NationStates Jolt Archive

So, why do people just decide to kill a bunch of innocent/guilty/whatever Americans/British/etc. anyway?

Why does a man decide to turn to terror?

Poll coming, of course.

God, you let the genie out of the bottle!

Seriously, however, the root of terrorism is humiliation. If someone's idea clearly doesn't work, yet one holds onto it fanatically, violence results. This isn't just applying to Islamofascism. The anarchists of old went through a similar phase. So do the ecosocialists in ELF in the US, and many of the secessionists groups in Euruope, though thankfully, they've pretty much died out.

A terrorism is what you do when your army has no airoplanes. It's a low-tech smartbomb. All that being said it's just another way of starting a war. And if some folks with airplanes decide to express their displeasure then you got what you deserved...

BTW, I forgot to include an "other" option on the poll, so you can just specify it here.

A terrorism is what you do when your army has no airoplanes. It's a low-tech smartbomb. All that being said it's just another way of starting a war. And if some folks with airplanes decide to express their displeasure then you got what you deserved...
Pablo Escobar once said that terrorism is the poor man's atom bomb.

I'd say that for the average person to commit terrorist activities probably has a fair bit to do with desperation.

People turn to terrorism when they don’t have any other way of fighting back. It is currently being used by groups in the mid-East because of permanent US occupations in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other places around the world and a general disagreement with the policies of the US.
My ancestors in Boston also resorted to terrorism for similar reasons. They asked themselves, why all the British soldiers that stayed behind after the Seven Years War, and what about that autocratic Quebec Act, what if they think they’re going to pull that shit on us?

Likely so. But if we'd decided at some point to torch Big Ben I think the Brits would have given us a lot more of a fight...

i chose all of the above/some of the above, but abuse of Religion is the biggest

All of the above.

So, why do people just decide to kill a bunch of innocent/guilty/whatever Americans/British/etc. anyway?

Why does a man decide to turn to terror?

Poll coming, of course.
Zelotry.

People turn to terrorism when they don’t have any other way of fighting back. It is currently being used by groups in the mid-East because of permanent US occupations in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other places around the world and a general disagreement with the policies of the US.
Propaganda.

Propaganda.
" I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves."
Patrick Henry said that. Deal with it.

Obesity.

they are compensating for very small thingies

Obesity.
Your mom! :eek:

I don't know for sure, but I have my suspicions.

For instance, every single suicide bomber had dandruff. Coincidence? I'm beginning to wonder. *eyes narrow*

I don't know for sure, but I have my suspicions.

For instance, every single suicide bomber had dandruff. Coincidence? I'm beginning to wonder. *eyes narrow*

Perhaps a carton of Head and Shoulders Shampoo would be more effective in the war on terror than a smart bomb?

" I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves."
Patrick Henry said that. Deal with it.
Uh huh... :rolleyes:

Just when did attacking a military become terrorisim?

(I do not call attacks on our troops in Iraq acts of terrorism BTW - those are legitimate acts of war against a military force... as for killing Iraqi children, teachers, etc. though... :sniper: )

Terrorisim involves attacking civillians/civillian infrastructure for the sake of causing death, fear and panic in the civilian population. It has military value only against those governments who care more about the opinions of the sheeple and appeasement than defending themselves against such attacks. Thus, a few losers can "sacrifice" themselves (if to death - usually with explicit or implicit hope for afterlife gain - or to imprisonment - with the hopes a media circus and $$$) and "force" the weak stomached to give up whatever the terrorist wants.

There is nothing legitimate or legitimizing with terrorisim.

Perhaps a carton of Head and Shoulders Shampoo would be more effective in the war on terror than a smart bomb?

Considering how much the smart bombs have done, it certainly can't do any worse. :p

When you have an asymmetric war, that is, two sides that do not match up equally technologically, terrorism is the asymmetric tactic of the industrially inferior force. It is designed to introduce chaos in the system and reduce the industrial efficiency of the superior force, penetrate their defenses and make even small victories look larger, in order to damage the willpower of the more advanced force.

Terrorism is used, because they have no better weapon. If they had a better weapon, they would use that better weapon.

Terrorism works best when combined with propaganda and large amounts of stupid liberals who recite said propaganda. For example, some of the above such people would likely suggest that Osama had his people attack The World Trade Center because of the American Occupation of Iraq, though America obviously did not occupy Iraq until well after the World Trade Center was attacked.

