NationStates Jolt Archive

The Mumbai bombing thread and my social studies class discussion got me thinking about terrorism. Why do terrorists kill people, especially innocent people? And why do muslim extremists kill innocent muslims? And what do they hope to gain from terror attacks that harm the general public?
It's my personal theory that terrorists attack the people so that they the people become insecure and cynical of the government. "Why risk being the next one to die when the government won't protect us? Might as well join the terrorists and get some sense of security," is the kind of thinking I think the terrorists try to instill into the people.

And why do muslim extremists kill innocent muslims?

Islamaphobe.

They try to cause political change through violence, their eventual goal being an Islamic Ummah, preferably global in scope and governed by their own idea of what Shariah law constitutes.

In practice, that means every attack has slightly different immediate goals based on location. In Iraq the goal is to actually bring down the government, so that the Americans take another PR hit, Shi'ites don't gain political influence and Al-Qaeda types get unpoliced space to set up training camps in.

In western countries the idea is more one of trying to change voter attitudes to policy (apart from the kinda self-evident 'I'm at war with you, in war people kill people, hence now I kill you'). They believe that western countries have started a war against Islam and the Ummah, and blowing up stuff over there is not only a direct tit-for-tat response in their eyes, but also aimed at trying to get these countries to pull out their troops from the Islamic world, thus leaving them free to try and impose a regime change in the Middle East.

As for the motivation for the Mumbai attacks, I'd say that largely depends on who the attackers actually were. The sophistication of the operation basically screams Pakistani ISI involvement. But there had also been talk of previous threats being made by this group against Mumbai's security services, so maybe local politics (eg police cracking down on illegal revenue streams) might have played a role too.

EDIT: Also, read this thread if you want to find out more about their ideology: http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

Terrorism bad. Sorting out weak countries so no more terrorists come from them good.

Oh and it's generally for publicity and/or vengeance.

The Mumbai bombing thread and my social studies class discussion got me thinking about terrorism. Why do terrorists kill people, especially innocent people? And why do muslim extremists kill innocent muslims? And what do they hope to gain from terror attacks that harm the general public?
It's my personal theory that terrorists attack the people so that they the people become insecure and cynical of the government. "Why risk being the next one to die when the government won't protect us? Might as well join the terrorists and get some sense of security," is the kind of thinking I think the terrorists try to instill into the people.

First off - which there are lots of types of terrorists. Anarchist, political, nationalist, domestic/basic anti-government, religious fundamentalist.

All have generally the one similar aim and then completely separate aims after that. Their same aim is attention - either for their group, their cause or their brand of logic.

Terrorists attack people to make a point, to get publicity, and because simply - terrorism works.

Terrorism is the art of scaring the s*&$ out of someone so they do what you want them to. Shock and Awe was America's horrible attempt at it. See also "war" although with all the rules now in place do to Geneva war is hardly scary enough.

First off - which there are lots of types of terrorists. Anarchist, political, nationalist, domestic/basic anti-government, religious fundamentalist.

All have generally the one similar aim and then completely separate aims after that. Their same aim is attention - either for their group, their cause or their brand of logic.

Terrorists attack people to make a point, to get publicity, and because simply - terrorism works.

I'd disagree with you there. I've only seen terrorism strengthen people's resolve and instill hatred. The only way I see it working is in an extremely long run, where the peoples dislike of the government grows to such a great level that they revolt or force the government to agree with the terrorists, but that would likely only happen if they did something stupid, like increasing their control using terrorist threat as an excuse that a country becomes like 1984. Although, thats just my opinion, and therefore not a fact. However, in case of my opinion does not matter to some people... (http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z107/Kain1235/1226106920966.jpg)

And why do muslim extremists kill innocent muslims?

For the same reason Christian terrorists kill innocent Christians Id suspect.

Irish and English? Not really about religion that...besides the English are protestants they are going to hell anyway.

Irish and English? Not really about religion that...besides the English are protestants they are going to hell anyway.

There are a long list of Christian terrorist groups that arent Irish.

everyone needs a hobby

First off - which there are lots of types of terrorists. Anarchist, political, nationalist, domestic/basic anti-government, religious fundamentalist.

I was citing the actions of muslim extremists to question the motivation of terrorists. All of the "terrorist" denominations you mentioned are also what I want to discuss, which is what motivates "terrorists" to use violent tactics.

All have generally the one similar aim and then completely separate aims after that. Their same aim is attention - either for their group, their cause or their brand of logic.

But won't "attention" to a particular group, (for example) that just killed people, hurt that group b/c of negative public opinion? Or are terrorist groups immune to that kind of PR?
Terrorists attack people to make a point, to get publicity, and because simply - terrorism works.

What do you mean, "terrorism works"? Since the word "works" is used, then that implies a degree of "success." Can you cite examples of "success"?

Please understand I'm not trying to attack you, but these are ideas that I've heard before. It annoys me that these ideas are so vague in detail, so I apologize if it seems like I'm attacking you.

The basic idea, as I understand it, is to use innocent people as a bargaining chip against someone. Do what we say or we'll bomb the fuck out of your people.

