Is it time to stop trying to find the "real" reasons for terrorism?

[Mike B.]

We have all seen the horrific images from Turkey. It is sickening.

And most of the victims were Turkish Muslims.

Is it time to stop "understanding" terrorism? Is it time to take the terrorists at their word?

Let me explain.

There are many posters on here that say terrorism like 9/11 occurs because of horrible policies of the US to the Third World. They usually then begin a litany of how horrible US was in Latin America, etc.

(Strangely, the US has not been attacked by any Chile terrorists groups lately, which shows how off the mark this analysis is.)

But we have had recent Islamicist terrorism in Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and now Turkey. Many of the victims have been local Muslims.

Doesn't this show the fallacy of trying to say US policy is the "real" reason for this terrorism? The terrorists say loud and clear what they want. They want a huge fundamentalist Islamic state where Islamic law rules and all infidels are either killed or made second class citizens.

Can someone point to something horrendous Morocco did against Muslims to deserve this?

This attempt to find the "real" reason for terrorism is being shown to be silly. It is sort of the face at "the bottom of the well." (i.e. "I don't like the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocols, so that must have contributed to the terrorism. I recall the Guardian ran an article shortly after 9/11 to this effect.)

[a_unique_person]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the US is the 'real' reason for terrorism. US Policy disasters have been a reason, but the world is a much more complicated place than that.

I have, for example, pointed out that the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism can be traced to the fall of the Shah of Iran, IMHO. A use backed proxy that fell due to the activities of Islamic fundamentalists gave them a lot of credibility and respect. Here was a country that backed a violent facist state that attacked their religion losing out big time.

Now, what replaced them wasn't all that good, either, but at least it was theirs. However, there is dissent in Iraq between the moderates and extremists. I hope the moderates win out.

The presence of Islamic fundamentalism itself, however, goes back prior to this time of course. So laying the blaming soley at the feet of the US is not fair. Also to be considered are the Colonialist times when Britain ruled, the Shah and his friends, the Cold War with the USSR that seemed to justify giving the Shah backing, WWII. The list is long and complex.

However, the role of the US, in backing the Shah and maintaining an unpopular and brutal regime should not be overlooked. Maybe people are just trying to get the US to hold itself to the standards it preaches.

[geni]

Terrorism in N.Irland has largly been delt with by dealing with the reasons that caused it.
I think that the answer to you question is that it depends on what you define as the real reasons. If you were able to iliminate poverty on the arab world then the amount terorism would fall. Telling the US to get out is not going to solve the problem as this is not the real reason. If you were able to tackle the real reasons then that would destroy terrorism. the trick is finding out what the real reasons are.

[RCNelson]

geni:
If you were able to iliminate poverty on the arab world then the amount terorism would fall.
The Arabs who took part in the 9-11 terrorism were not impoverished. I think you are projecting a Western materialistic value system onto a non-Western culture. The terrorists are operating on the basis of a deep philosophy which is quite different from the Western world view. If we are to have any clue as to what motivates them, we must first understand their philosophy.

Much of this philosophy was developed by an Egyptian named Sayyid Qutb (pronounced KUH-tahb). There's an excellent article called The Philosopher of Islamic Terror (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~canfrobt/an204qutb2.htm) which describes this philosophy quite well.

[peptoabysmal]

War is a sickening nightmare. What is more sickening than that is for the world to have to live in constant fear of selfish, ignorant and destructive terrorists. We have to burn the barn down to get rid of the rats.

[DavidJames]

"There are many posters on here that say terrorism like 9/11 occurs because of horrible policies of the US to the Third World. They usually then begin a litany of how horrible US was in Latin America, etc."

many? usually?

Humor me, find a link to one of them

edit to add, okay, maybe two :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
War is a sickening nightmare. What is more sickening than that is for the world to have to live in constant fear of selfish, ignorant and destructive terrorists. We have to burn the barn down to get rid of the rats.

A good way to create more terrorists.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
War is a sickening nightmare. What is more sickening than that is for the world to have to live in constant fear of selfish, ignorant and destructive terrorists. We have to burn the barn down to get rid of the rats.

A good way to create more terrorists.

[Garrette]

If the thrust of the OP is to indicate that what are put forth as "the real reasons" really are not the real reasons, then there's no point in answering.
'
If the question is legitimate as a general question, then the answer is No.

It is never time to stop trying to find the reasons for any harmful actions. Even if the actions must be met with violence, there must be simultaneous efforts to determine the cause(s), else regardless of the short-term outcome the stage will be set for a repetition of the same actions, even if under different guise.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

A good way to create more terrorists.

I think the best way to create more terrorists is to give them what they want and hope they just go away. That is what we have done for the previous forty years or so and it has worked very well, there are lots of them now.

[Gem]

I think the best way to create more terrorists is to give them what they want and hope they just go away.

Explain to me how the U.S. gave them what they wanted.

Gem

[Gem]

We have to burn the barn down to get rid of the rats.

You know, I agree with you that doing nothing is not an option, but it's radical statements like these that make people shun your beleifs.

Are you going to reconsider the implications of this statement if it was ever applied in the real world?

Gem

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by geni
Terrorism in N.Irland has largly been delt with by dealing with the reasons that caused it.

Its not just that. Its taken decades of killing, violence and brutality to bring both sides to a compromise.

Before you can reach a compromise solution, the terrorists and terrorised have to both be totally sick of bloodshed.

And even then, trying to get the two sides to agree on anything can be extremely difficult.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Its not just that.

Plus, the IRA had a fairly well-defined aim - a free, united Ireland. We've managed to stem much of the bloodshed (for now) by reaching a compromise, as you say. Northern Ireland has a degree of autonomy (or at least, it would if Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists would stop playing silly buggers).

The Islamic fundamentalist aim seems much more nebulous. If (as has been asserted in this thread) what they want is to turn the world into an Islamic Super-State, then there doesn't seem to be much scope for compromise there.

[Jon_in_london]

Thats a good point, I think its erronous to think of all terrorists as the same. In much the same way as its no help to think of all drugs as being the same.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
We have all seen the horrific images from Turkey. It is sickening.

