets!

[Aurel]

How have you beaten me exactly Mr. Finstone ? Just for your information, the purpose of mindfull debates is not always to beat eachother. But I have to assume that in your simplistic vision of life, there are the good ones and the bad ones, that the good ones need to kill as many bad ones as possible, and that is it.

You say: The reason there are terrorists is simply because it works.

Now, tell me, because what works ? What is their goal ? What are they asking ? Why are they acting in such a radical way ? Something must be pissing them badly for them to do all of that. This is what I`d like to know.

And you can use the french as a typical example of weasels all you want.
The fact is that they are living peacefully with a population over 20% muslim now. And even better, we have assimilated those muslims, and made them adopt our values. Those who are too radical get thrown out of the country. Also, there can be lessons to learn from de Gaulle, who solved the crisis of Algeria in the 60s, a situation very similar that with Iraq now. Well, except that there was not that much oil in Algeria. You seem to want to stick to the war against terror mantra, and not look beyond that.

Aurel

[on-ramp]

damn, he got me again!

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Aurel
How have you beaten me exactly Mr. Finstone ? Just for your information, the purpose of mindfull debates is not always to beat eachother. But I have to assume that in your simplistic vision of life, there are the good ones and the bad ones, that the good ones need to kill as many bad ones as possible, and that is it.
Aurel

If calling others tu*ds is what you call mindful debates, I guess you are winning! People winning arguments rarely resort to vulgarity. Desperate tactics are chosen by desperate men.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Aurel
You say: The reason there are terrorists is simply because it works.

Now, tell me, because what works ? What is their goal ? What are they asking ? Why are they acting in such a radical way ? Something must be pissing them badly for them to do all of that. This is what I`d like to know.

Aurel

If the terrorists think it works that is enough to make them do it. Their current goal is for us to stay out of the middle east...if they succeed, next time they will want something else. Once you pay blackmail, you will always pay blackmail.

Bin Laden was very clear in his "declaration of war" that terrorism worked for him so well against the Clinton administartion (with no respose) that he would continue to use the tactics......

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Aurel
And you can use the french as a typical example of weasels all you want.
The fact is that they are living peacefully with a population over 20% muslim now. And even better, we have assimilated those muslims, and made them adopt our values. Those who are too radical get thrown out of the country. Also, there can be lessons to learn from de Gaulle, who solved the crisis of Algeria in the 60s, a situation very similar that with Iraq now. Well, except that there was not that much oil in Algeria. You seem to want to stick to the war against terror mantra, and not look beyond that.

Aurel

Truth hurts doesn't it? If French life was so good, you would not reside in the US. You are a guest in this country and all you do is trash our people and government...don't whine when we return the favor.