Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

What motivates a terrorist?

0 helpful
160 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

For a start, although Saddam Hussein was/is a sociopath, I doubt that many terrorists would come within this classification. In the Axis of Evil we have Iraq (a secular state, with Muslim majority population); Iran .. a Muslim state; and North Korea… a communist state with a cultural background akin to Buddhism.
So why does an individual (other than one suffering from clinical depression) willingly sacrifice his/her life in order to kill as many as possible of the perceived “enemy?”
Now this is not a practice exclusive to Islam. The Japanese suicide bombers did a fair bit of damage in World War II. But these pilots were from a predominantly Buddhist country. Were they merely practising loyalty to the Emperor, or perhaps they thought they were attracting good karma?
And somehow I think that Muslim suicide bombers are not motivated merely by the promise of virgins in the afterlife.
I am guessing that some individuals are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of the majority who are intent on pursuing a particular political agenda.
But then others, realising that the cause that they believe in has no hope of being implemented, may decide to take out a few more lives as they despair of ever realising their dream.

160 replies

by jardinier

Now certain countries are supposedly joining forces to stamp out terrorism. However I fear that the strategy currently being employed may not achieve its stated goal.
I draw the analogy of a nest of stinging ants. The more you stir them, the more they will retaliate with nasty bites. And even if you kill or capture all the terrorist leaders, others will come to fill their places.
We have an interesting example of what might occur by following the history of the Irish Republican Army. What mayhave started out as a legitimate cause (independence) has turned into killing by habit, long after it became obvious that this army would never achieve its goals through wanton violence.
While I of course can’t read the mind of a terrorist, perhaps some people would like to share their ideas. I suspect that it was not 9/11 that “changed the world forever,” but rather that this tragedy was a catalyst forcing the world to see that, in order for the human race to survive, peopleof different religious persuasions have to learn to share the planet without continually killing each other off.

by thechas

Hi Julian,

If you look at most of the major conflicts throughout time, you will see that the instigator perceived an injustice perpetrated by the targets.

In these discussions, I am constantly reminded of a slogan that a local social justice ministry used years ago.

"If you want peace, work for justice"

As long as there is injustice in the world, there will be people willing to die to end the injustice.

The industrialize nations need to find ways to stop the exploitation of the poorer countries. Whether it is for labor, resources, or lack of regulations, businesses need to start treating their 3rd world operations the same way that they are required to treat their primary operations.

Further, our leaders need to stop making alliances of convenience and hold onto alliances of conviction.

The leaders and brain-washers of the terrorist organizations use the injustices and political rhetoric of the leading nations to stir up their followers and convince them that whatthey are doing is the best course for their people and families.

We must stop providing these leaders with the fuel for their inspirational speeches.

Chas

by road-dog

There are people in this world who hold a belief system that if you fail to comply with THEIR concepts, then they are not only justified in killing you, but obligated to do so. This is the case with militant Islam. Even if the US were to roll Israelunder the bus and vacate the Middle East, we would still be targets because of things as fundamental as charging interest on loans, (a sin according to Islam).

There is no compromise with this mindset, and their end goal is our conversion to their beliefs or our death.

Let me bottom line this. The Osama Bin Ladens of the world create misery with their theology and the outcomes of forcing it on entire nations. As did the Soviet Union, they redirect their own population's despair at the biggest "enemy" the US. While they have this never ending pool of zealots recruited from the disaffected youth of their region, the attacks spawn reprisals that are fresh fodder for more extremism.

The only answer is the toppling of these regimes and their replacement with democratic governments that will create a chance for hope and prosperity. Only then will these extremists' pool of martyrs dry up.

In the meantime, every attack should have a clear and convincing reprisal. Every hijackingshould be answered with a cluster bombing of a terrorist camp or the assassination of a terrorist leader.

by jimhm

I see you never been in the military dealing with theses types. They don't want Justice - they want total control, they don't want peace because peace will end their power.

There is no compermiseing with them - are 100% with them or 100% againstthem no middle road.

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist - those that think they can apease them with justices - will be the first attacked... Look at the Middle East ... how many countries have tried to appease these groups and they arestill attacked ...

by sullyman

You ask an interesting question ?[W]hy does an individual (other than one suffering from clinical depression) willingly sacrifice his/her life in order to kill as many as possible of the perceived enemy??

In simple terms they believe that they are soldiers, not unlike the soldiers of the perceived aggressors. Besides the tactics used by terrorists, there is not much difference between a soldier and a terrorist. Although I cannot offer a published example, I would bet dollars to donuts thatthere are numerous examples from either of the WW?s where a member of the Allies ran into a bunker or tank with a live grenade in their hand and sacrificed themselves for the sake of their squad/division etc.

Now, that being said there is a definite difference is tactics and strategy between a soldier and a terrorist soldier. A soldier will try to limit civilian casualties, where a terrorist will take out a child if it means that they can get to the target.

You also said ? I am guessing that some individuals are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of the majority who are intent on pursuing a particular political agenda. ?

Well of course, armies, navies, air forces of the world are also built on foundation of people believing or pursuing a particular political agenda

by hal 9000

But I'm willing to have an open mind and from my prespective the Armies, Navies & Airforces are more as a prenetive measure than an actuall attacking measure. They are in place to let other countries know you mess with us and you'll get a bloody nose.

Now the terriost on the other hand generally doesn't represent a country but an ideal which they firmly believe in and are willing to die for and at the same time take as many others {generally civilians} along with them but at the same time not giving the attascked nation the chance to instigate some course of action against the attacker as they generally don't represent a country/nation but the idea of a nation or some other belief. So here these people arn't actually putting their perceived country at risk where as someone from the miletary would be placing their nation at risk of retalation.

Then there's the domestic terriost who has some percieved complaint against either the Government of his/her country or one of there agenicies. Like Tim Mc vey {probably not the right spelling but it is from memory.} and it's probably not a good analogy either but it is the best that I can come up with at short notice I can remember other acts that have occured on the US soil and carried out by US citizens but from my memory they never actually killed themselves just inflicted death and injury on as many as possible {but I'm probably wrong on this as well because I don't get to see all the US news}.

I know it's not a good answer but it's the best that I can come up with as I can't get inside the head of these people and I certianly can't understand just why they act the way that they do. But it is something that I would like to understand if only so it can be prevented from happening ever again.

by hal 9000

But I'm willing to have an open mind and from my prespective the Armies, Navies & Airforces are more as a prenetive measure than an actuall attacking measure. They are in place to let other countries know you mess with us and you'll get a bloody nose.