And most of the victims were Turkish Muslims.

Is it time to stop "understanding" terrorism? Is it time to take the terrorists at their word?

Let me explain.

There are many posters on here that say terrorism like 9/11 occurs because of horrible policies of the US to the Third World. They usually then begin a litany of how horrible US was in Latin America, etc.

(Strangely, the US has not been attacked by any Chile terrorists groups lately, which shows how off the mark this analysis is.)



Are you suggesting that Chile would be justified in commiting terrorist attacks on the US for the treatment it has received from your country?

[Chaos]

I agree that eliminating (or at least lessening) poverty among muslim countries would decrease terrorism. Furthermore, adressing any other grievances among muslims (the Israel/Palestine issue comes to my mind) will help greatly.

While neither of this will eliminate muslim fundamentalists, it will still take away their public support.
I do not think so many muslims are really fundamentalist. I think the truth is they either live in abject poverty, or have some other grievance, or both; so they look for anyone who promises to help them - which is, in most case, muslim fundamentalist groups and/or muslim terrorist organizations.

If we can make sure that muslim people no longer have to seek help, or the promise of help, whereever they can find it, - or if we can at least make sure they find it with us, not with fanatics and terrorists - then we can take public support away from terrorism.
And once the muslim people no longer support terrorism, or if they even actively oppose it, we can fight the real terrorists without alienating hundreds of millions of muslims.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.

This attempt to find the "real" reason for terrorism is being shown to be silly. It is sort of the face at "the bottom of the well." (i.e. "I don't like the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocols, so that must have contributed to the terrorism. I recall the Guardian ran an article shortly after 9/11 to this effect.)

There are extremists who will not rest until every non-Muslim is put to the stake. But can you honestly say that these are the only people who support terrorist attacks?

You've cast a pretty wide net. Let's concentrate on the US and terrorism. The US has implemented trade polices that have hurt countless countries- South Africa is not allowed to give free water to its poor. Mexico is being told what kinds of corn it can grow, to the detriment of her people. As I speak, I am watching an Australian Film Institute awards ceremony, where just about everyone who has spoken as lamented that the death of Australian film is nigh in light of a proposed 'free trade' agreement with the US.

These are all symbols of the US's arrogance on the world stage. Some countries revolt through terrorism. Some through groups like the Zapitistas. Chile has certainly taken part in free trade demonstrations, and probably revolt in other ways as well.

The US cannot solve the problem of terrorism as though it's a war. The US, as well, can never get rid of all terrorism. Kill all the Muslims, and new terrorists will take their place. All the US can do is take a look at herself and see what ways there are to minimise terrorist attacks against herself. The death of US arrogance is the first step.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There are extremists who will not rest until every non-Muslim is put to the stake. But can you honestly say that these are the only people who support terrorist attacks?

You've cast a pretty wide net. Let's concentrate on the US and terrorism. The US has implemented trade polices that have hurt countless countries- South Africa is not allowed to give free water to its poor. Mexico is being told what kinds of corn it can grow, to the detriment of her people. As I speak, I am watching an Australian Film Institute awards ceremony, where just about everyone who has spoken as lamented that the death of Australian film is nigh in light of a proposed 'free trade' agreement with the US.

These are all symbols of the US's arrogance on the world stage. Some countries revolt through terrorism. Some through groups like the Zapitistas. Chile has certainly taken part in free trade demonstrations, and probably revolt in other ways as well.

The US cannot solve the problem of terrorism as though it's a war. The US, as well, can never get rid of all terrorism. Kill all the Muslims, and new terrorists will take their place. All the US can do is take a look at herself and see what ways there are to minimise terrorist attacks against herself. The death of US arrogance is the first step.

But this is precisely the point.
You can't seperate Islamic terrorism against the US with the rest of the world. To say it is because of Mexico or Chile or arrogance in the US, but it is about something completely different elsewhere.

[crackmonkey]

I couldn't help but chuckle as I read about the US oppressing the Australian film industry... you folks really are pathetic sometimes, you know that? The reason why American films are a threat are because Australians like to watch them. If you want to support Australian film, go see those instead. It sounds like the consumer has chosen. And you lost.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mike B.
We have all seen the horrific images from Turkey. It is sickening.

And most of the victims were Turkish Muslims.

Is it time to stop "understanding" terrorism? Is it time to take the terrorists at their word?

I'm glad you put "understanding" in quotes. I've been paying very close attention to things that people have said since 9/11, and I have seen and heard literally thousands of admonitions to understand the reasons for (let's limit it to so-called "non-western") terrorism.

Of this large number, I can count the number of times I have seen any indication of any desire actually to investigate reasons on the stumps of an amputee.

In all other cases, this has consisted of projection of pre-conceived notions, which nearly always turns out to be the perceptions of pampered academics who have their own personal agenda. Of course, that is entirely useless.

The tools one would have to use to come to a real understanding would be cultural anthropology and ethnography, and this largely does not happen, or if it happens, it is ignored or swept under the rug. Even the actual statements by terrorism-sponsoring groups and, in the case of bin Laden at least, recruitment videotapes, are ignored or swept under the rug.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Mike B.
We have all seen the horrific images from Turkey. It is sickening.

And most of the victims were Turkish Muslims.

Is it time to stop "understanding" terrorism? Is it time to take the terrorists at their word?
Considering that not "understanding" would appear to be the procedural basis of the War on Terror™, maybe we should be asking the opposite question?

Let me explain.

There are many posters on here that say terrorism like 9/11 occurs because of horrible policies of the US to the Third World. They usually then begin a litany of how horrible US was in Latin America, etc.

(Strangely, the US has not been attacked by any Chile terrorists groups lately, which shows how off the mark this analysis is.)

But we have had recent Islamicist terrorism in Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and now Turkey. Many of the victims have been local Muslims.

Doesn't this show the fallacy of trying to say US policy is the "real" reason for this terrorism?

The terrorists say loud and clear what they want. They want a huge fundamentalist Islamic state where Islamic law rules and all infidels are either killed or made second class citizens.

Can someone point to something horrendous Morocco did against Muslims to deserve this?

