Hi all,
I am very interested in exploring your thoughts about the reasons behind terrorism today. Although the
[quote]From a terrorist
Sometimes, but not always:
Social and economic inequalities and unfairness and
Frustration or futility of working within the system
Having lived in Belfast for 18 years and the Basque Country for 4, let me add my 2 cents…
*NOTE: This should in no way be taken as how I feel.
Both N.Ireland and the Basque Country have many similarities. However, they also have many differences. I suppose that naming the similarities might help to find a common factor in what causes terrorism. Both places were at one point “taken over” by the current government, often in a less that pleasant way, and the residents (especially the ones that did not really accept the new rulers) were treated pretty badly. N.Ireland’s Catholics were treated like second-rate citizens, the Basque language was banned, etc, etc, etc. Anyone who opposed the new rulers was locked up, tortured, etc. Human rights were ignored and the Governments got away with a lot of “dirty tactics”.
The terrorist organisations are seen as freedom fighters, and a lot of people will support them, no matter what.
As I start writing this, I realise it’s impossible to write what I want in such a short space, so I’ll leave it there and see what others say.
Well, violent tactics, sometimes targeting innocent members of the population associated with the occupying power, are considered terrorism by some, and resistance by others. This has been going on for as long as there have been unwelcome occupations, from Roman times to Iraq. I’ll not quibble over the distinction here, but merely point out that this is but one cause of “terrorism”. The solution to this first kind of violence is to end aggressive occupations.
There are others: A second is state-sponsored terror to suppress opposition, as with the late 18th century French reign of terror, the White Terror in Taiwan, and endless other examples under oppressive dictatorships. The solution to this kind of violence is to end oppressive dictatorships. Paradoxically, Bush’s war in Iraq to do just that resulted in the first kind of violence above.
Another, third type is terror by the individual protesting allegedly oppressive or illegitimate government or the ‘ruling classes’, even when that government is domestic, e.g., Karl Heinzen’s manifesto of 1849 supporting terror against monarchic rule, the Baader-Meinhoff Group in West Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Weathermen in the US, etc. The solution here is effective police action, since such groups invariably lack public support to continue and grow.
But the most troubling and persistent kind is that which is based in religious and/or ethnic hatred, and which is fueled by deprivation, lack of education, lack of legitimate venues for expression, and so forth. The generalized anti-Western terrorism now plaguing us falls into this group, and I would be most interested in hearing well-considered opinions on the causes and especially realistic solutions in this area – but I’m out of time.
I was going to mention the religious aspect regarding Northern Ireland, but to be honest, I’ve never believed that the troubles in Northern Ireland were because of religion. It’s political. It’s just that a lot of Nationalists are Catholic and a lot of Loyalists are Protestant. Therefore politics and religion have been closely linked here.
As for the recent attacks and the religious link, I’m sure most Muslims would tell you that that their religion does not support any of this.
Because they can. It’s not like there’s something on TV.
I present you hereby a Red Button[tm] (you can choose a different color if so you please), now, as it happens, you 156% believe in the after live. Truely. It is the absolute truth without questioning. Now, I’m going to tell you some absolute truth that you will not question, because you know it is true beyond doubt and belief: if you press this Red Button[tm] you will die but you will be in a place that is all good. All your family and friends will be far better there after. In fact, if you don’t, it will all be for the worse. Sorry, this is how it is. Will you press it or go watch TV.
Brain damage, brain washing, unemployment, showing off. :s
Religious misleading
An article by one of my favorite columnists, Cal Thomas, on just this topic.
[quote]Terrorism’s root causes
By Cal Thomas, July 12, 2005 / 5 Tamuz, 5765
PORTSTEWART, Northern Ireland
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]An article by one of my favorite columnists, Cal Thomas, on just this topic.
TC,
Did you intend to include a link to the article? If not, what is the source - NY Times?
Seeker4
Jewish World Review jewishworldreview.com/0705/thoma … _root.php3
From the article…
“…No amount of G8 aid to the “Palestinians,” nor a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, will pacify these current and potential killers. Even if Israel were obliterated (the goal of much of the Muslim world), the terror would continue until the entire non-Islamic world is under their control…”
And we gripe about the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists.
The link between politics and religion in this area, as you’ve explained it, seems very casual, almost accidental. You seem to be saying that in the case of the terrorism in Northern Ireland, religion is not a major factor. That is intriguing. Many people (myself included), who generally know that several factors are involved, would probably assume that religion was certainly one major cause. Other than what you’ve already said, Irishstu, can you provide more of your reasoning on that point please?
[quote=“seeker4”]Hi all,
I am very interested in exploring your thoughts about the reasons behind terrorism today.