Now the terriost on the other hand generally doesn't represent a country but an ideal which they firmly believe in and are willing to die for and at the same time take as many others {generally civilians} along with them but at the same time not giving the attascked nation the chance to instigate some course of action against the attacker as they generally don't represent a country/nation but the idea of a nation or some other belief. So here these people arn't actually putting their perceived country at risk where as someone from the miletary would be placing their nation at risk of retalation.

Then there's the domestic terriost who has some percieved complaint against either the Government of his/her country or one of there agenicies. Like Tim Mc vey {probably not the right spelling but it is from memory.} and it's probably not a good analogy either but it is the best that I can come up with at short notice I can remember other acts that have occured on the US soil and carried out by US citizens but from my memory they never actually killed themselves just inflicted death and injury on as many as possible {but I'm probably wrong on this as well because I don't get to see all the US news}.

I know it's not a good answer but it's the best that I can come up with as I can't get inside the head of these people and I certianly can't understand just why they act the way that they do. But it is something that I would like to understand if only so it can be prevented from happening ever again.

by sullyman

Terrorist is becoming a word used to describe "the enemy", as opposed to someone that engages in acts of terrorism.

Terrorism Definition

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against peopleor property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Based on the current definition of terrorism, do you not think that looking at the global political climate the definition should be updated? Or should we begin classifying ourselves as terrorist as well?

We have to be careful in our use of the terrorist label, because a soldier is a soldier no matter what tactics they use on the battlefield. If you put yourself in the position of being outnumbered 100-1 or 1000-1, traditional battlefield tactics would no longer be an option. So, strapping bombs to your chest, car bombs into military camps, etc become your only option next to surrendering. If armies didn?t adjust tactics to being outnumbered, we would be living in a completely different world.

If you can take a step back, think about what tactics you would use if by chance your country was being invaded by some country that out numbered your army 1000-1, like say the Chinese. Guerrilla tactics would have to come into play by civilians, army, etc to even have a slight chance. Is there any difference between guerrilla tactics and terrorist tactics?

But, on the other hand there are two completely different types of terrorists, those who are fighting for an ideal, belief, or country who show some form of respect for the enemy and target only the enemy. Then there are the "other" terrorists that bring the fight to the innocents. They should be called something completely different,

by jackofalltech

There is a BIG difference between adjusting tactics based on the size of the enemy ARMY and deliberatly killing innocent women and children. As I said in an earlier post, terrorists are NOT soldiers, they are cowards.

Ralph

by maxwell edison

To consider a terrorist synonymous to a soldier - in any way whatsoever - is an insult to anyone who is now wearing or has ever worn a soldier's uniform.

My guess is that you never have.

by sullyman

Max,

I am not trying to disrespect any countries military serving or veterans, but one countries terrorist is another?s soldier by definition. Modern media has changed the definition of a terrorist, to someone being an enemy of the state. Example ? the Iraq Republican Guard was presented as terrorists. When in fact they are serving SOLDIERS. Granted there are probably more than a few members that are extremists, and belong to terrorist groups. But, at the end of the day they are mostly soldiers.

Battlefield tactics do not make you a terrorist ( WMD, Bio, Chem, usage make you a type of terrorist ), driving a car into a military camp strapped with explosives if it contains military types, is not an act of terrorism it?s a battlefield tactic. It is one of the ways to even the battlefield, if my tanks are gone I am going to use what ever I can to do the same amount of damage. All countries in the world have used non-traditional tactics on the battlefield?

by thechas

I believe that the biggest difference between a terrorist and a soldier is that a soldier in a sanction organized force wears a distinctive uniform.

A terrorist wears civilian clothing to 'blend' in and go unnoticed.

A terrorist will suddenly spring into action nearly anywhere.

A soldier is part of a group seeking targets of military significance.

Soldiers are sanctioned by their government.

A terrorist is sanctioned by a small group of disgruntled individuals.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Yes, an enemy soldier will strike fear and may cause similar calamities like a terrorist.

However, a true soldier does his/her best to accomplish the task without undue stress to the civilian population.

A terrorist views all as his enemy.

Chas

by john_wills

My father fought on the Allied side in WW II in the eastern Mediterranean. He later told me of seeing injured Allied fighter planes deliberately crash into the decks of Axis ships when the pilot could have bailed out and had some chance of survival.

by jimhm

??? Confused - are you comparing that to the actions taken by the 911 hijackers - as a justification for what they did?

1) There was only 1 person in the plane you talk about - there where hundreds in the planes on 911 who had no choice.

2) Itwas during time of war - that you talk about. We were at peace time on 911.

3) The object attacked you talk about was a war machine - the buildings that where attacked on 911 were not.

4) The single person in the plane did it to save other lives - those cowards in the planes did it just do it - no political statements - no reasons give -

Big difference -

by curlergirl

Sorry - I have to respond to your statement that a "soldier" will try to limit civilian casualties but a "terrorist soldier" doesn't care who he/she kills if it means they get their target. In order to end WWII in the Pacific, we dropped atomic bombs on two cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and killed and maimed thousands of civilians. Was this a terrorist act? No, but it was certainly an act of war. In the same way, the terrorists believe themselves to be at war and therefore consider any target that represents their enemy to be a legitimate target. Do you really believe that we didn't kill civilians in Iraq?

I'm certainly not trying to justify the acts of terrorists - I'm only trying to point out that as long as we see them as some sort of deviants, essentially different from us in some sort of fundamental way, we will continue to fail to understand them or to defeat them. I think that they are desperate people with a cause that they believe justifies the sacrifice of theirlives and certainly of the lives of those they consider their enemies to rectify. They believe themselves to be hopelessly outnumbered (which they are) and therefore without any way to bring about change except by throwing their bodies against the enemy and taking as many as possible with them in as outrageous and noticeable a way as possible.

by maxwell edison

I'm not going to try to change your mind, I'd probably fall short. But you won't change mine either. A soldier and a terrorist are as different as night and day. Ask Colin Powell if he agrees with you or me.

Timothy McVeigh, America's most notorious terrorist, was once a soldier for his country, but later turned terrorist against it. Are you suggesting that Timothy McVeigh was a soldier when he blew up a building in Oklahoma killing hundreds of men, women and children? I think not.

A soldier is a tool a country uses to carry out a desired political end. A terrorist is a political dissident. A defeated or threatened entity (opposing soldiers and/or their country) can surrender. Could one surrender to a terrorist? I think not. One canonly defeat a terrorist or die by his hand.

----------

"Yesterday, President Bush joined by Secretary-General Annan and the President of the General Assembly, Foreign Minister Han, commemorated at the site the loss of over 500 of your citizensand the thousands of other innocents who lost their lives on that day. Those who seek to define terrorism need look no further. No one can defend such heartless acts against innocent people. This (act of terrorism) was not about a clash of civilizations or religions; it was an attack on civilization and religion themselves. This is what terrorism means."