This attempt to find the "real" reason for terrorism is being shown to be silly. It is sort of the face at "the bottom of the well." (i.e. "I don't like the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocols, so that must have contributed to the terrorism. I recall the Guardian ran an article shortly after 9/11 to this effect.)
The choice of targets and timing of the bombing in Istanbul clearly implicates the US in the terrorists' motives. But if we stop "understanding", that make the terrorists' motives rather incomprehensible. There's a logic of punishing muslim countries which are westernised/ising, or have economic ties with the west. There's a logic in sending out a message that westerners cannot feel safe in muslim countries. But why punish the UK for being allies with the US? What have the US and UK got to do with establishing a muslim superstate? Now unless you're happy to settle for simplistic propaganda like "the terrorists hate freedom-loving countries" or somesuch, then attempting to "understand", and find the "real" reason for their actions is the only way to deal with the situation.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I couldn't help but chuckle as I read about the US oppressing the Australian film industry... you folks really are pathetic sometimes, you know that? The reason why American films are a threat are because Australians like to watch them. If you want to support Australian film, go see those instead. It sounds like the consumer has chosen. And you lost.

Gosh, I had no idea you were an expert on Australian popular culture. Where did you learn so much on the subject? And here I was thinking people like you were dullards who spouted whatever crap surfaced in their forebrain.

[Tmy]

Its foolish to not try to understand your enemy. What better wayy to learn how to defeat them. We need to look at the motives that cause us to be made targets in order to protect oursleves. It doesnt mean that we're giving into terror.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Is it time to stop "understanding" terrorism? Is it time to take the terrorists at their word?


But we have had recent Islamicist terrorism in Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and now Turkey. Many of the victims have been local Muslims.

Doesn't this show the fallacy of trying to say US policy is the "real" reason for this terrorism? The terrorists say loud and clear what they want. They want a huge fundamentalist Islamic state where Islamic law rules and all infidels are either killed or made second class citizens.




It seems strange on a website devoted to scepticism to argue that one should not try to understand a problem.

As suicidal terrorism has not been a distinguishing feature of islamic societies since their inception it is not a "given" in the religous system. It is therefore appropiate to try and identify the factors which have given rise to it in the recent past.

It is of course possible that these factors are largely outside of western control but it is also possible that there are political strategies which would tend to generate fewer recruits for the fundamentalists.

It is worth noting that in the original fundamentalist state - Iran - a large segment of the population seems increasingly disenchanted with the entrenched power of fundamentalist mullahs. Fundamentalism, the breeding ground of Islamic Terrorism, is an ideology whose passing can probably be hastened if we can properly understand what brings it into existence.

[Mike B.]

I think people are misunderstanding what I said. Forgive me but I think my somewhat tounge in cheek way of saying what I did is leading to this.

My point is not that we shouldn't understand the terrorists. I think many understand them quite clearly.

For example, OBL gave interviews and statements about how he wished that the "kafir" and "infidel" armies leave the holy land where "the prophet received his revelations from Allah." (Saudi Arabia) He in particular did not like the idea that Western women were in these armies and were going around with their heads unveiled.

Yet (forgive me) many on the left seem to say well this is not the "real reason" for his actions. It is because of US arrogance or even now the state of the Australian film industry. (Check Mr. Manifesto's post a few posts back. It is exactly what I am talking about.) It is the "face at the bottom of the well."

I think world events have shown how weak these explanations have been. People from countries not even particularily friendly to the US like Morocco have been victims of these Islamic terrorists. Were these attacks the result of American arrogance, as maybe some would like to say 9/11 was about.

These explanations also fail to explain the Islamic nature of these terrorists. Surely if the US's arrogance was the cause, wouldn't we have terror strikes from Latin America, Animists in Africa, etc. That is not the case...

By all means we should understand these people. I am just saying the attempts to understand terrorists is sometimes simply a projection of what some on the left THINK they should be mad about.

[Ralph]

There's almost allways a small percentage of people in any society.....who I think simply LIKE to kill. Sadists ENJOY inflicting pain . The recently captured "Green River Killer" admits that he ENJOYED killing those women.

During the 20s' and 30's.....the Nazi party attracted quite a few people like this......and they were welcomed with open arms.

"Understanding" people like this will solve nothing. There's nothing you can give them to stop them since it's the violence itself they enjoy. They'll continue to do it until they're killed or locked up.

Instead of the Nazi party.....just substitute "Al Quaida" or whatever other terrorist organization that comes to mind. I think this is what you're dealing with.

Do these groups even have any clear cut demands?????

Do anybody really believe that this will end "with the death of American arrogance".....

Name something we could REASONABLY do......that would cause most of these terrorist groups to say .. "OK..we're done....now that you understand us..lets just sit down & negotiate"......

[RCNelson]

Ralph:
Do these groups even have any clear cut demands????? Yes.

They want us to submit to Allah and live under sharia.

In their benevolence they will allow people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians) to keep their religions as long as they acknowledge the dominance of Islam and pay the special tax for infidels. They call such Jews and Christians dhimmis (http://www.dhimmitude.org/).
Those of us who are nether Muslims nor dhimmis should be killed.

Ralph:
Do anybody really believe that this will end "with the death of American arrogance"..... Yes, millions of Islamists around the world really believe this.

Ralph:
Name something we could REASONABLY do......that would cause most of these terrorist groups to say .. "OK..we're done....now that you understand us..lets just sit down & negotiate"...... There is nothing we could reasonably do to institute both sharia and liberal secular democracy at the same time.

The best we can do is to debunk the belief in the Koran as the infallible word of God, and debunk the idea that Mohammed was an example of ideal human behavior. In other words, we must debunk the very foundations of Islam. This debunking process has already begun as more and more Muslims gain access to the free flow of information on the internet.

In the past, Muslims could not openly challenge Islamic beliefs without being killed. But now with the internet Muslims can debate skeptical x-Muslims without the x-Muslims getting killed for apostasy.

The number of Muslims who don't really believe, but are just going along to avoid persecution, is growing. Eventually their numbers will reach a critical mass and they will be able to openly declare their apostasy. I think Iran may well be the first place this will happen.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by RCNelson
Yes.

