Could you've been a terrorist yourself ?

[El Greco]

What if at birth you were given to a family that raised children with the ideal of a suicide bomber ? Would you become one yourself ?

Or do you think that the same genes that made you a rational thinker would express themselves anyway and you would escape the route your family chose for you ?

It is a question that comes to mind every time I see a terrorist attack. We believe we have nothing in common with terrorists, but how much different would we be in another environment ?

[Tmy]

Terrorist? Yeah sure. Not a suicidal terrorist, Im too selfish for that.

Is it such a leap to "terrorist". Look at what people freak over, the envioronment, gun laws, foreclosures, divorce, people get violent over that stuff. Toss in religion and its a powder keg.

If your country was run over by occupiers would you fight them wh terror tactics? Im sure most of us would at least think about it.

I remember during Gulf War 1 they showed clips of bombers blowing up buildings and cheering as they did it. I thought it was poor taste to cheer the death of people, even when their the enemy. Isnt that terroristic thinking? You think of Group X as the enemy and you just want them dead.

[Fendetestas]

I'm not sure I like this kind of questions. I voted no. What I mean is that, had I been born in an enviroment like the one you describe, I wouldn't be me at all. It reminds me of a passage of a famous novel by Miguel Delibes (El camino) The book tells the life in a Castilian village. One day, and old woman enters the church and starts talking to the priest. "Father, I've heard that in England most people are protestants" "That's true" "So, had I been born there, I would probably be a protestant now, wouldn't I?" "eh...yes, I think you probably would" The woman starts to cry and says "Then I want to confess my sins father, for I would be a protestant if I had been born in England!!!"

The novel, of course tells it much better, and if you know the carachter of the old woman you would find it funny, I was just trying to say that I don't think the question is a very logical one (no offense intended of course)

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by El Greco
What if at birth you were given to a family that raised children with the ideal of a suicide bomber ? Would you become one yourself ?

Or do you think that the same genes that made you a rational thinker would express themselves anyway and you would escape the route your family chose for you ?

It is a question that comes to mind every time I see a terrorist attack. We believe we have nothing in common with terrorists, but how much different would we be in another environment ?

I voted "no," and I'd like to explain.

As far back as I can remember, my "family" seemed to me to be these really weird people that I just happened to live with.

I've never felt like part of a family and likely never will.

I'm sure that if I had better parents I might have felt more like being part of a family, but I can't really see how any family could have really got on with me. I was just too weird. I caught onto things and figured out things by myself way too fast. Those tendencies were probably accelerated by my parents who were, after all, "of the Theatre" in New York to boot and so played a lot of games in the Eric Berne sense. But I think I would have been an outcast or a joker in any family. I don't think it would have been possible to indoctrinate me into suicide bombing. Of course, I developed a lot of suicidal ideation over the years, but I think an attempt to indoctrinate me into suicide bombing would, ironically, have prevented that.

In other words, I might have offed myself, but certainly not for some Great Cause™.

[Tmy]

Thsi question is liek asking "woudl you kill soemone".

rationally we'd proabably say know. But who knows what people do when a situation comes. Im sure the biggest pacifist would still be capable of killing if confronted by a muderer in her home.

Its easy to say youd never be a sucide bomber when your relaxing in your safe home and living a free life.


Heres a question. Woudl you sacrifice your life for your child/loveone? If "yes", then you can be suicidal.......for the right cause.

[El Greco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Fendetestas
I don't think the question is a very logical one

I think you have overemphasized the fantastic element. In its essence it is a very simple question that has been asked already millions of times. In fact we may be able to answer it definitely some time. It could be rephrased like this: "How much are our genes responsible for what we become, and how much is our environment ?"

It's simply a social biology question.

[Fendetestas]

Quote:

Originally posted by El Greco


I think you have overemphasized the fantastic element. In its essence it is a very simple question that has been asked already millions of times. In fact we may be able to answer it definitely some time. It could be rephrased like this: "How much are our genes responsible for what we become, and how much is our environment ?"

It's simply a social biology question.

OK, that's what I thought. Then I still say "No". I think the enviroment is as responsible as our genes of what we become, but "terrorist" is a very strong word.

[El Greco]

Quote:

Originally posted by Fendetestas
"terrorist" is a very strong word.

Yes, and I think that this may be a bias to the voting, although this is exactly what I wanted to see.

Had I asked "could you've been a fanatic muslim" the results would probably be much different, since this is a less charged characterization...

[Chaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Fendetestas


OK, that's what I thought. Then I still say "No". I think the enviroment is as responsible as our genes of what we become, but "terrorist" is a very strong word.

So...would you have become a freedom fighter...or guerilla...or whatever...if you had been born in other circumstances?

I say you would have. I would have, too...

I think everybody could become a terrorist, under the right circumstances.

[Fendetestas]

Quote:

Originally posted by El Greco


Yes, and I think that this may be a bias to the voting, although this is exactly what I wanted to see.

Had I asked "could you've been a fanatic muslim" the results would probably be much different, since this is a less charged characterization...

I don't know... I've been raised by a catholic family, attended catholic schools and by the age of 15 I was already an atheist. It's not the same thing I know, and the education I received is nothing compared to the brainwash people in those countries are submitted to (or basque children in some families and even schools I'm afraid), but I still don't think I would ever become an innocent killing fanatic, religious or independentist.

[Soapy Sam]

Let me see- You either think not getting enough sleep turns people into terrorists, or the upgrade to 3.53 failed to fix the poll bug.

I reckon if cultural attitudes towards suicide are positive, it's more likely to be seen as acceptable behaviour. Think mediaeval Japan for instance. Personally I carry little of the Christian mental baggage about suicide being sinful. I see many situations where it might be a positive act, either for the individual concerned or his family etc. Many VCs are awarded posthumously, for bravery which can only be described as suicidal. This is Britain's "highest military honour".
Suicide murder - ie deliberately killing yourself to get past security checks and inflict damage on an enemy- seems a legitimate tactic to me, or at least as legitimate as bombing civilians from 40,000 feet.

The question one must ask is whether the war is justified in the first place. If no, then no. If yes, then why stop at anything? If someone hurt me , or certain people I am favourably disposed towards, then I would do whatever I could to hurt them back.

What I do not accept, is that random acts of terrorism, such as suicide bombing a bus, give adequate return for the cost. Economic terrorism such as introduction of livestock diseases or many other tactics achieve a far greater effect for the effort and cost involved.

[Darat]

To the OP - no one has been able to find a pathology* that explains suicide bombers so I think it's at least likely to be one of those terrible facts we have to accept - "we" are all potentially capable of such acts. (See signature.)


*So far at least.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Chaos

So...would you have become a freedom fighter...or guerilla...or whatever...if you had been born in other circumstances?

I say you would have. I would have, too...

I think everybody could become a terrorist, under the right circumstances.

The line "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is such a load of horse s***. Terrorism lies in the method, not the goal. Your goal is the liberation of your society? Great. Fight all you want. But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror. Our freedom fighters (the founding fathers of the US) didn't use terrorist tactics. Did you ever hear about George Washington calling for people to go start blowing up restaurants at lunch time in England? No, you didn't. Because being a terrorist has nothing whatsoever to do with WHY a person is fighting for their cause. It is all about the method.

[jjramsey]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

I reckon if cultural attitudes towards suicide are positive, it's more likely to be seen as acceptable behaviour.

Except that terrorist organizations that use suicide attack campaigns often operate in cultures where suicide is not acceptable. This is why they try to portray their suicide attacks as "marytrdom" operations.

I'm still reading the book Dying to Win, but given what I've read so far, the answer to whether one could become a suicide terrorist depends on the answers to these questions:

• Could you ever find yourself demonizing the enemy such that you see it as a monolith, blurring the distinction between civilian and military?
• Would you be willing to die for your community?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror.

Hmm... this would certainly make the US and British bomber offensives the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history.... n'cest pas?

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Hmm... this would certainly make the US and British bomber offensives the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history.... n'cest pas?

Which ones deliberately targeted only civilians, for the sole purpose of creating terror?

BTW...you do have somewhat of a point, but I almost entirely disagree with it. But this subject here is why I am glad that weaponry has advanced to the point where we no longer have to level most of a city just to take out a couple of factories and one military base.

[LW]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

The line "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is such a load of horse s***. Terrorism lies in the method, not the goal. Your goal is the liberation of your society? Great. Fight all you want. But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror.

The ambiguity comes in the definition of "civilian".

Suppose that you have two otherwise identical countries that are under foreign oppression and the only difference is that in one country the leader of the occupying forces is called a "governor" and has no official military rank and in the other the leader is a "general governor" who is a soldier.

If you go by the view that only soldiers are legitimate targets, then you get the absurd situation where one enemy leader is fair game and the other is not.