-Colin Powell (Nov. 12, 2001)

by sullyman

We do agree that there is a difference between a terrorist and a soldier. My point was that on the battlefield ( or in battle ), the media is portraying "the enemy" as terrorists, when in fact the majority are simple soldiers. tim mcvey was not a soldier, he was a terrorist.

Terrorist - One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism ( Websters dic. )

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. ( Websters dic. )

by maxwell edison

A soldier is similar to a police officer...

whereas

a terrorist is similar to a serial killer.

Just because they confront one another does not mean they are in the same league.

by maxwell edison

Stealing airplanes and crashing them into buildings, killing thousands of innocent civilian people.

Blowing up a truck full of explosives outside a building, killing hundreds of innocent civilian people.

Crashing a truck into a nightclub killing dozens of innocent civilian young people.

Killing Olympic athletes in the Olympic village.

Blowing up one’s self in a crowded bus, killing scores of women and babies.

Detonating bombs outside of foreign embassies killing typists, clerks and secretaries.

Those are acts of terrorism – none sponsored by a nation state. They were not carried out by soldiers. They were acts carried out by lunatic and deranged killers.

“State sponsored” military action is doneWITH provocation and WITH warning (most of the time) and WITH admission by the state. NO state will admit to using terrorism as a military tactic - or supporting such tactics. Nation states use their military to settle differences. Terrorism is an act without a supporting state.

To give even the slightest credibility to terrorist is to help it grow. You should really ..... well, nevermind - I'll just refrain from saying it. But I've said enough on the subject.

by hal 9000

A solder is something different to a terriost and they should never be mixed up as the media has done recently. Any solder fights for his country which consists of a bit of dirt and an Ideal of what his country represent. Even the Repulican Guards where sholders not terriosts they where on the other side and may not have follower all the rules but in war this often happens, the problem here is the way that the media portrayed these solders as they continually called them terriosts which was incorrect. But I didn't notice anyone attempting to stop them we where all wraped up in our own ideals.

A terriost on the other hand only represents an idea and never represents a country he/she takes the fight to the general population and ignores the milatery targets and there is never a country to fight back against. A good example here is Pearl Harbour was not a terriost attack where what happened on Sept 11 2001 was. The difference is simple at Pearl Harbour it was the Japanese nation who declared war on the United States and there was a real enemy who had a block of dirt to defend and a place to attack.

On Sept 11 2001 there was no country who was responsible just one man who through his organisation attacked a Soverin Country nowthese people may like to think of themselves as solders but they arn't! They are just misguided souls who need to be confined to prevent them from killing/injuring the inconent citizens of a country.

by hal 9000

Until this difference is clearly understood there will continue to be the misguided media reports being put out and mixing up who is a solder and who is a terriost. Not even the French Resistance durring World War 11 where considered as terriosts not even by the Germans who where occuping their country at the time they where remenants of the enemy who had to be rooted out and destroyed.

But now we have groups who are terriosts and the media has got carried away with this word and apply it toanyone who stands against the country/s that that particualy media represents.

I persoanlly find it offensive to refer to any solder past or present as a terriost even if you want to refer to them as State Sponsered Terriosts this is an unacceptiable defination or description to my way of thinking.

by oz_media

A CNN report (take it with a grain of salt) had an interview with a 17year old Iraqi boy who was captured before he could set off his body belt bomb. (That was the main gyst of the story anyhow) He spoke with bright eyes and a clear mind abot how hewas elated when his brother CHOSE him to wear the bomb belt and sacrifice himself but denied a religious motive.
I don't think that religion is wholly responsible for this boys actions and from the little I understand of Iraqi's (A few friends) this type of action is not condoned. In this boys case, he was led to believe that this was an honor and his duty, of what he was unsure. He seemed a little confused when asked if it was his country, his freedom, his government or his religion that pushes him into this senseless violence.
Is it possible that these young people are brainwashed by their peers and led to believe wrong is right because of poor education, or misinterpreted religious beliefs? I think that in many cases, they have no idea what a terrorist is. They don't see this as terrorism if born in to a life of destruction, they feel it's defense, but of what?

Lambs being sent to the slaughter.

by sullyman

What do similarities have to do with anything? You have bought into the media spin of terrorism hook, line, and sinker. So then by your own definition of a terrorist, the spy organizations of the world would be terrorist groups. ( CIA, CSIS. MI5 etc.) But I suppose your logic would warp to think that our democratic organizations could never perform terrorist actions, or by definition are not terrorist organizations.

Are you telling me that Iran, Iraq, Korea, Jordan, Congo, etc do not have a military? Only terrorist groups?

by oz_media

"A soldier is similar to a police officer...
whereas
a terrorist is similar to a serial killer."

I see where you are getting the similarity from but a serial killer is too broad of a description as is 'soldier'
I have spent the past 9 years studying serial killers and the psychological profiles of each.
Although there are many thousands of serial killers in every counrty, there are only a few dozen TYPES of serial killer that have been identified so far.
In many cases, a serial killer is mentally deranged not repressed (the latter being what you're pointing at I think). Those that are repressed are usually targeting a few chosen individuals or a specific type of person, ie. Black females, White hookers over 40 etc.
The terrorists are targeting a MUCH broader audience than a serial killer, they are after a much broader scope of citizens, and leaders of free countires who they feel threaten the motives of their governments.
Does this mean we compare them to soldiers? NO of course not, soldiers (allthough following orders) are not out to eliminate ANYONE in a given country, simply this who their leaders feel pose a threat. Unfortunately, in the process, many innocents are aslo killed and given the simple explanation that it is war.
So do terrorists belong in a group of their own? Of course, that's what they want anyway.
To debate the fact that terrorists are like soldiers, serial killers or vice versa, is useless.
The only similarity I see between terrorists and serial killers, is that they want to be singled out, and praised for their destructions. This is usually secondary to the original motive to kill but is often enough to keep the fire fueled. Now that the focus has been on terrorism in the middle east, look how many further terrorist acts have taken place, although not on American soil, yet.
A

by maxwell edison

The countries you mentioned: Iran, Iraq, Korea, Jordan, and Congo (and there are more that could be named), although they all have state sponsored and supported military organizations - that operate out in the open - NONE would claim that they sponsor or approve of terrorism. No country on the face of the earth, that I'm aware of, has admitted to supporting such a thing. Why would they not admit to supporting terrorism - and using it as a military tactic - if there was no difference between a soldier and a terrorist? Brcause there IS a difference, that's why.