They want us to submit to Allah and live under sharia.

In their benevolence they will allow people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians) to keep their religions as long as they acknowledge the dominance of Islam and pay the special tax for infidels. They call such Jews and Christians dhimmis (http://www.dhimmitude.org/).
Those of us who are nether Muslims nor dhimmis should be killed.

Yes, millions of Islamists around the world really believe this.

There is nothing we could reasonably do to institute both sharia and liberal secular democracy at the same time.

The best we can do is to debunk the belief in the Koran as the infallible word of God, and debunk the idea that Mohammed was an example of ideal human behavior. In other words, we must debunk the very foundations of Islam. This debunking process has already begun as more and more Muslims gain access to the free flow of information on the internet.

In the past, Muslims could not openly challenge Islamic beliefs without being killed. But now with the internet Muslims can debate skeptical x-Muslims without the x-Muslims getting killed for apostasy.

The number of Muslims who don't really believe, but are just going along to avoid persecution, is growing. Eventually their numbers will reach a critical mass and they will be able to openly declare their apostasy. I think Iran may well be the first place this will happen.


"The INFIDEL TAX!!!!!!..................great.....

Any loopholes..........If you grow a full beard or beat up your wife.......can you get around it.......

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I think people are misunderstanding what I said. Forgive me but I think my somewhat tounge in cheek way of saying what I did is leading to this.

:con2: I guess you must have missed my response, then, because I was agreeing with you.

By all means we should understand these people. I am just saying the attempts to understand terrorists is sometimes simply a projection of what some on the left THINK they should be mad about.

Of course. There's this Chomsky/Said reality distortion field going on. Bin Laden, for instance, has largely ignored the situation with Israel and Palestine, but everyone versed in Chomsky and Said wants this to be the issue. So, when bin Laden's recruitment tape says "Jews" over and over, they automatically mentally translate it into "the actions of the state of Israel but not necessarily Jews in general." But no, bin Laden said "Jews."

The love affair between leftists and Islam, which has been really big since the 1980's, is a wonder to behold. Around this town of Tallahassee, often dubbed the Berkeley of the South, belly dancing has been renamed "ritual feminist dancing."

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The death of US arrogance is the first step.

Can you give an example of a superpower that was "humble" throughout history. Every country today looks out for it's own interest as it should. Why is is good for other countries to do this but is conisdered "arrogant" if the US does it?

[Dancing David]

Ah, I will still talk about our countries abuse of power, but I don't believe that that is the reason that people practise terrorism.

Terrorism is war, plain and simple, and as G Dwyer said ' war is politicaly expedient'. People use terrorism the way they would use any act of war , to effect apolitical change.

BTW there are acts of terror that are not related to Islam, especialy in Africa and all sorts of other 'little' wars.

I think that we can do things to help democracy and end terrorism to augement the use of force. that is why we must stop the US's support of facist regimes.

War is just the same as terrorism, it is the use of violence to enforce political power. We just happen to feel that we are right when we practise terrorism to further out interests.

I do not say this to demena any one who is currently serving in our armed forces. My main point is that terrorism and war are the same things. So the use of force to end terrorism is justified, and the use of other means to end the repressive politics of the world will also augment the use of force.

[Ed]

Originally posted by RCNelson
Yes.


The number of Muslims who don't really believe, but are just going along to avoid persecution, is growing. Eventually their numbers will reach a critical mass and they will be able to openly declare their apostasy. I think Iran may well be the first place this will happen.

As I suggested elsewhere, it really is a war against Islam, to the death.

[Gem]

As I suggested elsewhere, it really is a war against Islam, to the death.

I really can't stand such statements.

Why don't you start imprisoning or killing the 600,000+ Muslims in America? Or if killing is not your strong suit, why not use the Japanese Internment model?

If it was, wouldn't you think Isreal have a problem about letting hundred of thousands of people work in Isreal by crossing the border?

Gem

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ed


As I suggested elsewhere, it really is a war against Islam, to the death.

And it is war against Christians because of Fred Phelps, this logic does not follow.

Are you aware of the level of terrorism in Africa, or do you only count terrorism against 'white/European/allies' as terrorism? Should we just kill all black skinned people because some of them practise terrorism on a scale that would make al Queda blanch?

How do you deal with Turkey, our staunch ally and a secular Islamic state?

I realize you are just hyperbolic but sheesh, just drop the bomg is not a solution.
Do you kill all the pacisfist Islam as well?

Thanks ED!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dancing David


And it is war against Christians because of Fred Phelps, this logic does not follow.

Are you aware of the level of terrorism in Africa, or do you only count terrorism against 'white/European/allies' as terrorism? Should we just kill all black skinned people because some of them practise terrorism on a scale that would make al Queda blanch?

How do you deal with Turkey, our staunch ally and a secular Islamic state?

I realize you are just hyperbolic but sheesh, just drop the bomg is not a solution.
Do you kill all the pacisfist Islam as well?

Thanks ED!

I don't much care about Africa because it does not effect me. I sort of doubt many on this board do except for effect.

I don't know about Turkey and I don't know about dropping the bomb. My contention is that if our way of life is seriously threatened we would respond. We will have to see how Islam responds to the Islamisists. Who knows.

[JeffX1]

He and/or She who has what I want .

I want my neighbors wife.
I want my neighbors SUV.
I want to screw the dipwad at work who is hampering my rise to fame.

We laugh, we joke, we lionize, we aplaude, we give credence to, we justify, our bosses.

Those people who guarentee the next paycheck.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Gem


Why don't you start imprisoning or killing the 600,000+ Muslims in America?

What a silly thought; all that's needed are a few assassination squads to kill those who preach extremism. Just keep shooting the replacements until one decides he'd rather live & preach co-existence. :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by JeffX1
He and/or She who has what I want .

I want my neighbors wife.
I want my neighbors SUV.
I want to screw the dipwad at work who is hampering my rise to fame.

We laugh, we joke, we lionize, we aplaude, we give credence to, we justify, our bosses.

Those people who guarentee the next paycheck.