Islam is the current mass producer of terrorism because Islam is the world’s largest and fastest spreading backwards ideology. A hundred times less efficient than communism where industry is concerned, but they have a lot of kids and whine well. They take over a country, reduce it to rubble then move on to the next country. They are poisoning wells in Darfur, gunning down schools in Russia and burning children in India. In all cases they employ terrorism. In all cases they pretend to be victims and in all cases, they have apologists in the west making excuses for them. Terrorism will work, until we have a law like the Spartans did, where you could punch a liberal legally.

Pablo Escobar once said that terrorism is the poor man's atom bomb.

Rich man's atom bomb, in his case.. his people were better paid than the Colombian police by a mile.. of course, he still got his. :)

But I agree. Terrorism is one available tactic of the cornered animal.

'Terrorism' is a phrase coined by the media, which means 'to cause terror'.
Anyone can do that. I could be a terrorist simply by jumping at someone & yelling "Rah!". I caused terror, I am a terrorist.

If you were reffering to the people in the middle east, labled religious extreamists, who chose to cause terror through suicide bombings ect, then I would definatly say oppression is one of the main causes, however I also think that poverty & economic troubles, heightened by the disruption of the countries, also brought this about.

Be more specific next time.

I cause it.

No, really. I caused it all, from 9/11, to the IRA, to even before that.

Primarily fanatism, that can turn nearly anything that people believe in into a hate ideology. But the leaders of the hate-sects also need 1) the victims of terrorism to play the role of agressors to convince those who become actual terrorists that they are justified and 2) some very unequal power relations to convince the same that they have no other options.

I would say free-time and education, as the sheep farmers in Palestine are too busy herding sheep to learn how to make bombs. They (the terrorists) are getting angry about stuff that happened in the past (Crusades, colonization, etc). Same for the IRA in Ireland, except about the Crusade thing.

What causes people to become terrorists is exactly the same as what causes people to think it'd be a good idea to join the army and shoot the baddies. They feel that their cause is just, they feel that someone needs to take up arms if that cause is to succeed, and they think that the greater good is enough to justify their actions in the meantime. The only difference is that the soldier gets a vener of legitimacy because his actions are sanctioned by a state.

What causes people to become terrorists is exactly the same as what causes people to think it'd be a good idea to join the army and shoot the baddies. They feel that their cause is just, they feel that someone needs to take up arms if that cause is to succeed, and they think that the greater good is enough to justify their actions in the meantime. The only difference is that the soldier gets a vener of legitimacy because his actions are sanctioned by a state.
Well yeah, because a soldier part of a nation state can be held accountable for his actions. Abu Grab anyone? With terrorism, there is no true accountability, we invaded Afghanistan but that was only one part of a network, there is no nation of Al Queda to invade.

This topic is one I have been looking at in some of my university subjects.

Some blame it on poverty, others on religion and some on past events such as the Crusades.

There are also suggestions that it fist with the thoery of "Clash of the Civilisations" that dictates the different civilisations of the world will enievtably fight for dominance and that islamic terrorism is an attack on the western civilisation by the Islamic civilisation. A bit of a stupid theory but it has been growing in populatiry since 9/11.

However I tend to suscribe to the thoery that globalisation is the cuase. Now let me be straight, I am not saying globalization is bad but that it does have certain effects. Globalisation has seen the erosion of many of the worlds cultures and led to a greater sense of inequality and injustice. As a result people feel more alienated and frightend. To deal with this fear they turn to core values which can be found in fundamentalist religion, ignore it by becoming apthathetic and materialistic or turn to other subcultures that have a strong set of values and offer roles for members of the subculture.

The current surge of Islamic terroism is one these responese, a way of positioning yourself in an often confusing and disturbing world. People are not attracted to it nessacrily becuase they are evil, insane or somehow screwed in the head.

Many of the 9/11 hijackers were educated in Belguim and had the best of life offered to them by rich and doting parents. However it is believed that somewhere they must have felt a compulsion to join terror networks out of a feeling of injustice, a need for a concrete set of values and ideals provided by the organisations or becuase they felt somehow threatnened by developments in the world.

Terrorism as with most things is not random and it is foolish to assume it can be placed on simple thigns such as religous differences or ethnicity, although they can play a part.