Irish and English? Not really about religion that...besides the English are protestants they are going to hell anyway.
I can see you're going to contribute a lot to this thread.

What do you mean, "terrorism works"? Since the word "works" is used, then that implies a degree of "success." Can you cite examples of "success"?

Please understand I'm not trying to attack you, but these are ideas that I've heard before. It annoys me that these ideas are so vague in detail, so I apologize if it seems like I'm attacking you.

Terrorism forces governments to change the way they do business because through blowing things up and killing people they tend to show that the old way of doing business is no longer viable to the population getting blown up or killed.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The shadow knows!

But won't "attention" to a particular group, (for example) that just killed people, hurt that group b/c of negative public opinion?
No one cares about what happens to the terrorists themselves. It's why they do what they do in such a shocking manner that gets people questioning and wondering. It highlights a cause or aim.

Or are terrorist groups immune to that kind of PR?
No no. They do something so extremely 'out there' compared to previous acts, it alienates their own base. But normally only after several decades of violent action.

What do you mean, "terrorism works"? Since the word "works" is used, then that implies a degree of "success." Can you cite examples of "success"?
ANC, ETA, IRB/IRA all claim success in varying degrees. And I wouldn't say they're totally wrong in saying that. Plus the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Just off the top of my head.

Please understand I'm not trying to attack you, but these are ideas that I've heard before. It annoys me that these ideas are so vague in detail, so I apologize if it seems like I'm attacking you.
...... you're new here aren't you.... :tongue:

No one cares about what happens to the terrorists themselves. It's why they do what they do in such a shocking manner that gets people questioning and wondering. It highlights a cause or aim.

I'm talking the possibility of a terrorist group suffering from a backfire in PR (suffering as in member drop out or decrease in financial support).


No no. They do something so extremely 'out there' compared to previous acts, it alienates their own base. But normally only after several decades of violent action.

Sorry, I'm not following you...?

ANC, ETA, IRB/IRA all claim success in varying degrees. And I wouldn't say they're totally wrong in saying that. Plus the mujahideen in Afghanistan. Just off the top of my head.

Alright, I agree that the IRA achieved "success" in Ireland (my world history is a bit fuzzy, was it the re-unification of Ireland or Ireland becoming an independent state?). And the ANC (that was Nelson Mandela, right?). Whats the ETA? And what would you call a "success" of the mujahideen?

...... you're new here aren't you.... :tongue:

Yeah. Is that a bad thing?

I'm talking the possibility of a terrorist group suffering from a backfire in PR (suffering as in member drop out or decrease in financial support).

Sorry, I'm not following you...?

For example, an action so despicable that it's own support base turned it back on them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing#Reactions


Alright, I agree that the IRA achieved "success" in Ireland (my world history is a bit fuzzy, was it the re-unification of Ireland or Ireland becoming an independent state?).
The Irish Republican Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Brotherhood#The_20th_century) It's that their acts helped cause a reaction from the State (in this case the British Empire) and drew sharp attention to their cause. Previously, only political or limited civil action drew mild annoyance or didn't even register with the State. When resolving to use violence it highlights whatever cause they believe in sharply. In the above case, although it didn't fully succeed in their ultimate aim - it began a process that was ultimately more successful than any political movement.

And the ANC (that was Nelson Mandela, right?).
Yep. The ANC were deemed terrorists by the South African government. Before they moved to political acts, there were sporadic bombings carried out by the ANC/Mandela.

Whats the ETA?
ETA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA)
By fighting for a 'homeland' against the Spanish central government (for about 100 odd years now) they drew attention to their 'people' and oppression (see Spain under the dictator Franco). Now, Nanatsu might drop by and expand on that as she's Spanish, but have a look on the Wiki page for their aims, methods and how they have pushed their agenda - it has resulted in autonomy for the Basque lands within Spain.

And what would you call a "success" of the mujahideen?
Knocking the shit out of the Soviets in the 1980's in Afghanistan.


Yeah. Is that a bad thing?
No. :D It's just.... cute.... that you think that's an attack.

Whats the ETA?

ETA, or Euskadi Ta Akatsuna, Basque for ''Basque Homeland and Freedom'', is a Separatist organisation that was founded in 1959 to work towards the independence of the Basque Country from both Spain and France.

Both the Spanish and French governemnts as well as the EU and the US consider ETA a terrorist organisation.

ETA's motto is ''Bietan jarrai'', which roughly translates as 'Keep up in both'. You can liken ETA to the IRA in Ireland. Ask Psychotic Mongooses on the IRA subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA

Terrorism is a strategy used by those without conventional ability and the means to communicate their wishes to the masses. It was used in the American Revolution and the victors wrote the history. Had they not, they would be called terrorists. Why do powerful governments kill people? What do they hope to accomplish?