And so it ever was. Your point?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Mike B.
We have all seen the horrific images from Turkey. It is sickening.

And most of the victims were Turkish Muslims.

Is it time to stop "understanding" terrorism? Is it time to take the terrorists at their word?

Let me explain.

There are many posters on here that say terrorism like 9/11 occurs because of horrible policies of the US to the Third World. They usually then begin a litany of how horrible US was in Latin America, etc.

(Strangely, the US has not been attacked by any Chile terrorists groups lately, which shows how off the mark this analysis is.)

But we have had recent Islamicist terrorism in Bali, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and now Turkey. Many of the victims have been local Muslims.

Doesn't this show the fallacy of trying to say US policy is the "real" reason for this terrorism? The terrorists say loud and clear what they want. They want a huge fundamentalist Islamic state where Islamic law rules and all infidels are either killed or made second class citizens.

Can someone point to something horrendous Morocco did against Muslims to deserve this?

This attempt to find the "real" reason for terrorism is being shown to be silly. It is sort of the face at "the bottom of the well." (i.e. "I don't like the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocols, so that must have contributed to the terrorism. I recall the Guardian ran an article shortly after 9/11 to this effect.)

Here is the view from an Iraqi perspective:

http://www.wpiraq.org/english/Forward/issue23/moayed151103.htm

The suicidal bombing attacks in Baghdad are terrorist crimes against the innocent people.



By: Moayed Ahmed



The latest string of suicidal terrorist attacks in Baghdad, which targeted among other civilian targets the office of International Red cross have left 34 people dead and tens more civilians wounded. Like most of other frequent terrorist attacks in the Iraqi cities especially in Baghdad during last few months the perpetrators of these terrorist crimes have not claim responsibility publicly. However, many evidences indicate that the Islamic terrorists like al-Qaeda, and other international terrorist organisations of political Islam and the remnants of the fascist Baath party are behind these attacks.

What these murderers do in Iraq today under the name of “ resistance” against the USA occupation is similar to the crimes they have committed against people in Algeria, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran even though, there has been no occupation in these countries. The USA occupation of Iraq has created a breeding ground for these groups to grow and commit crimes like what we see these days. In reality, the occupation is not the reason why these fascist trends adopt such form of terrorist operations and reactionary political objectives. Killing and horrifying innocent people is the cornerstone of their activity aimed to impose their inhumane perspectives and objectives on society. The destruction caused by the USA inhumane and reactionary policies including war, and occupation of Iraq has paved the way for these groups to commit such criminal operations and to exploit the widespread anti-occupation sentiments and peoples’ struggle to liberate themselves from the occupation and the USA unfair policies. Thus the USA policies have helped them to turn Iraq to a field where they achieve their reactionary objectives and strategies.

Terrorism, destruction and mass killing are key part of the strategy of these trends and their struggle to divide power with the local and international bourgeois especially the USA in the region.

The crimes of these terrorist Islamic trends are not a reaction to the destruction, war, poverty, unemployed and oppression imposed by the USA on the people of Arab and “ Islamic” countries or to its support for the oppression and crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians. The crimes of the Islamic groups are not because the USA waged a destructive war on Iraq and occupied it. For political Islam, these crimes are a form of struggle for power. These crimes are their struggle to achieve their goals and inhumane policies.



.

The West and the USA in particular stand against the actions of these groups and call them terrorism when they target the USA troops and interests. However the West says nothing about what the organisations, militias and regimes of political Islam have been committing against women, socialists and freedom loving people in the so-called “ Islamic” countries including the Arab world for decades. Moreover the West has support, strengthened and used these groups against the masses, and communist and leftist movements in these societies.



The West and the USA in Particular have turned political Islam, which was a marginal force in the so-called Islamic societies to the force that is now fighting the USA itself for power on the scale of the region. The USA does not hesitate to make coalitions with the “Sunni” and “ Shiite” groups of political Islam in Iraq and give the majority of seats in the Governing Council to them because they have abandoned violence against the USA forces. In this way the USA has given the pro-USA political Islam the freedom to shape the political regime in Iraq and destroy the pillars of secularism and civilization in it. Thus the USA has paved the way for the Islamic violence to continue and intensify against women, children and freedom loving people in Iraq.

Regarding the Baath fascists who have nothing left apart from desperate terrorism they were originally a terrorist and oppressive regime and party. This regime would have not stayed in power for one day with out using the bloodiest methods of oppression in all aspects of life. It had never hesitated to use its gigantic oppressive machine against the masses. Moreover it would have not continued without turning the state to a gigantic military machine, militarize the society, pushing the masses into numerous wars, and perpetrating mass killings. What the Baathists and the Baathist regime have done in Iraq was the precise implementation of the Arab nationalist movement’s massage and its objectives and defending the “ National” causes for which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives and millions more in the region face extreme hardships. The terrorist actions of the Baathists today are the continuation of that bloody history and the continuation of the same struggle methods.

Publicizing the practices of the nationalist and Islamic forces under the excuse of resisting the occupation is an insult to the masses in Iraq and the region and a violation of their rights to get rid of these forces and their practices forever. The terrorist groups of political Islam and Baathists are antagonistic to the most basic human rights. They must not have a place in the political life of the society and in the masses’ struggle to liberate themselves from the consequences of the USA policies and occupation of Iraq. Their terrorism is evidence on their antagonism to civilied life and the political struggle of the masses to end the occupation and build a political system, which represent them.

Emancipation from the current horrible conditions including lack of security, instability faced by millions of people in Iraq every day is the task of the masses and their progressive, socialist and humanist forces. As long as there is occupation the current destruction in Iraq will continue in more bloody ways. The struggle to end the occupation and defeat the USA policies in Iraq is the cause of the people and part of their struggle to achieve a better life. It is part of their struggle to achieve freedom and prosperity and establish a political regime based on the masses’ will. The Worker-communist Party of Iraq is in the forefront of the working class struggle and deprived people to organize a mass political struggle to end the occupation and liberate the society from all reactionary Islamic and nationalist forces and to build the masses’ own political and social regime.