You may think that I've "bought into" the media spin (But I doubt it, since I'm quite skeptical of "media spin" - just ask Julian), but I think you're a bit confused. You may thinka terrorist is a soldier - just because you think and say as much. You could also think a pig could fly - but that wouldn't make it true.

by jackofalltech

Quick thought while I ponder your question...
Please don't put the Japanese pilots in the same class as these Muslim terrorists. They didn't parachute into civilian populations and blow themselves up, they were in active combat and their planes were already going down when they attempted to take as many of the enemy SOLDIERS with them as possible. These terrorists are NOT soldiers fighting against soldiers, they are cowards killing innocent women and children.

Ralph

by jardinier

Yes, there is obviously no similarity between the Japanese suicide pilots and actual terrorists. Thank you for drawing attention to my error.

by jimhm

Lets look at what they did in WWII in the POW camps of Batan death march... or on other islands. My father was one of the forces that liberated Camp Henderson - and he told me stories that made the 9/11 sound like a pinic..

That's not to mention the thousand taken to the Japaneese homeland to work as slave labor at Mitsubitz - toyoto - honda - coal mines.. where many died... Na - that never happened - na the Japanees during WW-II wouldn't of been consider terrorist ... Na - they didn't behead women and men - they didn't rape - they didn't kill innocent civilians - Na - never happened ..

Try again ... The Kamakaz pilots attacked war ships - part of war ... POW's - Civilians - Beheadings - Slavery - All Terrorist acts they should stillbe held accountable for ...

by cactus pete

Not that I'm proud of it, but the US has done similar things. Soldiers in the Civil War were particularly bad this way. Then there is the whole western expansion issue...

Non-military examples would be the racist killings of last century, wife beatings, etc. But I suppose those are much more localized examples, and don't quite fit the definition for terrorist.

by jackofalltech

I agree. I never said the Japanese en-mas were totally honorable in their dealings with non-combatants, however the issue was strictly concerning kamakazi pilots.

Ralph

by thamer

Source:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

Types of Terrorism
Six broad categories of terrorist organizations can be identified, though the distinctions between them are not always precise.

State Terrorism
State terrorism is a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance. State terrorism obstructs or annuls judicial activity and transforms the government into an active agent in the struggle for power.

Nationalist Terrorism
Nationalist terrorists seek to form a separate state for their own group, and try to draw attention to their fight for "national liberation.

Religious Terrorism
Religious terrorists use violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purposes.

Left-wing Terrorism
Left-wing terrorists are out to destroy capitalismand replace it with a communist or socialist regime.

Right-Wing Terrorism
Right-wing, or "neo-Fascist", terrorists seek to do away with liberal democratic governments and create fascist states in their place.

and the

... Anarchist Terrorism

by maxwell edison

Before I ask my question, I think a little disclaimer and/or explanation is in order. I think one of the most over used and/or misused words in the political arena is "neo" (when used as a word prefix).

"Neo", I believe, has its roots in the base meaning "new". (But this is not always the case, I suppose.) A neophyte, for example, is a new convert, a beginner, a rookie, etc. Moreover, A neo-conservative, if applied accurately, is an ex-liberal who is now espousing a conservative viewpoint.Ronald Reagan, for example, "could" be called a neo-conservative, because he used to be a Democrat - a John F. Kennedy Democrat. (But if JFK were alive today, he may have become a neo-conservative as well.) But when is (when should) that prefix, "neo", be shed? But I often hear a life-long conservative referred to as a "neo-conservative", apparently in a lame attempt to make it sound "worse" than a regular conservative. For example, I've heard Newt Gingrich referred to as a neo-conservative, but he's been a conservative his entire political life, so in that case it's misused.

So what compelled me to make this diversion is the message to which I posted this reply. It made reference to a "neo-fascist". What exactly is a neo-fascist, and how is one different than the regular run-of-the-mill fascist?

Any other thoughts on the use and/or misuse of "neo"?

(Sorry about the diversion to this neo-tangent.)

by thamer

Max,
I believe the prefix ?neo? is used as an attempt to reinstate/revive something which has fallen into disuse ... e.g. neo-Catholic.

As per neo-Fascist, I believe it is defines a party which is formed by supporters of the executed dictator Benito Mussolini, in 1943, and post World War II.

Here,...
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/neo-Fascist

Also, you may visit the following link to find an answer on how did neoconservatives get their names.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=401

I hope this helps.

Thamer

by maxwell edison

...but I'll still repeat myself (from a different thread)

Fascism and Communism have more in common, and they have more similarities than there are differences. Therefore, at least in my opinion (and in the opinion of others as well), both shouldbe considered extreme left wing, not right wing. (Using as the gauge: more liberties and/or freedoms with less government control = right wing, less liberties and/or freedoms with more government control = left wing)

Misconceptions do indeed fog the water of political discussions.

by john_wills

It is better to consider a triangle than a one-dimensional continuum. Maxwell Edison, like a libertarian, tends to identify communism and fascism; my communist friend insists that libertarians and fascists are the same; fascists lump libertarians and communists together. And there have been libertarian terrorists, if Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist.

by jimhm

Besides being cowards - terrorists are person with one agenda - committing violance on civilian population during undeclared war times and to cause death of as many as possible by any means possible including the death of innocent men, women and children. They can be from the Green-winnies to the Tallyban and anywhere inbetween...

Some people compared the Japaneese kamakaz missions to terrorist - the difference is that the Kamakaze missions were against military targets during war.

If you want to compare Japaneese to Terrorist - then it is the Japaneese POW camps officers and guards - where beheadings of men, women and children occured daily - where POWs where starved - (How many where killed in Batan) - forced slave labor by the Jap to work in Coal mines and facturies - has the Japanees government ever offered an appology - has the head of Toyota - Honda - or other Jap manufactures that used America war slave labor - appologized - NO ...

Terroristism is like a cancer - you have to kill every cell - they want no peace - they only want to see their emnime dead -

by john_wills

I don;t know about Toyota, but Honda cannot have been involved in WW II atrocites becasue it was not founded till after WW II. Mitsubishi would be a better example.

by jimhm

Ooops - Toytoa I think was a General during WWII - Mitsubishi built the aircraft -

Thanks -

by hal 9000

It's just not fesiable to continue on in this manner we MUST first stop the hatred that occurres in the Middle East from when they are first put to the breast they are taught to hate. It is unreasonable but it is still a fact of life and to take outthe leaders is particuarly difictualt if not impossible. Then again even if successfull you only manage to drive these groups further underground which isn't the ideal position either.

Yes I agree that terriost attacks must be answered in a firmuncomprising manner that is expected but how you actually manage to do this I don't know and at the moment I don't think that most of our world leaders do either. Sure you can bomb a country back into the stone age but what does this achieve? You only create more people willing to lay down their lives to take out the INFIDELS and these are people which generally would not become involved.

