Apart from various issues highlighted here I would like to present to you all a different angle regarding the whole terrorism issue.
At any place if there are two competitors and one is very powerful than the other, the only way for the weaker competitor to make the stronger competitor lose is bring it down some how.
Let me explain using a example: if A is very strong than B, and B has no good means to make the presence of A feel less then B is more prone to chose illegal means to bring down A.
Similar concept can be applied to Christian-Muslim ideology, Hindu-Muslim ideology or Jews-Muslim ideology or any broad case. Some how over the period of time Muslims have found that the other religion is forcing its ideology on them or they are being overshadowed by the other and have become more prone to terrorists acts than any other community.
There are also political reasons behind terrorism, it can also be proved by examples from history of terrorism .In most cases terrorists as they are called today were created by Political powers who were enemies/not well wishers of a country. otherwise how do you explain the terrorists gaining arms and ammunition to bomb people
In the longer run these individuals which were prepared to terrorize enemy countries turned against the sponsor countries and went totally out of hand.
[quote]I suppose these are some of trhe thoughts in a terrorists mind:
We did not go to you, you came us. You have taken my land although you have your own. You have reduced our people to beggars and servants in their own country. You have threatened what I hold dear. Leave me in peace and I will leave you in peace.[/quote]
I seriously doubt it. I’ve heard it’s a little like the one about the blowfly hitting the windscreen. What’s the last thing that goes through its mind? It’s asshole.
While that was an interesting enough quote I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that a SUICIDE TERRORISTS have NO APPRECIABLE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY. The article suggests that their behaviour is a predictable response to growing up in a certain society. If that is the case then perhaps the society is crazy. Why not come out and say it?
While that was an interesting enough quote I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that a SUICIDE TERRORISTS have NO APPRECIABLE PSYCHOPATHOLOGY. The article suggests that their behaviour is a predictable response to growing up in a certain society. If that is the case then perhaps the society is crazy. Why not come out and say it?[/quote]
Here, here…
The author of the piece, it seems, suggests that suicide bombers don’t just get up one morning and decide today is a good day to blow up myself and twenty others, because they have a few screws loose. They infer that theirs is not so much a case of individual psychopathology as it is one of a group answer to persecution. That is, a way for members of a certain class/group tribe/whatever, to give their lives to punish people whom they perceive to have wronged them and theirs and to achieve some sort of political goal.
On a personal note, one of my students in Canada was a young Palestinian whose family had enrolled him in an English course in junior college in order to get him away from all of that. For him, a rational, sane and intelligent young man, being a suicide bomber was the only option left to him and his friends. It was sad hearing this. I still think of him and I wish that he’s still studying in Canada.
If by tribes you are refering to Islam, I don’t see the connection because it isn’t a tribe but a religion. The fantatics within that religion aren’t members of any particular tribe. The guys who bombed London were from Leeds. They were part of progress. One guy was a primary school teacher. I just don’t see any relationship here between the kind of terrorism experienced last week in England and economic progress in poorer nations. These families were living the dream. They had immigrated to England, had taken advantage of the opportunities offered and then blew themselves up out of religous bigotry.
What does this have to do with terrorism? What does this have to do with what goes on in one’s head when bombing himself along with twenty other people? What does this have to do with the kids who died of malnutrition today? What does this have to do with the thousands of tons of wheat that is detroyed every year in the US alone? What does this have to do with the milions who died of malaria and other diseases for lack of contemporary medecine and ressources? What does this have to do with the fact that poor people aren’t even offered state of the art medecines on the count that it’s just unaffordable? What does this have to do with rape and child pornograhy? What does this have to do with suicidal teenagers? What does this have to do with acid burns? What does this have to do with the war heros or the victims?
What does this have to do with the lack of integrity displayed in the way we actually behave as a society and as individuals versus the morals we value.
The world is alienated somehow… Extremists cause the world pain and suffering yes…But how many people are extremists in their own way of looking at things and living their lives, religion aside? How many people would kill for money nowadays? How many people would kill for just about any reasons? A better question would be how many people do these things everyday? etc,etc,etc.
People have been fighting for ages and they still are… New names, new enemies, new approaches, same motives. The reasons behind terrorism would answer many more questions.
Wookie identified what I would consider a necessary condition for the kind of terrorism you’re discussing: desperation, a lack of hope. To that I’ll add a second necessary condition: indignation, anger over a lack of justice. I have had some very limited experience speaking with members, and would be members of terrorist groups in northern Spain and Morocco. The sentiments that came through most strongly were “This is wrong” and “We’ve got no choice.”
To take this a bit further, I’d suggest that these are necessary but insufficient conditions because:
a) desperation artificially limits the scope of apparent alternatives, and who would take such action if alternatives were seen to exist? Put another way, “we only do what we have no reason not to.”
b) a sense of justice (which seems to be biologically ingrained even in chimps) may compel action–even such apparently irrational action–when it is offended… and terrorists of the sort in question certainly seem to be indignant reactionaries.
c) not every desperate person with an ax to grind blows up a bus, so there’s got to be more to it.
If by tribes you are refering to Islam, I don’t see the connection because it isn’t a tribe but a religion. The fantatics within that religion aren’t members of any particular tribe. The guys who bombed London were from Leeds. They were part of progress. One guy was a primary school teacher. I just don’t see any relationship here between the kind of terrorism experienced last week in England and economic progress in poorer nations. These families were living the dream. They had immigrated to England, had taken advantage of the opportunities offered and then blew themselves up out of religous bigotry.