[JeffX1]

LOOK AT THIS VERY SPECIFIC FORUM....

If you are a 'man' with your penis and testicles dangling..................

YOU want to be 'in charge'......

If you can not be in charge at work, you want to be in charge at home.

TERROISM STARTS WITH.....

...mom and dad don't understand/care about me.
...mom/dad don't think 'time' with me makes any difference.

The Mullah loves me.
He tells me that GOD loves me.

He tells me that DYING for God is the ultimate expression of love.

For God..
..and for your family.

This reasoning happens in both Jerusalem and Palestine.

And in the United States..................

The difference is that the kids in this country have the TV, video games, money and the opportunity to grasp for everything within their reach.

[Ed]

Originally posted by JeffX1
LOOK AT THIS VERY SPECIFIC FORUM....

If you are a 'man' with your penis and testicles dangling..................


I prefer

Ponderously swaying with a rhythm at once ominous and fell

Other than that I sorta agree. You do seem a tad out of sorts on this topic, though.

I'd also recommend briefs for that swaying problem.

[Ed]

Forgot this



:D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Gosh, I had no idea you were an expert on Australian popular culture. Where did you learn so much on the subject? And here I was thinking people like you were dullards who spouted whatever crap surfaced in their forebrain.

Ad hom. Try again. Please explain why the Australian film industry is lamenting it's loss in the entertainment market to American films. Your comment does nothing of the sort.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ed


I don't much care about Africa because it does not effect me. I sort of doubt many on this board do except for effect.

So you agree that it might be terrorism then, okay.

I don't know about Turkey and I don't know about dropping the bomb. My contention is that if our way of life is seriously threatened we would respond. We will have to see how Islam responds to the Islamisists. Who knows.

Sure but it is not Islam which creates terrorists, it is evil individuals, and we should all care about Fred Phelps, he thinks that god is happy when we murder people.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by JeffX1
LOOK AT THIS VERY SPECIFIC FORUM....

If you are a 'man' with your penis and testicles dangling..................




Sorry JeffX1 but I don't know you, so I hate to just slam you , but isn't that just a little extreme?

Just a tad,
I mean do the girls who talk about being suicide bombers do it because they have

'breasts protruding' & 'buttocks abouncing'

Men are not responsible for all the evil in the world< they are responsible for more than thier fair share but they don't create it all.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Sure but it is not Islam which creates terrorists, it is evil individuals, and we should all care about Fred Phelps, he thinks that god is happy when we murder people.

True but Islam seems to provide fertile ground for them.. As I said it is up to Islam to decide. If they go the way the extremists want, it will go very poorly for them. If we (and for convience sake I refer to the pieces of the British Empire) really feel truely threatened we will extirpate them. There won't be borders they can cross for safety or "neutrals". An extreme case, but that is my point.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Sure but it is not Islam which creates terrorists, it is evil individuals, and we should all care about Fred Phelps, he thinks that god is happy when we murder people.

Good point. Very good point.

A terrorist following Phelps´ rants would be as much a "christian" as a terrorist following Bin Laden´s rants is a "muslim".

[CapelDodger]

from Dancing David:
Sure but it is not Islam which creates terrorists, it is evil individuals
The E-word doesn't really further understanding. The perpetrators of the terrorism we seem to be talking about think they're engaging in righteous violence. That's one of the easiest things to sell to young human males - violence without guilt. They also have the attractions of the Secret Society with all its cool promise of desperate deeds and sacrifice for the people/nation/philosphy/god-totem. The proportion of the young male population that takes it up will depend on how many distractions are available and how obvious/real the grievances are. But there will always be people trying to exploit this human tendency.

"Freedom" is a popular trigger-word. It generally means being ruled by local thieves rather than distant ones, after devastating the countryside and people with warfare. But it sells well, and if it succeeds no locals call the Heroes of National Liberation terrorists. If it fails, then they remain terrorists. "Justice" is another useful buzz-word. And "God's Work" - now there's a killer sound-bite.

Islam isn't the problem in itself. Islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon (the Assassins were Ismaeli/Shi'ite terrorists who almost exclusively killed other Muslims). And it isn't a universal tendency in the Islamic world. It's really an Arabic problem. As has been pointed out, the Iranian regime has been stumbling for a decade or more because most of the population want freedom from it, not the West. Pakistan is just a mess, as is the Javan Empire (aka Indonesia). Libya, funnily enough, is coming out of this smelling of roses. Egypt is probably still smelling the same (coffee and tobacco).

The Arabs were once a world power. As were the Brits in their day, and the US now. I can attest that the Brits are still having a problem with loss of status - there's an underlying feeling that somebody's cheating. (Probably the French and Germans, but quite possibly everybody.) The US will experience that when its day is done. The Arabs have never got over it, and have a massive chip on their shoulders as a result. Islam is right; Islam is triumphant; Islam is losing out any way you measure it; ergo, somebody's cheating. In fact, they're all cheating (it's a conspiracy) and our own people are letting us down as well. Traitorous scum! With that line to sell there's the opportunity for a brief period of social mobility. Not one that favours the Saudis.

(Lest I get accused of being anti-Arab, the Zionists represent that part of Israel that never got over their brief period in the sun.)

The solution, I think, is to provide other distractions and reduce the recruitment possibilities. In the Arab world that means, at least, the possibility of economic advancement and - given the target audience - more women available who have to wooed rather than arranged for. It also means ordinary people having enough at stake in their lives to regard the terrorists acting "for the People" as their own enemies. Hold-outs, such as the Real IRA, will eventually atrophy.

That's my understanding anyway, and I don't think it's time to stop trying to find the reasons for terrorism. But it is time to stop trying to find the reason for andre (in-joke).

[Dancing David]

Right on, I just feel that the acts of a single individual should not effect a whole segment of people who are not doing the evil.(On both sides, each way.)

I use the E-word because it helps to categorise an extreme level of violence.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Dancing David:

The E-word doesn't really further understanding. The perpetrators of the terrorism we seem to be talking about think they're engaging in righteous violence. That's one of the easiest things to sell to young human males - violence without guilt. They also have the attractions of the Secret Society with all its cool promise of desperate deeds and sacrifice for the people/nation/philosphy/god-totem. The proportion of the young male population that takes it up will depend on how many distractions are available and how obvious/real the grievances are. But there will always be people trying to exploit this human tendency.