There has to be a way of restoring HOPE to these indivuals and it is only in this manner that we will see the end of any terriost activity no matter where it originates from. At the moment it is comming from the Musum Countries but not but the Governments of theses countries {on the most part anyway}. Similary a few years ago it was comming from Christians in Irland who formed first the the IRA and then the Orange Men who fought each other and sometimes took their fight outside their country into England.

If we go back even further there was a guy called Nelsion Mandella who was thrown into jail for a protracted period of time in South Africa and now he's considered as a GOOD humane person, I think they even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. It a sad fact of life that todays terriost may become tomorrows Hero's.

by hal 9000

Don't get me wrong I'm not agreeing with their methiods just that the way reactions are made at present the Isralies demolish the houses of any sucide bombers but they still keep comming and only a few days ago they found a mobile bomb factory with the means to train these people in the ways of making bombs from commonly available components that would not arouse surspecion.

There has to be a better way to confront these situations but unfortuantly no one has yet found the way. Only recentlysome Libians where finially convicted of bringing down the Pan Am 747 over Scotland and that took 20 - 30 years to get a conviction so that way didn't work either. I don't know the answer but it is out there and the tried old knee jerk reactions definetaly arn't the way to proceed but at present they are the only options being taken.

The British learnt many years ago that Gun Boat Diplomicy didn't work but presently we are seeing something similar happening I understand the need for revenge but I don't necessarly agree that it is he proper answer but I suspose it is the only one we will all see until someone begins to think outside the square and comes up with something better.

by john_wills

I have read the verdict in the Lockerbie case. I am pretty certain it was a frame-up, because certain publicly known exonerating facts were not considered in the verdict, so either they were unjustly ignored or the defence counsel did not present them. The Scottish legal system did not handle this case properly. If I lived in Scotland I might be more interested in that than in the Lockerbie case as such.

by jimhm

Bzzz - if things happen on the battle field it is not terrorism - it is war and maybe considered WAR CRIMES. The military can be compared to terrorists like in WWII with Japaneese and Germen death camps, but they are war criminals ...

But to compare the military with terrorists you are stretching your liberalism pretty far afield. That would be like say there is global warming - or the sky is falling - or pigs fly - all because a liberal says it - it aint so anymore.

War is Hell - and good people on both sides die - and its ugly - and dirty - and nasty - but sometimes has to be done. When Evil stands up it takes many good to distroy it ... otherwise it spreads. Hum just think if Britian would of cut Hilter down in 1938 - no 6 million jews, 3 million eastern euro's - no 50 million dead in WWII ... Hum ... interesting ...

by john_wills

There is a problem for a resistance fighter when the enemy brings the enemy's children into territory still being conquered as a means of making the conquest firm. An obvious example is the Israelis, who did not start the Nakba until AFTER they hadbrought their families into the country. They are using their children as weapons against the Palestinians, some of whom consequently think of those children as legitimate targets. Something similar might be said of the Anglos in the conquest of North America.

by cactus pete

One thing I believe that confuses the issue is that we are taking a "Western" approach to the definition of 'soldier' or 'terrorist' or even 'nation'.

Let me now fend off short-tempered knee-jerk flames by stating that I in no way support terrorism.

In an order to understand the situation better, I paid attention to the reports of 'why does bin Laden do this?' that aired many months back. One thing they pointed out was that, from his [and his kind's] perspective, all people in the US were 'soldiers' of their government. Therefore, from his own definition, in his own twisted mind, he was not a terrorist.

Now, many people, even cultures, will have views that land somewhere between the general US and the general Al-Qaeda mindsets.Hopefully, for myself, most others will be closer to the US definitions. I don't have the cultural base to quite understand how many societies can believe in so much killing, anyway...

by monkeybutter

So let me get this straight...

- These groups assert absolute control under the guise of justice.
- These groups resist peace efforts because it will diminish their personal power.
- These groups brand anyone who isn't in complete agreement with them as an enemy and proceed to instigate bitter hate campaigns against them.
- These groups attack those who try to appease them.

Remind me again, why is America funneling billions of dollars into efforts to bring these people over to the American way of life when they seem to be on the right track already?

by jimhm

How do you negotiate with someone that only wants to see your way of life destroyed - they believe that you are the devil and that by killing you they are given a special place in the here-after.

Lets see - history has proven that peaceful ways have not slowed or stopped these acts... matter of fact they increased. History has shown that agression and strength has slowed or stopped these same acts.

Example - Rome airport bombing - bombed MoMar - didn't hear much out of him after that.
Americans can't understand their drive to distory our way of life - our freedoms - our culture - our values... they are raised on hatered and martarizm (SP) ... these is no appeasing a terrorist except for your death and the death of your culture ..

by monkeybutter

"Americans can't understand their drive to distory our way of life - our freedoms - our culture - our values... they are raised on hatered and martarizm (SP) ... these is no appeasing a terrorist except for your death and the death of your culture .. "

This is what *they* think!

They feel that Western ideals are destroying their culture, their values and way of life, and they can't understand it. To them, America (and to an extent the western world at large) is raised on egotistical patriotism and greed (which, in all honesty, isn't entirely wide of the mark), and they see no reasoning with us, so they fight in the only way they can.

No, it's not big or clever, but neither is taking the same stance against them.

by monkeybutter

Why cowards?

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just want to know your reasoning behind that statement.

by jimhm

Why - you have to ask why - Dam no wonder you called yourselve MonkeyButter - You ask why, because they attack unarmed civilians - the leaders send children and young men to kill themselfs - they aint got the guts to do it themselves. They don't have the guts to attack equally armed combatants.

Lets see most nations that have a military their leaders came up through the ranks - they did it - have the terrorist leaders killed themselves in a martar attack ... hum no they send out the young - if they believe in their cause that strongly why don't they martar themselves? There should be someone else that can head up the movement?

Terrorists are cowards - as simple as that ... Some day Monkeybreath you'll realize that and your liberal uneducated views will change..

by sullyman

Didn't want to get involved in this one, because JimHM results to insults if he doesn't get his way. But, alas time to offer a response. Every organized army or cell needs to have leadership, I must have missed Powell saying to his men and women don?t worry I'll take the point tonight in our patrol. Yes, at one time he did fill the grunt role. But, I can only assume that the terrorist leader at one time was simply a minion as well. Respect is not gained, it is earned.

When was the last time in RECENT history that a General, Admiral etc. has replaced one of the point men on patrol, or taken a tank through a enemy town. If they believed in the cause that much, why didn't they sacrifice themselves. Your logic is warped, before you launch into personal attacks on posters make sure you have your facts in order.

Terrorists, Armies, Cells, Resistance, in almost all cases send out the young to fight the battle, because they are in most cases more able.