I can't draw a clear dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate targets. There are cases that are clearly on either side: attacking children is a big no-no and ambushing the commander of enemy military forces is OK. But I can't come up with a single policy that I could comfortably apply to all cases.

As for the OP, I don't think that I would have grown to be a suicide bomber in any environment. But if I had been born 80 years earlier I might have been one of the "traitors and terrorists" that operated at the time. My great-grandfather was.

My ancestor was one of those people who called themselves "Activists" and whose goal was independent Finland. As far as I know, gread-grandpa's main involvement was that he transported a couple of dozens of young men on their way to Germany to receive military training and he also gave food and shelter to other Activists during their travels.

But some of the Activists went further than that and made terrorist attacks. Though, as terrorists they were quite inept. None of their bomb attacks against Russian administration caused any noticeable damage.

The Activists were also for vigilante justice and wanted to terrorize potential informants into silency. Their actions are a great reason why I'm not fan of people taking law on their own hands: in the general area where my ancestors lived there three supposed snitches were murdered. All well, except that one of them was completely innocent, the second was blackmailed into informing, and only one was really an active participant in the Russian administration's efforts against Activists. Not a great hit rate.

[kalen]

"Terrorist" is a label. Applied liberally enough, anyone can be called one.

Some people just like to narrow the definition enough so that the "other guy" is a terrorist and not themselves.

It's just semantics in the end.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Which ones deliberately targeted only civilians, for the sole purpose of creating terror?

Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Berlin etc etc etc

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by kalen

"Terrorist" is a label. Applied liberally enough, anyone can be called one.

Some people just like to narrow the definition enough so that the "other guy" is a terrorist and not themselves.

It's just semantics in the end.

True. As long as there is a single non-civilian or legitimate target anywhere in the area, or even believed to be in the area, you can always claim you are not a terrorist, but just willing to accept a high proportion of "collateral damage".

That is similar to what the US said when it bombed a village where it thought Saddam was hiding.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by El Greco

What if at birth you were given to a family that raised children with the ideal of a suicide bomber ? Would you become one yourself ?

Or do you think that the same genes that made you a rational thinker would express themselves anyway and you would escape the route your family chose for you ?

It is a question that comes to mind every time I see a terrorist attack. We believe we have nothing in common with terrorists, but how much different would we be in another environment ?

There have been many analyses of suicide bomber's backgrounds, as well as of some live failed ones.

While there are differences ranging from revenge motivation, to financial reward for their families, for the most part they were definitely not raised to believe that was right. Most, if not all,took up fanatical religion after they became independent. The 911 killers are examples, as are the London bombers, dead and alive.

Some say that if you study the Koran hard enough, there are enough hate messages in it to almost force that sort of thinking. Most Muslims are not experts on the Koran.

Of course you might argue something similar for the bible, and most Christians are not experts on that either, but the nuttiest ones claim to be.

So, does a form of insanity cause one to immerse oneself in religious fundamentalism, or is it the other way around?

In either case I don't think the cause lies largely with the parents.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by LW

The ambiguity comes in the definition of "civilian".

No, there is no ambiguity. The terrorist sees all "others" as potential targets. Civilian means nothing to them. They themselves are civilian.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Hmm... this would certainly make the US and British bomber offensives the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history.... n'cest pas?

Yeah, "bomber" Harris, and Churchill, used terrorist tactics.
That does not necessarily make them morally wrong.

Terrorism is just another weapon of war, perhaps the most nasty, inhumane weapon, but a weapon non the less.

In "civilized" nations the weapons chosen to wage war with, should be proportionate to the force being used by the enemy.

It is conceivable that a war could escalate to a point where the use of "terrorism" was justified, I contend that WWII was one such case.

That stance no more justifies atrocities like the world trade center, any more than A tommy gunning down the Hun in Normandy justifies a punishment shooting in N.Ireland.

The weapons may be the same, but the moral justification is vastly different.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by brodski

Yeah, "bomber" Harris, and Churchill, used terrorist tactics.
That does not necessarily make them morally wrong.

Any such label has to be in the context of the standards and capabilities of the day. To win they had to destroy the opponent's economies. That this involved targeting "civilian" industry was perfectly rational, as was demoralizing it. I don't think the British thought even Hitler was a terrorist for bombing them.