Incidently how many of you know that China has been fighting Islamic insrugents in its far western provinces for a number of years now, proving that islamic terrorism isnt just aimed at the west and America

What causes people to become terrorists is exactly the same as what causes people to think it'd be a good idea to join the army and shoot the baddies. They feel that their cause is just, they feel that someone needs to take up arms if that cause is to succeed, and they think that the greater good is enough to justify their actions in the meantime. The only difference is that the soldier gets a vener of legitimacy because his actions are sanctioned by a state.

There are also suggestions that it fist with the thoery of "Clash of the Civilisations" .....

Hungtindon... ugh. Too simplistic analysis for me. Its not bad, but he oversimplifies the scenario- discounts various factors like national identity, upbringing, and influences to counter the 'civilisation'.

i chose all of the above/some of the above, but abuse of Religion is the biggest
i'm not so sure. i was listening to two british ex-negotiators, who had worked extensively with terrorists and the like, on radio 4 the other morning, and they seemed to back up what i was already thinking. that the majority of terrorists are not driven by religion - that is their tool, the thing that allows them to break their own moral/ethical codes - but driven by 'necessity' or, more aptly, desparation. what i mean by that is violence becomes their only means to be heard if nobody listens to them, or takes their problems seriously, in the face of real hardship and/or poverty. when there is nothing else they can do, they turn to violence. and in many of the terrorist 'breeding grounds' the hardships they have had to endure often psychologically scar the men for life, meaning a lot of the time they do not think rationally as you or i might.

however they were referring to old style terrorism, where the terrorists wanted something specific - the withdrawal of troops from their region for example. this relatively new terrorism thats swept up for the 'downfall of the west' is obviously far more generalised and is the result of adding religious extremists/fundamentalists into the mix, among other things (including the west's own actions). this can widen the terrorist base when they are now supporting a wider cause, and lead to groupthink extremism.

so by no means is it any one factor imho

Poverty, politics, and religion, together.

islam causes terrorism, plain and simple. I mean have you ever actually taken a look into the koran? It might as well just tell you to shoot people while they wait at the busstop.

its mainly despiration and anger at what is happerning.......

very rarely is it the preaching of priests or the teachings of religions (I struggle to think of a religion that doesn't say you shouldn't kill.....)

for example in palestine people blow themselves up because they have nothing to lose and this is one way to get back at the people who they see as having taken their land and trying to eradicate them as a people, they use suicide bombing as the israelis would kill them any way so if they attack they will die and they see it as the most efficient way of taking as many down with them as possible.

in Iraq I can't call them terroists I have to call them freedom fighters or the resistance, (i'm thinking of calling the british army terroists after what they have been caught doing (if you haven't heard two british soldiers were arrested dressed as if they were part of one of the millitias, with explosives and detonators, then they were freed by british troops storming the police station by driving a tank through the wall (the local people defended the police station agains an earlier attack forcing the soldiers back))) also I can't call the 'foreign fighters' terroists especially as any arab has been able to claim iraqi citizenship so they have more claim to the country the the foerign fighters of the coallition

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

To illistrate this point not all terrorists are Islamic and not all are condemmed by the US. The terrorist group that has been of most concern to me for a large portion of my life recieved most of their funding from the US and their leaders were frequently invited to the White House - The IRA. Who since their US funding has dried up in the wake of 9/11 and whose leaders no longer attend the White house following changing attitudes towards terrorism in the US have now made leaps and bounds to the peace process.

Terrorism is basically a tool that a weaker force can use against a much larger/stronger opponent - gruilla (spelling?) warfare is the same concept. And the thing is... it works. It got the Soviets out of afganistan, it got the US out of vietnam, it has given catholics a much stronger voice in Northern Ireland, it has stopped palestine being ignored by the west and it has led to several countries avoiding/pulling out of the iraq/afgan wars.
Without terrorism Northern Ireland would be the same as 30/40 years ago where all power was in the hands of the prostestnts, Soviets would control afganistan, the US would have conquered vietnam and palestine would be a forgotten corner of the world full of a displaced people.

Aside from that terrorism is a tool used by some (OBL) to ncrease their personal power - the leaders of terrorist groups have nothing to gain from peace - while they have a cause they have power and status, without that cause they are just another guy on the street, and since they have done nothing their whole life that would give them useful skills in a peaceful world they would be a jobless guy on the street - this is why terrosists often start buggering things up when the peace process is underway.
On a similar line terrorism can be used by the leaders of both sides to distract attention from home issues - the arab world can blame all its problems on the west and israel, israel can blame its problems on the arabs and the US can distract from home issues (or justify things like the patriot act) by blaming islamic terrorists.

islam causes terrorism, plain and simple. I mean have you ever actually taken a look into the koran? It might as well just tell you to shoot people while they wait at the busstop.