Now, terrorists are cowards. But, someday JimHM you will think before you post your insults....

by jackofalltech

What takes more courage - to face armed soldiers and deal with the possibility of death or serious injury and pain over a period of time, or to resolve yourself to instant death (they've probably been told there won't be any pain) surrounded by innocent women and children?

Ralph

by monkeybutter

To face absolute certain death as part of an underfunded, ill-equipped terrorist cell in a tenuous plan that could go wrong at any moment, on nothing more than an act of faith, where failure will result in either execution, being shot on sight, suicide or being killed by the people who sent you?

Fanaticism, yes. Lunacy, maybe. But cowardice?

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not condoning terrorism of any kind, and I don't intend to belittle those who've given their lives in the service of their country, but dismissal is not the answer.

Yes, these people are monsters, but what *made* them monsters?

From birth, these people are marked as Shahid. That word becomes a crucial part of their identity. They are raised to believe that the best thing that can happen in their life is for them to die for their people. They are born to die, and they know no other way.

What could cause a culture to do that? What could produce such a result?

It's only through understanding these things, and countering them with no more or less force than is necessary, that it can truly be put to rest. There'd invariably be a lost generation or two, but in the long run it's the only way to *stop* the conflict.

I've said it elsewhere. Revenge is a game that never ends. You hurt people, they hurt you back, by whatever means necessary. Dismissing them as "cowards" just makes you hate them more, and they'll return the favour for generations to come.

by monkeybutter

If a man punches you in the face, you can assume he wants to cause you pain. If he were to tell you the reasonings behind his intended action before he did it, it wouldn't have the surprise value it would otherwise have held.

War has rules, calcified over millenia of warfare, and given legal context over the last century. If you cannot win within the confines of those rules, the only logical way you stand a chance is to break them.

If you felt that all you loved, all you cared for, all you held dear was under threat, and there was no way for you to win within the rules, would you stick to them?

by jimhm

I pray no one you knew where in those towers - or in the planes - or in the pent ...

There is nothing you can say - that would or could justify what those cowards did on 911. There is no comparison between War and what was done - even in War that action would not be condoned.. The taking of innocent lives is not nor can ever be acceptable to reach your end.

You need to get your head out of your #*@ - and smell what your shoveling - I pray you never have to live through the lose of a brother or sister by the means of terrorism -

Its liberals that believe sitting down and negotiating with these people they will get peace. That is like trying to negotiate with a hungry loin before walking into his cage..

by monkeybutter

Apollo, Desert Fox, Free Iraq...

To name a few of the most obvious.

How many civilians do you think have died over the past five years through allied strikes in the middle east? How many inept US bombing runs have caused the death of Iraqi orAfghan (or even Turkish or Chinese, given the ballistic track record) women and children?

By your own words, these are not acceptable.

by john_wills

My remark about the WW II suicide bombing was in response to a specific comparison. As for 9-11, certainly the prepetrators were criminals, not warriors; their leaders must be treated like criminals (not that the police are much good at that, or even really have much interest in it...). But we can still be tough on the causes of crime. If Sa'udi Arabia had been a democracy these criminals might have been law-abiding ward heelers; if the Zionists had not humiliated the Palestinians (for being Christians, but Abba Eban misled Muslims into thinking it was because of Islam) repeatedly for half a century there would have been less crime-inducing resentment. And the U.S. supports Zionism, despite its manifest injustice, and also supports Muslim despotisms, because Muslim democracies would probably be more anti-Zionist than the despotisms. So, although the U.S. did not cause 9-11, it did make part of the karma which unfolded in 9-11. To reform the world I must begin with myself, and go on tothe communities, including political communities, to which I belong. When I am working on this I may be able to formulate general solutions to many problems.

by sullyman

I wish people read the complete post in context, as opposed to finding one or two sentences out of context to base their opinions of my opinion on.

This conversation began with me answering Jules question ?[W]hy does an individual (other thanone suffering from clinical depression) willingly sacrifice his/her life in order to kill as many as possible of the perceived ?enemy??

My answer was that they BELIEVE they are soldiers, and went on to say from a completely objective perspectiveBESIDES the tactics that are employed by terrorists, there is not much difference between a soldier and a terrorist by definition. Now, there was never any disrespect meant to any past or present soldiers who fought for our rights.

I went on to say:

?Now, that being said there is a definite difference is tactics and strategy between a soldier and a terrorist soldier. A soldier will try to limit civilian casualties, where a terrorist will take out a child if it means that they can get to the target.?

Jules then made the statement ?I am guessing that some individuals are prepared to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of the majority who are intent on pursuing a particular political agenda??

And my reply was as follows:?Well of course, armies, navies, air forces of the world are also built on foundation of people believing or pursuing a particular political agenda?

Never once did I make mention that I condoned terrorism, or that they were equal in their stature.

by sullyman

Again, simple statement we are using the word terrorist in too many ways. In the media it is becoming a word used to describe the enemy or someone that does not buy into our ideals. The Websters Definition of Terrorism backed up this statement. Again, with a simple observation followed by an even easier question.

My statement regarding ? A soldier is a soldier? was referring to the media spinning ( in context ) the word terrorist (terrorism) to mean enemy, it was not implied to mean that soldiers and terrorists are equal in any way.

I only made a comparison to terrorists and soldiers regarding media spin and definition.

by maxwell edison

You said, "I wish people read the complete post in context, as opposed to finding one or two sentences out of context to base their opinions."

That is also my "pet peeve", and I must admit that I probably did, to some degree, violate it myself - in the very least, I bent it a bit.

I think I made too much out of my rebuttals to your original posts. I was having a bad day (by choice, I might add - as is always the case with bad days), and I over reacted to your comments. I must have had a bite of that "mad-cow" beef from Canada. (As a pennance, I'll offer to buy you a good old American Angus steak - but you have to come here to get it.)

by sullyman

Max,

Never one to turn down a slab 'o' beef, so thanks for the offer. Mad Cow, SARS, Seperatists what is a Canuck to do? :-)

by jimhm

I didn't say the US didn't do things - Gen. Custer for one - which we had as an Indian war Hero until the truth came out... Or the Civil war camps... Or the imprisionment of the Japaneese Americans...

Which if I remember the US Government did appologize for (be it 40 years late) ... But you haven't heard squat out of the Japaneese for their crimes..

I think today the US holds a high Moral ground on these issues than the rest of the world - and strives to limit "Colleteral damage" during war. Where Terrorist attempt to inflect max colleteral damage as possible to interrupt a way of life.

by monkeybutter

So the US doesn't force its political and economical opinions and attitudes on the rest of the world?

The US doesn't impose economic sanctions on some of the world's most desolate countries, condemning millions of civilian men, women and childrento starvation and an undignified death?

The US doesn't support initiatives that have disasterous ecological effects in parts of the world that doesn't even belong to it?