"Freedom" is a popular trigger-word. It generally means being ruled by local thieves rather than distant ones, after devastating the countryside and people with warfare. But it sells well, and if it succeeds no locals call the Heroes of National Liberation terrorists. If it fails, then they remain terrorists. "Justice" is another useful buzz-word. And "God's Work" - now there's a killer sound-bite.

Islam isn't the problem in itself. Islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon (the Assassins were Ismaeli/Shi'ite terrorists who almost exclusively killed other Muslims). And it isn't a universal tendency in the Islamic world. It's really an Arabic problem. As has been pointed out, the Iranian regime has been stumbling for a decade or more because most of the population want freedom from it, not the West. Pakistan is just a mess, as is the Javan Empire (aka Indonesia). Libya, funnily enough, is coming out of this smelling of roses. Egypt is probably still smelling the same (coffee and tobacco).

The Arabs were once a world power. As were the Brits in their day, and the US now. I can attest that the Brits are still having a problem with loss of status - there's an underlying feeling that somebody's cheating. (Probably the French and Germans, but quite possibly everybody.) The US will experience that when its day is done. The Arabs have never got over it, and have a massive chip on their shoulders as a result. Islam is right; Islam is triumphant; Islam is losing out any way you measure it; ergo, somebody's cheating. In fact, they're all cheating (it's a conspiracy) and our own people are letting us down as well. Traitorous scum! With that line to sell there's the opportunity for a brief period of social mobility. Not one that favours the Saudis.

(Lest I get accused of being anti-Arab, the Zionists represent that part of Israel that never got over their brief period in the sun.)

The solution, I think, is to provide other distractions and reduce the recruitment possibilities. In the Arab world that means, at least, the possibility of economic advancement and - given the target audience - more women available who have to wooed rather than arranged for. It also means ordinary people having enough at stake in their lives to regard the terrorists acting "for the People" as their own enemies. Hold-outs, such as the Real IRA, will eventually atrophy.

That's my understanding anyway, and I don't think it's time to stop trying to find the reasons for terrorism. But it is time to stop trying to find the reason for andre (in-joke).

Hello CapelDodger.
This matches exactly what Bernard Lewis stated in "What Went Wrong?"

The Ottoman Empire was once the zenith of power and Islam was on the march. Now as you say they lag behind not only the Xian West, but even more gallingly the "Kafir" East Asia.

Again, though to clarify, I was pointing out that some of the "real" reasons for terrorism given in the West, I think have been shown to be wrong-headed.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I couldn't help but chuckle as I read about the US oppressing the Australian film industry... you folks really are pathetic sometimes, you know that? The reason why American films are a threat are because Australians like to watch them. If you want to support Australian film, go see those instead. It sounds like the consumer has chosen. And you lost. The problem is not so much that the Australian industry fears competition crackmonkey, it's that there will be less opportunity for home grown products to be made at all. There wont be much of a choice to make.

At present, industry regulations that support cultural industries in Australia include local content regulations for television and radio, support for public broadcasters, regulation of media ownership to promote diversity and restrict foreign ownership, and subsidies for the performing arts. Open and unregulated trade means we could lose the right and incentive to protect our own industry. For example, it's cheaper to import pre-made programs from the US than it is to produce local drama, so without local content quota, it seems likely TV stations will choose the imported product.

Open and unregulated trade means we could lose our own cultural reflection. The big concern is the shrinking of opportunities to present our stories, our local culture and to find a viable enough use for the skills developed by local writers, journalists, actors and technicians.

Some might think that's *the free market* and so be it, but many of us here think being able to reflect our own identity in the arts is worth protecting. The *best* product doesn't necessarily win out in the free market....there should be other considerations besides the purely economic.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
The problem is not so much that the Australian industry fears competition crackmonkey, it's that there will be less opportunity for home grown products to be made at all. There wont be much of a choice to make.

Aw, kwitchermoaning.

At just shy of 20 million people, Australia is about the size of Florida. I can think of three Floridian films that have really made it:

Something Wild
The Flash of Green
Ulee's Gold

And the last two were strictly art-house. At the same time, I can think of six Australian films that have really made it:


[i]The Year of Living Dangerously
The Good Wife
Young Einstein
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers

Only one of those came close to art-house status. I don't think that Australia is doing too shabby.

[Malachi151]

Islam isn't the problem in itself. Islamic terrorism is a new phenomenon

Islam has simply become part of a liberation movement because all other avenues were shut off.

Prior to and shorty after WWI the Arabs were trying to form a modern democraic secualr nation through the otherthrow of the Ottomans. This was thwarted by the British and French who then colonized and subjugated an advnaced culture.

Then the Pan Arabism movement picked up steam, but that was again shut down by the imperialists.

Then with WWII many people in the Middle East and India sided with the Nazis in an effort to overthrow the British and French and get out from oppressive colonial rule.

Then, after WWII, Communism became big in the Middle East and there were many Marxists who were pressing for secular Socialist governemnts to overthrow the British and French, but then the British and Americans brough in the ex-Nazi loyalists, who were anti-Communist to quel the Comunist movement. ONce the COmmunsits were smashe din the Middle East, all secular apprashed had been tried and failed, and with each step the imperialists killed off more and more of the intelligencia, until the only thing left for people to rally behind was Islam.

So now, Islam is bearing the touch of "freedom" in the efforts of the Middle Easter people rid themselves from foreign intervention and oppression.

This issue will never be solved until the West is no longer dependant on Middle Eastern oil. The Islamic movement is the creation of 100 years of Western Imperialism and the destrouction of all other avenues for change that have been tried by the Arabian people.

[shuize]

Originally posted by epepke


Aw, kwitchermoaning.

At just shy of 20 million people, Australia is about the size of Florida. I can think of three Floridian films that have really made it:

Something Wild
The Flash of Green
Ulee's Gold

And the last two were strictly art-house. At the same time, I can think of six Australian films that have really made it:


[i]The Year of Living Dangerously
The Good Wife
Young Einstein
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers

Only one of those came close to art-house status. I don't think that Australia is doing too shabby.