I've read the Quran and NO, Islam and terrorism are not friends. I didn't like the book, it is like the Old Testament; talking about an angry god every time.

Quran does explain clearly that killing people causes eternal condemnation, that you are only allowed to use violence if you are attacked before.

And the "Islam causes terrorism" arguement doesn't fit with IRA, ETA, the Mafia, the Yakuza...

in Iraq I can't call them terroists I have to call them freedom fighters or the resistance, (i'm thinking of calling the british army terroists after what they have been caught doing (if you haven't heard two british soldiers were arrested dressed as if they were part of one of the millitias, with explosives and detonators, then they were freed by british troops storming the police station by driving a tank through the wall (the local people defended the police station agains an earlier attack forcing the soldiers back))) also I can't call the 'foreign fighters' terroists especially as any arab has been able to claim iraqi citizenship so they have more claim to the country the the foerign fighters of the coallition

I've heard a former Malay minister -enjailed for his pro-occidental ideology- that many of the Iraqi explosions are planned by CIA.

I saw it yesterday in the printed edition of www.elmundo.es (http://www.elmundo.es)

And the Iraqi fighters are definitely anti-occupation fighters.

ETA are technically freedom fighters or gurillas (there was a basque state formed with the consent of the legal central government of the republic during the civil war) admittadly they are now not paticularly violent as they are being listend to now.

the mafia and yakusa are criminals not terroists.......

but i'd class the IRA and the UDF and others of northen island as terroists due to the fact they all mainly attack civillian targets and also use violence against their own communities that dissagree with them (even if not collaberating or acting against them)

Why do people turn to terrorism?

Plain stupidity and nothing else.

Either on the side of the one labeled 'terrorist' or on the side of those who the terrorists rebel against, though often its a matter of plain stupidity providing the rationales on both sides.

And the Iraqi fighters are definitely anti-occupation fighters.

Amen!

I agree to

i've always said that they were resistance fighters

and even better then that they are winning.......

well wouldn't you fight if your country was invaded and then they won't go away

ETA are technically freedom fighters or gurillas (there was a basque state formed with the consent of the legal central government of the republic during the civil war) admittadly they are now not paticularly violent as they are being listend to now.

I'm sorry to disagree but, although ETA are seen abroad as freedom fighters, they are terrorists. They are not like FARC or AUC; they put bombs in malls, they kill politics, journalists and civilians, and they are not inspired on the basque country of the Civil War, but on an hypotetical medieval Basque Nation...

they were originally

they latter became a lot more questionable

they originally attacked parts of the state (such as politicians and the military) but later they became a lot more random

they were originally

they latter became a lot more questionable

they originally attacked parts of the state (such as politicians and the military) but later they became a lot more random

Their first -supposed- act was a bomb in a Bilbao bus station that killed a 3-year-old girl (1960).

Their first official act (1968) was the assasination of a Civil Guard in a road control.

Then they continued with railways sabotages and some assasinations every while; until the eighties, when they started a massive civilian campaign, in malls, bus stations, assasinations, kidnaps...

What causes terrorism?
The answer is really simple: People willing to do violence not getting their way.

in fact their first acts were to fight as partisans in spain and german occupied france helping allied soldiers and airmen out of the occupied teritorys........

they also started well before what you are saying

as soon as their areas were over run

and their first acts were to assasinate several francoist officials leading a witch hunt against real (and supposed) republicans

A conjunction of causes for the most part, however, the essential root and facilitating element of terrorism is injustice and oppression, since the IRA and ETA are motivated by percieved political, and in the case of the IRA, religious injustices, whilst contemporary Islmaic insurgents are motivated by western disregard, antipathy and contempt for Islam, as they consider it.

I don't think it's a cause, per se, but it occurs to me that cowardice must be involved...

why would anyone take a course of action they didn't believe would have a chance of working? and someone who thinks that, were they attacked in this way they would roll over, lacks courage.

A conjunction of causes for the most part, however, the essential root and facilitating element of terrorism is injustice and oppression, since the IRA and ETA are motivated by percieved political, and in the case of the IRA, religious injustices, whilst contemporary Islmaic insurgents are motivated by western disregard, antipathy and contempt for Islam, as they consider it.
Describe the injustice and oppression of Timothy McVeigh...