The US doesn't have the most vicious stockpile of immediately motile nuclear weaponry on the face of the earth? (Russia may have more, but the US can get more of 'em in the air a lot faster).

The US doesn't deliberately make backhand deals with governments they *know* to harbour and fund terrorism to give them more leverage in divesting other governments they have more of a personal issue with?

The US doesn't *in its own borders* have organisations posing as charities that directly fund self-professed terrorist organisations in other countries?

The US doesn't take action to divest countries it simply doesn't like of their duly democratically elected leaders?

Moral high grouhd, eh? I'd hate to see the other end of the scale.

by maxwell edison

Lord, Grant me the
SERENITY
to accept the things
I cannot change

The COURAGE
to change the
things I can

and the
WISDOM
to know the difference

The things I want to say - but...

...I think I'll pass.

by jimhm

A died in the wool bleeding heart, plabblim puker, greenwinny liberal - I've heard that that bread was out there - but never ran into one before. People said that they talk out of both ends of their bodies and you wouldn't believe it until you meet one. Well looks like we have met one - dam they do speak out of both ends... impressive...

Like Max said - nof said ...

May you never have to find out the truth about terrorist or have a loved one killed by one. Peace through strength -

by maxwell edison

...about what I would have said, post a message stating where your from, and I'll consider satisfying that curiosity. It is relevant, after all, for me to know - if I am to do any justice to a meaningful reply. And besides, I'm a firm believer in full disclosure in order to have full and honest discourse.

by maxwell edison

Left or right AND up or down (or top and bottom). I found this very interesting Web site about the political spectrum - the political compass. It defines two separate scales. Instead of trying to describe it, I'll just provide the link.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It has a "test" that will place you somewhere on their chart. I took the test twice, and I'll even reveal where I fell on the chart. For those of you who understand the Cartesian coordinate system, the first time I took thetest, I was placed at (3,-2). The second time I took it, and I must say that I considered the questions a bit more carefully, I placed at (4,-3).

My interpretation: Economically, I'm more of a free enterprise, government hands off (right wing), while I'm also more a libertarian and less an authoritarian (bottom wing?). I guess I'm satisfied with those results.

by oz_media

Interesting link Max. Although I have some doubts with the accuracy of the questions and the intention of the site builders, it was an interesting test to say the least. I've poked at you regarding your constant link posting as opposed to debatingskills but in this case I give you a two thumbs up.
NOt surprisingly, I came out with a -2.12/-3.49. I was horrified to see that I was close to Cretien's score, even though living in Canada now, I still think he can be quite the pussy.
If I took the test tomorrow, I may score differently as I'm sure many people would.
Maybe I'll get me some of those round specks and shave my head to assimilate Ghandi instead, he was close too.
Thanks for the post though it was an interseting site to find.OM

by thamer

I got ...
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 0.00

What does that mean?

by maxwell edison

...from the Web site I mentioned in my previous message:

"In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler (fascist) and Stalin (communist) to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground."

----------

By the way, because of the number of these "off-topic" threads, and the way they've grabbed my interest, I've resolved to answer more "on-topic" ones (three today). Let's not forget or ignore the fact that this is a "technical" site, not a political one. (So I guess I paid the piper today.)

by oz_media

I agree that these discussions have taken away from the context of the site in that they are not really technical discussions but simply political opinions from around the world.
I think that in light of recent events, people have become more politically aware and in many cases question the motives of their government.
If kept in context, I feel this is a healthy way for people to see many sides of a story and formulate or reinforce their opinions based on thoughts, facts and opinions of others.

by jimhm

Less see - Greed who is greedy - How about Sadam and family - billions in cash - 5 or 6 hundred million dollar palaces - when his people are starving to death - and his son is rapping women - and doing Cocane - and the Big H -

Lets see what other countries are like that .. hum mostly Muslin controled ... hum - America gives more to foriegn nations than it does for its own people ... 15 billion for worldwide aids relief ... drugs - testing - prevention ... hell people in America don't get free AIDS drugs ...

KISS MY AMERICAN ASS with your Greed statement - and may and if you are living in America - and you feel that way - why not go live in one of these countries that protect the Terrorist and then tell me - which values are better -which culture is better - which liberties are better ... which standard of living is better...

For all I care - we should cut off all foriegn aid and let these other countries live on their own ... and try to make it without the aid of the USA -lets see how long they stay around...

by jimhm

Look - Collateral damage is part of war and it isn't acceptable and is kept to a minimin. But it does happen - 50 million dead in WW-II ...

Lets see - Irag - how many did Sadam and family gas in Northern Iraq - How many did Sadam and family killin Bagdad - What was that massgrave - 10,000 - another found with 2,500 that were burried alive -

Dam liberals - don't smell what they are attempting to shovel -

by monkeybutter

You can't counter what I have to say with reasonable discourse, so you result to insulting me, and then you spin some obscure "you'll never know" and "peace through superior firepower" nonsense.

Gee. How mature.

I can justify everything I said. Can you do anything about it?

by monkeybutter

You say the American people have no idea why they're hated? Have you no regard for what goes on outside of your own country?

Lumumba.
Allende.

Do you recognise those names? Democratically elected rulers that your country murdered for being socialist.

Angola.
Vietnam.
Nicaragua.
Pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

Do you know what your country did in these places? Do you know why? Because it could.

The deaths that have been caused to the US by terrorism do not make what your country hasdone any more or less wrong. Revenge is a game that never ends.

So yes, they hate you. Can you honestly say they don't have just cause to hate you?

Get your own house in order.

by monkeybutter

This sounds like the beginning of something constructive.

I'm (somewhat reluctantly) from the UK. Let that shape your reply however it would.

by Former member

I think you get a better picture if you expand your study group to include the other groups who aren't currently in the news. Like those who bomb abortion clinics or fur factories or lumber mills. A person or group becomes so infatuated with a particular cause or idea, that they lose perspective and good moral/ethical judgement. Any action, no matter how heinous to the sensible mind, is justifiable in the context of protecting the purity of the ideal. They really aren't all that much diffrent than serial-killers, or other sociopaths.

by jimhm

True and they also think they are justified in Bombing and killing - Spiking trees to save the forest - killing doctors to save babies - killing to stop technology -

They are all in the same group of Cowards - just doing it for a different reason..

by hal 9000

That you're right, you may well be as I don't know but what have any of us heard of Liba since then?

When that 747 fell to earth on Lockerbie Libia was susposelly at the heart of terriosts activity. But now we don't hear any mention of it and General who?

by hal 9000

If you where to cut off the aid just how long do you think there would be fuel for your cars, trucks, aircraft, and ships and that's only for the miletary needs?

Remember AID WAS CUT OFF FROM North Korea and look where we are now!