I pose the question:
[b]From a terrorist
The link between politics and religion in this area, as you’ve explained it, seems very casual, almost accidental. You seem to be saying that in the case of the terrorism in Northern Ireland, religion is not a major factor. That is intriguing. Many people (myself included), who generally know that several factors are involved, would probably assume that religion was certainly one major cause. Other than what you’ve already said, Irishstu, can you provide more of your reasoning on that point please?[/quote]
Hey seeker4. Firstly, very interesting thread you’ve started here. Having lived with the threat of terrorism most of my life, and having seen it from both sides too. It is indeed something that intrigues me.
What I was trying to say is that many, many people think that the “troubles” in Ireland are purely religious. However, they are caused by a fight between people who believe that Northern Ireland should be British and people who think Northern Ireland should be Irish. That’s it. The fact that most people who want one thing are one religion and most people who want the other are the other religion makes it easy for this to be classed as a religious war, but in fact as far as I’m concerned, this is secondary.
However, the two factors have become inextricably linked. For example, with Catholics not being able to get jobs several decades ago. Many areas in Belfast (and in the rest of N.I.) are purely Protestant or Catholic. People who married someone from the “other side” have been forced out of their homes, had them burnt down, or even been killed.
That said, you will find Protestant Nationalists and Catholic Loyalists. Why? Because the religious aspect is not what this is about, but purely a bi-product of the problem. I admit that some Protestants hate all Catholics and vice versa, but this was not the root of the troubles (IMHO).
[quote=“seeker4”][quote=“TainanCowboy”]An article by one of my favorite columnists, Cal Thomas, on just this topic.
TC,Did you intend to include a link to the article? If not, what is the source - NY Times?
Seeker4[/quote]seeker4 -
Last line in article is link. I shortened it to avoid page expansion.
It is working for me as of this morning.
Also -
jewishworldreview.com/0705/thoma … _root.php3
Some say it’s poverty and unemployment that causes terrorism, yet even in the U.S., there are white people from ordinary middle-class backgrounds who become terrorists. Before 9/11, the biggest act of terrorist violence on American soil was the Oklahoma City bombing that killed over 200 innocents. And before that, the Unabomber. And though they aren’t as active these days as they were in say the 1920s, for decades the biggest terrorist organization in the U.S. was the KKK, who lynched and burned down the homes of hundreds of innocents. I don’t think you can reasonably blame “Social and economic inequalities and unfairness and
frustration or futility of working within the system” for their motivations. (Though actually if you look at the origins of the KKK, they started out as “freedom fighters” protesting an occupying power, Yanks during the Reconstruction, similar to the Iraqi “freedom fighters” protesting Yanks in Iraq now.)
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Last line in article is link. I shortened it to avoid page expansion. It is working for me as of this morning.
[/quote]
I assumed there was a link somewhere and was looking at the end of the article, but I got distracted by the (read the article) phrase and unsuccessfully clicked that phrase a lot. 
Thanks.
[quote=“Quentin”]Some say it’s poverty and unemployment that causes terrorism, yet even in the U.S., there are white people from ordinary middle-class backgrounds who become terrorists. Before 9/11, the biggest act of terrorist violence on American soil was the Oklahoma City bombing that killed over 200 innocents. And before that, the Unabomber… I don’t think you can reasonably blame “Social and economic inequalities and unfairness and
frustration or futility of working within the system” for their motivations.[/quote]
Quentin, in order to avoid this kind of muddled logic, I attempted to categorize kinds of terrorism earlier in this thread so that we could deal with motivations and causes differentially by category. Your pointing to motivations behind one type as evidence against that kind of motivation for another type is not very sound logic. Have another look at the categories again, if you would, and think about what the separation implies.
I think there there a lot of people out there thinking terrorism etc only happens in heavily populated countries or those with a lot of religious fundamentalists. I think its usually linked with some sort of political stance and/or frustration with authority which can lead to extremist acts such as terrorism.
For instance this guy, mentioned in the below link, probably was motivated by utter frustration but also likely wanted martyrdom within his own community. At the time of the incident it was thought by many that too much personal information would be stored on police computer networks.
Let me make it clear from the word go that I do not condone terrorism of any kind at all. I don’t condone any other form of aggression either. I detest violence.
However,the word terrorism can often be abused by governments to spread their own propaganda to keep them in power. In South Africa the ANC were branded terrorists after resorting to the armed struggle. They took up arms after all peaceful means of gaining equal rights for all citizens were exhausted. Meanwhile the South African Defence Force (SADF) were involved in terrorist acts in neighboring countries, but were never called terrorists by other countries. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.