I thought the last two were filmed in New Zealand. Oh, I get it ... same difference...

[Chaos]

Originally posted by epepke


Aw, kwitchermoaning.

At just shy of 20 million people, Australia is about the size of Florida. I can think of three Floridian films that have really made it:

Something Wild
The Flash of Green
Ulee's Gold

And the last two were strictly art-house. At the same time, I can think of six Australian films that have really made it:


[i]The Year of Living Dangerously
The Good Wife
Young Einstein
Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers

Only one of those came close to art-house status. I don't think that Australia is doing too shabby.

Hollywood is even smaller than Florida or Australia, and there are countless Hollywood films that really made it.

On the other hand, the whole of Africa is countless times larger than either Florida or Australia, and how many African films do you know which really made it?

To cut it short: your "comparison" sucks big time.

[CapelDodger]

from Mike B:
This matches exactly what Bernard Lewis stated in "What Went Wrong?"
I like to think he got it from me. An interesting book, but a very large question. Malachi151 has an answer.

from Malachi151:
Prior to and shorty after WWI the Arabs were trying to form a modern democraic secualr nation ...
Not on any planet I'm familiar with. Ottoman rule since the 16thCE consolidated the tribal and sectional nature of Arab society. Nationalism was unknown, let alone ideas of democracy and secularism. The people were committed to their families, clans, guilds, tribes and so on and looked to the interests of those in whatever the situation was. When Johnny Turk got his marching orders there was a clambering to get on top, not to form some new-age beacon state. The Brits, perhaps not admirably, took advantage of the situation but they had plenty of local allies. The Kurds of Iraq didn't rebel in the 20's because they were seeking a democratic republic but because they wanted to keep beating their wives and selling their daughters (within the limitations of the Sharia, of course).

Then the Pan Arabism movement picked up steam, but that was again shut down by the imperialists.
Pan-Arabism was shut down by the new kings and the elites that depended on them. Only one Arab leader at a time is ever in favour of pan-Arabism, and that's the current best-bet for leading the new Arab super-state.

Then with WWII many people in the Middle East and India sided with the Nazis in an effort to overthrow the British and French and get out from oppressive colonial rule.
A slur on the democrats who were the main opposition to the imperialists. In India, Congress gave its full support to the war-effort, being appalled at the nature of the Nazi (and, later, Japanese) regime. The British "statement-of-intent" wasn't a pre-requisite, although it was pointed out that enthusiasm was likely to be muted without it.

No offence, but this is a mish-mash of mis- and pre-conceptions. The Arabs have problems that are inherent in their own cultures, and would manifest themselves with or without outside interference.

[CapelDodger]

from shuize:
I thought the last two were filmed in New Zealand. Oh, I get it ... same difference...
And I must be really pleased the English won the World Cup ...

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Chaos


Hollywood is even smaller than Florida or Australia, and there are countless Hollywood films that really made it.

On the other hand, the whole of Africa is countless times larger than either Florida or Australia, and how many African films do you know which really made it?

To cut it short: your "comparison" sucks big time. Not to mention the fact that the changes haven't happened yet, so what's the point of the comparison? I'm talking about how the industry will be affected in the future.

It's not just our cultural thing at risk with this new trade deal. The US is asking for other concessions: such as losing our power of veto over foreign investment proposals from US companies; changing our GM food labelling laws; dismantling our "single desk" organisations for the marketing of commodities like wheat; and a relaxation of our quarantine rules. The US push to protect drug companies' patents and stymie development of generic drugs is another big concern. US drug companies want to curb subsidies offered through Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We'd better think about what we're trading off so we can sell some sheep and cattle to the US.

The US trade representative said that a free trade agreement with Australia would "strengthen the foundation of our security alliance". What does that mean? That trade and supporting US military action go hand in hand? If there had been no active support in Iraq would there have been no trade deal? It makes you wonder.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
... It makes you wonder.

It makes you wonder what?

Have the U.S. and Australia ever been less than solid allies?

It's international trade. Not international charity. I doubt it would have happened, but even if the U.S. had tied a trade deal to foreign policy goals, what's wrong with that? Nobody's telling you that you have to sell us your sheep. If your government decides it's not worth the trade-off, don't make the deal.

It may not be so, but you sound like every other nationalist who wants all the benefits of free trade with the U.S. but is not willing to give anything in return.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by shuize

It may not be so, but you sound like every other nationalist who wants all the benefits of free trade with the U.S. but is not willing to give anything in return.

The problem with "free trade" with the U.S. is that the benefits are almost exclusively on the side of the U.S. and their big companies.

Our idea of free trade is that both sides benefit equally, not just one side.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
The problem with "free trade" with the U.S. is that the benefits are almost exclusively on the side of the U.S. and their big companies.

In Ireland's case inward investment by US multinationals helped an unprecedented economic boom, transforming Ireland from one of Europe's poorer nations to one of it's richer ones, slashing unemployment from 16% to 4%, and generally improving the lot of common people (my own family included). So no, the benefits of more open trade with the US aren't exclusive to the corporations.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos


The problem with "free trade" with the U.S. is that the benefits are almost exclusively on the side of the U.S. and their big companies.

Our idea of free trade is that both sides benefit equally, not just one side.

Look almost the only engine for economic growth in the world right now is American consumers and the imports they buy from the world. To say Americans aren't helping the economies of other countries is just not true.

The other would be the investment in China.

Hence, I don't think "free trade" is just helping the US.

I am also not sure that the EU, as a whole, is all that keen on benefits being shared equally. (i.e. CAP subsidies, state subsidies to aeronautics industry, etc.) They don't want "free trade" really either.

I am not faulting the EU per se. It is just tiresome to hear from the "Guardian" or elsewhere about the horrors of American economic impearilism and then have the EU turn around and do some of the exact same things.

On a larger note, I think that we all may be headed for a period of protectionism, which is bad. I wish Bush would immediatly get rid of the steel subsidies and other things.