That rushing wind sound is the air being let out of your argument.

Terrorism at its foundation ultimately is about bigotry - which is why it most often is across a racial or religious divide. The perpetrators view their targets as 'sub'-humans, collective guilt and themselves as rightious. This perception does not happen overnight - it is incubated by extremists who seek to exploit it for their own gain.

Describe the injustice and oppression of Timothy McVeigh...

That rushing wind sound is the air being let out of your argument.He said "perceived".

I choose "ideology of hate" but I believe the ideology comes often times from a perversion of religion.

Note: poverty is an absurd option.

A conjunction of causes for the most part, however, the essential root and facilitating element of terrorism is injustice and oppression, since the IRA and ETA are motivated by percieved political, and in the case of the IRA, religious injustices, whilst contemporary Islmaic insurgents are motivated by western disregard, antipathy and contempt for Islam, as they consider it.

throw anger into the mix and you are not far off it.

The IRA didn't gain popular support in the north of ireland (among nationalists)until after the events on bloody sunday.
This caused the number of volunteers to increase almost a hundred fold....A british army officer was asked why they seem to have less trouble in iraq than the yanks...he said off the record that they had made all their mistakes in northern ireland and that events like bloody sunday increased the IRA's ability to operate by about 20years.

when you create an injustice or maybe even a percieved injustice the ripple effects are huge in this situation....only my view though.

Your mom! :eek:yo mama!!! :D :D :p :D

The two main roots of terrorism are left-wing extremism and right-wing extremism. That's why libertarianism is the way to go! :cool:

Terrorism is the ultimate sign of desperation. Religion plays a role in current terrorism, it hasn't always been a key element. It helps a lot, since your chance to die is pretty big, if you can convince yourself that you'll be doing better in some afterlife.

People don't go out and say "Well, it's a nice day, pidgeons are flying south, let's blow up some people". There's a reason for that. And that reason isn't always just "'cause they're there". The reason is usually that these people are convinced they have no other options left.

On a similar line terrorism can be used by the leaders of both sides to distract attention from home issues - the arab world can blame all its problems on the west and israel, israel can blame its problems on the arabs and the US can distract from home issues (or justify things like the patriot act) by blaming islamic terrorists.

Hmm... reading it that way, why the HELL should any country do anything meaningful against terrorism? It's a simple win-win situation.

Sure the "normal" people suffer. But they don't get a say anyway, so... have fun blowing stuff up!

A mixture, and an awful set of circumstances.

People turn to terrorism when they don’t have any other way of fighting back. It is currently being used by groups in the mid-East because of permanent US occupations in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other places around the world and a general disagreement with the policies of the US.
My ancestors in Boston also resorted to terrorism for similar reasons. They asked themselves, why all the British soldiers that stayed behind after the Seven Years War, and what about that autocratic Quebec Act, what if they think they’re going to pull that shit on us?

This argument summarised:

Blowing up buses of Iraqi schoolchildren = a rational rejection of US foreign policy.

Murdering innocent women and children in Bali = an anti-globalisation polemic.

Is this the essence of your argument.

Hmm... reading it that way, why the HELL should any country do anything meaningful against terrorism? It's a simple win-win situation.

Sure the "normal" people suffer. But they don't get a say anyway, so... have fun blowing stuff up!

Clearly, you are being sarcastic.

Because this plan would spawn more terrorists, because the "normal" people who suffer that you speak of would become terrorists.

Terrorism is a business.

Behind every religious yahoo trying to blow himself up, there is a well established network of recruiters, preachers, funders, trainers and facilitators.

Examining the cannon fodder (the foot soldier) will get you nowhere.

To understand terrorism you would have to understand the ideology and to combat it you would have to understand the network.

What I see mostly on this forum (and outside too for that matter) is either extreme islamophobia or apologism for terrorism by couching it in various excuses.

Needless to say, neither of this is gonna help.

Terrorism is a business.

Behind every religious yahoo trying to blow himself up, there is a well established network of recruiters, preachers, funders, trainers and facilitators.

Examining the cannon fodder (the foot soldier) will get you nowhere.

To understand terrorism you would have to understand the ideology and to combat it you would have to understand the network.

What I see mostly on this forum (and outside too for that matter) is either extreme islamophobia or apologism for terrorism by couching it in various excuses.

Needless to say, neither of this is gonna help.

I just KNOW sum1 gonna take this and respond by saying "You're wrong, it's all the violent video games' fault!!":D