Your approch is to simplistic and needs refining for a realistic solution to arive.

by oz_media

That is if you don't mind Frog's legs.
I have many french Canadian friends and don't want to sound like I hate the French, what have they EVER done to ANYBODY?
But as for da seper-at-ist, dig a big trench aroung Quebec and push them out through the Hudson's bay.

Sorry, a little off topic rant just had to get it off my chest tho.

by jimhm

Cut off aid was meant as a joke -

Look his comparsion of american greed and his / her not seeing what Sadam and family greed or other terrorist nations do to their own people - I figured they would get a kick out of that statement - Oh a good right wing conservative ...

We are in a world economy - no nation can stand alone long... no matter what its natural resources are ... yes the USA Government has made many mistakes in the past and will in the future... but we don't fly planes into building housing 10s of thousands of innocent people - this ass - is defending those people attempting to justify it -

it would be interesting if the FBI was reading his/her thread and did a little investigation - You can tell Monkey is a coward - doesn't have a viewable profile ... hids behind things ...

And I don't think they have a clue about what went on in Nam or any of these other countries - other than what thier liberal High School or College professors have been spuing out in class.

by jimhm

Did you notice the top brass at the front lines -

Col's - Generals - leading their troops ... where you ever in the military during war - No you live under the rights and freedoms others have won for you with their blood...

I servered in Nam- and the boats wheren't headed by a 3rd class - but a Lt - and our team was lead by a Commander - other teams had Navy Captians - leading them ... So don't tell me about who doesn't take the lead in battle.. Even General Patton - lead his troops into battle - only the Terrorist cowards - order others to die and the leaders HIND IN CAVES and UNDER ROCKS ...

by jimhm

Max do you notice those that threaten others keep a private profile - not like most of the Tech folks who keep theirs open ... I wonder why ... Hum

by jimhm

Monkey during WW-II how many innocent British civilians where killed by German bombing - V1 and V2's. How many more would of been killed in Germany would of invaded GB? -

Now - think how many would of been killed if someone would of taken on Germany when it invaded Poland and ended it before it began? - How many V1's or V2's would of fallen on London?

Hum - Lets see history teaches a lesson just like everything in life - if you fail to learn from it you will repeat it again and again until you do learn. Iraq and Sadam - was an evil power - if the US and World would not of stopped him the first time (yes we made a mistake by not taking him out them) it would of been another WW - he would of went after Iran - then Sauda - then Arab Em -

Just as Hitler did...

You Brits aren't always correct and never are us Americans... but it is interesting thread.. And yes I am a libertain (conserative) - and believe in hand guns - and freedoms including speach -

As the Great Scottsmen Wallace once said - Freedom

by monkeybutter

Because, of course, knowing what I do for a living, and what operating systems I'm familiar with is *such* sensitive information.

This thread is about what motivates terrorism, isn't it? Well guess what, I've been giving my opinion on what motivates terrorism.

I couldn't care less about the FBI, because I don't live inside their jurisdiction. Real shame I don't have any of those American freedoms for them to violate, eh?

You'll never know how much I understand about the activities ofyour country, because you clearly don't have enough confidence in your own abilities to make a rational and reasonable argument against what I have to say. You're simply biting into the culture of bigotry and paranoia spawned to inflate your country's already souped-up macho patriotism.

So come on; without resorting to petty insults and childish namecalling, without attempting half-baked, third rate character assassination, counter what I have to say with a well-thought-out and balanced argument.

by monkeybutter

I suspect the number of British civilians killed in WWII is comparable to the number of German civilians who died in allied bombing runs. No-one can claim they hold the moral high ground on that one.

WWII was a unique situation, and I think speculating about "taking out" Hitler when he invaded Poland is a bit of a hypothetical dead-end. Truth be told, if Hitler had stepped down from power in the late '30s, he would have gone down in history as the man who rebuilt Germany, one of the most popular leaders of the 20th century, reducing unemployment in his country, revolutionising German industry with keen logistical insight and efficiency. As it happened, he stayed in government, and became one of the most reviled people in history.

Operation Sealion would never have worked at the time due to basic geographical considerations, and as much as both our countries like to yammer on about how we played our parts in the war, the US providing most of the resources towards the Manhattan project and the UK being primarily responsible for cracking Enigma, (and whatever Hollywood and U-571 say, it was a group of Royal Navy officers who first captured an Enigma device; the US didn't get their hands on one until 1943, by which time Germany were giving them away at garage sales), in truth the major nation responsible for actually defeating Germany was Russia.

It's highly unlikely that anything other than Stalin's general onslaught tactics could have had enough impact on the GermanWar Machine to so much as slow it down. His inhumane treatment of his troops and bullet-soaking methodology swallowed it whole.

I don't think either of our countries could claim innocence over at least part responsibility for both world wars. Ifyou get into the real root causes of them, you'll see they offer good argument towards *not* beating on countries before offering binge-and-purge support to them.

by monkeybutter

"Max do you notice those that threaten others keep a private profile"

I didn't threaten anyone. I think I've been pretty courteous all things considered.

by sullyman

Your statements are out and out crap, if you compare apples to apples then all leaders of armies and cells command from behind closed doors or under rocks. Franks has done as much hand 2 hand fighting in the last war as the generals of the Iraqi army did. My response revolved around your statement that ONLY terrorists send out their young to fight thier battles, because they don't have the courage to do it themselves.

As far as saying that on your boat, in your trench, there were leaders. The same can be said about terorist cells, which in most cases are equal in size to a squad, and have a recognized leader. Terrorist cells are in some cases as defined as a military organization.

Disclaimer - I am not condoning terrorists, or terrorism. Just responding to incorrect facts.

by maxwell edison

Hate - pure and simple - Hate.

The blatant attacking of someone, or their family, or their race, or their faith, or their country has it's base in hate.

Some people who've posted opinion on these threads, had they'd been raised in another culture, would probably be among those who attack with bombs instead of attacking with the pen. But both have roots in the same thing - hate.

by monkeybutter

Seems a fair assessment so far, but what causes that hate, and what directs it?

Hate causes a lot of things. It breaks up families, friendships, businesses and whole societies. What's more, it's easier for it to last longer than the people who start it. It's self-replicating, insidious, and we're all succeptible to it.

But it always has a cause. You can dislike people based purely on irrational factors, but real hate, true and unsullied blue-hot hatred, that takes provocation.

The hatred itself might be pure and simple, but the root cause, that rarely is.

by jimhm

Your argument isn't worth the bits - All I know is SFS we fought beside Commanders, Lt's and normal enlisted... they where in the trenches getting bloody and dirty with us - youngens...

You don't see that in the Cells...

They are cowards and your not worth my effort to explain..