It’s a problem within their culture.[/quote]
Fox, I know the word “tribe” just isn’t good enough and perhaps needs more clarification, at least so you all follow what I’m attempting poorly to say…
Islam is the culture. Within Islam, as within Christianity, there are many tribes. The 1-2% “baddies” I’m speaking of are the Wahabist Muslims coming mostly from Saudi Arabia, using their bilions to export something akin to the KKK’s ultra-right Christian ideology to the world.
It doesn’t matter that these boys were born and raised in the UK. They seem to have been followers of the Wahibist Tribe.
And you are dead on target. It IS a problem within their culture; however if the remaining 98% of neutrals or goodies don’t put pressure on the Wahibists to desist, it becomes guilt by association, doesn’t it? Isn’t this the same line of thought that allows people to criticise Germans who disagreed, but stood by as the Nazis, after coming to power, started radicalising Germany?
I know the term “tribe” can be replaced by something more succinct, and using the term “culture” like this is also bound to cause troubles…however, IMO it’s worth it to get through the harder aspects of this topic.
quote=“Jaboney”]
c) not every desperate person with an ax to grind blows up a bus, so there’s got to be more to it.
[/quote]
Yes, but some do.
I am totally right and righteous and you are totally wrong and evil, therefore I am justified in blowing you up.
Within all of us I think is the seed of that statement. Are people essentially good, law abiding, etc. and need to be protected from evil or are they essentially evil and need to be shown the right?
Is the person who cut you off this morning less of a human than you are? Do you feel superior to him because you are a more respectful driver?
What about when you hear that a roadside bomb kills an American soldier, is his death more tragic to you than when a police station is blown up and an Iraqi is killed?
I hate to admit it, but I often instinctively feel superior to disrespectful drivers and I’m a bit sadder at the deaths of coalition personnel.
Where is this going?
As an individual, feelings of superiority as well as value judgements are quite natural, I think, and I often have to remind myself to think about my initial reactions and to see if there’s any truth in them. Crises arise when a culture, religion, etc reinforces these feelings. There will always be individuals with axes to grind who’ll go out and blow up a bus. The problem of our time is that there are whole communities who think this is justifiable, and religious leaders who preach this doctrine.
In order to kill an enemy most people have to believe they are somewhat less human.
Do we think we’re superior to terrorists, or can we see those who would seek to blow us up as human too? If we can, how could that change our approach to the fight against terrorism? If we can’t, what does that say about us?
I have no problem with the description of it being a problem within the culture of their religion because it is.
Those people need to be made feel like pariahs and curs by their peers. The barrel of a gun obviously does not deter them. They eat bullets for breakfast. That is what makes it a community and policing problem. Except in the case of Afghanistan where it was a state issue. That is the lunatics had taken over the asylum
Add lack of compassion to the list. On both sides.
Wookie, those are good questions.- It’s ok to accept some responsibilities when it comes to terrorists acts and it’s wise to ask some questions in order to determin what exactly are those responsibilities.
In any given situation when someone is trying to cause me harm, I should try to understand why someone is doing that to me before I retaliate. Lack of doing that, I’ll only aggravate things. I’m not siding with fanatics, don’t get me wrong, I just think that if someone came to my house with a grenade and blew up my porch, I’d really want to understand why? What did I do? What’s going on?
Lack of integrity, add that to the list too. Can’t say “peace” and shoot someone in the face at the same time. That’s like “shooting yourself in the foot”.
You can say peace and shoot someone at the same time. We do it all the time. It’s called crime and punishment.
There is little point in reaching out to somebody who is hell bent on killing you in a cowardly underhanded manner, because he’ll just take advantage of it and blow you up.
He is motivated to kill you without compassion. That is the point. He has a crazed belief system. Think of that guy who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma, Timmothy McVay, he had a crazed belief system. It wouldn’t matter how much you tried to convince him otherwise, because everything he thought only reenforced his own crazy objective. It’s like trying to reachout to a volcano. It is a force of nature.
You got to remember, What we call terrorism, others may call it guerilla warfare, as well those we see as terrorists others may see as freedom fighters. Bombing places in crowed cities, buses or trains is a pretty sick act, then again so is firing missles from jets and helicopters into schools and hospitals and writing it off as collateral damage.
I wish I could chop it up and say it is because of religious fanaticism, insanity , hatered, political agendas or ignorance, but that’s too simple. The bottom line is there are people on both ends pitting each other against one another.
It is easy to agree with a radical cleric in a village that got bombed to rubble calling for the blood of the ones responsible, it is easy to listen to an army recruiter when nothing but images of terror are flashed before you on TV, Most people know matter where they may be do not want to grow up and be killers. Though you take away something from people, they usually fight back once they feel, or are lead to feel that what is taken away or may be taken is a threat. That is why people get robbed. They have something the other does not and they take the easy, desperate route to get it.
As long as humans keep a divided barrier between one another and ideals are taught that one way is better then another you will have conflict. It would be great if rainbows filled the sky and we bought the world a coke and we all sung in perfect harmony, but unless a major consensus is reached that peace and progressiveness as a species is more important then your belief over anothers or economic growth and power is not really important in the larger scheme of our species and humanity starts to treat each other as equils beyond the constructs that seperate us, we will continue to have the ones who have not and they will continue to look at those who do have and keep looking for ways to get it. One way or another.
Peace