Both entities wish to dominate (economic usually) via violence if necessary. It is just that one kind of violence, the kind NOT state sponsored, is called the worst menace on earth by the media and those who have the nukes. I believe THEY are the menace because they slaughter people wholesale and act as if they accidentally killed, like, 2 bad people. They can't sway the people to do things their way because they don't have the power. After their seize the power, they can control the media, etc.. and condition the people. From then the foreign policy is controlled by the invader. Might makes right, but they won't say it. We see it happening every day in the middle east. Why do western governments keep the Al Sauds in power, and why the provocation of Russia? Every conflict, ours and theirs, has PROFITS and strategic positioning at its root. Not for one second do I think "my guys" start wars for human rights, or that someone else started the war. They start wars against people who violate human rights, so it is easy to demonize them. However, looking at the flip side, our allies over there have a more horrendous human rights record than our government's enemies. So what gives? And who is silly enough to think we invade anyone out of loving Christian kindness and compassion for the suffering?

ETA, or Euskadi Ta Akatsuna, Basque for ''Basque Homeland and Freedom'', is a Separatist organisation that was founded in 1959 to work towards the independence of the Basque Country from both Spain and France.

Both the Spanish and French governemnts as well as the EU and the US consider ETA a terrorist organisation.

ETA's motto is ''Bietan jarrai'', which roughly translates as 'Keep up in both'. You can liken ETA to the IRA in Ireland. Ask Psychotic Mongooses on the IRA subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA

The problem is this: Most nations are FOUNDED by "terrorists." Israel was, very recently in fact. The U.S. was too. The new Kosovo (or as the terrorists call it Kosova). But if terrorists win, we call the terrorists "founders." If the Basques were successful and gained control of Spain's arsenal, they would no longer be considered terrorists. State sponsored mass violence is the only approved violence. The label "terrorist" is used often to demonize struggles by peoples for independence. Then again, sometimes they are just terrorists. I define that as killing innocent civilians. Knocking off occupation soldiers is quite appropriate.

We considered the KLA a terrorist group, until we decided we wanted the Serbs removed from their homeland. The Taliban were our buds once too, along with Hussein.

However, looking at the flip side, our allies over there have a more horrendous human rights record than our government's enemies.

Record, as in, it happened in the past. As in, it isn't happening now.

Irish and English? Not really about religion that...besides the English are protestants they are going to hell anyway.

Hang on, wait...what?

"terrorist" acts, are generally acts of despirations, by people who have been deeply emotionally affected by other violence having taken place in their lives, and feel rightly or wrongly, they have little or no other opportunity to make their point, reguardless of how well or poorly off they might be materially. while individually they tend to be the less well educated, even this is not the common bond.

generally they tend to come from beliefs or populations or population segments, that HAVE been draconically repressed and usually are currently being.

(or, in the case of white supremests, a combination of culture and beliefs that see themselves as being, with little or no factual basis, though with likely a childhood of some sort physical or psychological abuse)

so many different reasons
i always try to look to see where the damage is caused and who could possibly benefit

1. did any real property get destroyed? (so very often - no)(9/11 one of the few cases of real property being damaged.)
2. were any of the agents captured - or were they all killed (so very often - yes)
3. how professional were the agents, how well trained, how well equiped
if well trained and well equipped - where did the money for that come from?




4.

Terrorism allows people who feel irrelevant(whether they are or not) to feel relevant(whether they are or not). It's like an internet forum that way. *nod*

no one is irrelivant who'se culture has been brutally repressed.
dominant nations, who ought to know better, need to stop creating terrorist by doing so.
that is the lesson that needs to be learned.
certianly the perpitraters of crimes need to be prevented from repeating their offenses,
(that is why we need, and need to support, an international criminal court),
but you don't make effective war ON terrorism, by creating more terrorists, by making war on anyone, let alone anyone's environment their survival depends on, nor their civil rights wherever they may happen to live.

For the same reason Christian terrorists kill innocent Christians Id suspect.

Yes, and what is that reason KoL?

Yes, and what is that reason KoL?

Taco shortages. *nod*

Taco shortages. *nod*

No. Zinc. It's theorized that the Middle East diet is short on that, which leads to a spike in aggression. So not taco shortage. It's marmite shortage.

No. Zinc. It's theorized that the Middle East diet is short on that, which leads to a spike in aggression. So not taco shortage. It's marmite shortage.

Hey, could be.

Yes, and what is that reason KoL?

Because a terrorist sees less extreme versions of their religion as being apostates or not true believers or some other such nonsense and considers their lives expendable in pursuit of their goals.

Yes, and what is that reason KoL?
They just really hate freedom.

Because terrorists aren't people. They are a subspecies created by Nazi scientists in 1943 when a clone was accidentally created combining the genes of Adolf Hitler with those of a rat. Unfortunately, the clone escaped, and before being captured and killed fled to the Middle East and went on a rampage of rape, impregnating thousands of women with terrorist babies. From Hitler, the terrorists inherit their hatred of Jews. The IQ level is also closer to the rat than the human, meaning that they cannot understand the concept of negotiation, which is why we never negotiate with terrorists.

Because a terrorist sees less extreme versions of their religion as being apostates or not true believers or some other such nonsense and considers their lives expendable in pursuit of their goals.

Thank you for clarifying.