Now we can aim better, so we agonize over missing sometimes.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Berlin etc etc etc

Are you saying there was no military purpose whatsoever in those attacks, and that the entire sole reason for them being carried out was to cause terror in the civilian population?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Are you saying there was no military purpose whatsoever in those attacks, and that the entire sole reason for them being carried out was to cause terror in the civilian population?

No, but both terrorising the civilian population, and satisfying the domestic appetite for revenge where major factors in the decision to order those raids. In world war two, both sides used civilian bombing as a "terrorist" tactic, but as I said above, using this tactic can sometimes be justifiable.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by brodski

No, but both terrorising the civilian population, and satisfying the domestic appetite for revenge where major factors in the decision to order those raids. In world war two, both sides used civilian bombing as a "terrorist" tactic, but as I said above, using this tactic can sometimes be justifiable.

The word revenge has more meaning if they did it "after" they won the war.
The objective was certainly to harm the civilian population as that is how one destroys a nation's ability to wage war at all, particularly given that the industry of Germany had been dispersed as much as possible within their cities. If they had conveniently placed all their tank factories in fields miles from the cities (perhaps with bulleyes on the roofs) and had people commute to work, then probably bombing the cities would have been considered a waste of time.

Those who can't see a difference between this and Islamic terrorism simply think the world has always been as it is today, or last week, are...... Well why stir anything up unnecessarily?

[Whydoe]

Originally Posted by El Greco

What if at birth you were given to a family that raised children with the ideal of a suicide bomber ? Would you become one yourself ?

I'd say yes. You're a product of the environment you live in. Or maybe I've watched "Trading Places" too many time.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by LW

The ambiguity comes in the definition of "civilian".

Suppose that you have two otherwise identical countries that are under foreign oppression and the only difference is that in one country the leader of the occupying forces is called a "governor" and has no official military rank and in the other the leader is a "general governor" who is a soldier.

I think some might argue that a head of state is not normally a legitimate target unless your goal is to get rid of that government entirely, but if we assume a head of state is a legitimate target, then it's pretty easy to make that distinction without worrying if he has a military rank or not.

Addressing the OP, I think anyone raised to be a suicide bomber could become one.

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

The line "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is such a load of horse s***. Terrorism lies in the method, not the goal. Your goal is the liberation of your society? Great. Fight all you want. But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror. Our freedom fighters (the founding fathers of the US) didn't use terrorist tactics. Did you ever hear about George Washington calling for people to go start blowing up restaurants at lunch time in England? No, you didn't. Because being a terrorist has nothing whatsoever to do with WHY a person is fighting for their cause. It is all about the method.

Yes but I believe that modern terrorism is a by-product of technology, democracy, and the mass-media. Without the ability to flash pictures of a terrorist's handiwork worldwide in seconds their actions would have little...no strike that...would have no impact in any strategic military sense. This is why Kamikazes; although suicidal; were not terrorists. They were a military force attacking a military target to gain a strategic advantage.

Modern terrorism is more about using CNN as a tool to influence democratic politics than Sun Tzu. Or it could be said that terrorists are attempting to affect public opinion which in a democracy is the well-spring from which government policy flows. Without the juxtaposition between military technology, mass instantaneous worldwide communications, and representative democracy, there could be no useful terrorism...or at least not terrorism as it exists today.

If George Washington had ordered English restraunts blown up during the revolution it would have had no tangible effect on anything other than his enhanced status as a war criminal. In fact such an action by Geo Washington would have shown him to be amoral and unfit to be the "Father of his Country". Nowadays such basic morality seems to have little meaning among our terrorist enemies.

-z

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Are you saying there was no military purpose whatsoever in those attacks, and that the entire sole reason for them being carried out was to cause terror in the civilian population?

Inasmuch as there was no military purpose to attacking the pentagon and world trade center.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally Posted by Elind

Any such label has to be in the context of the standards and capabilities of the day. To win they had to destroy the opponent's economies. That this involved targeting "civilian" industry was perfectly rational, as was demoralizing it. I don't think the British thought even Hitler was a terrorist for bombing them.

An Islamist extremist could simply argue that their actions are within the context of the standards and capabilities available to them. To win they have to destroy the US (and therefore Israel's) economy. I'm sure targeting and demoralizing enemy civillians is perfectly rational to them.

And the Germans frequently and justifiably refered to British raids as "Terror Bombing" while the British would certainly have refered to German raids in a similar fashion if the word 'terrorist' was used in the same context then as it was used now.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Elind

The word revenge has more meaning if they did it "after" they won the war.
The objective was certainly to harm the civilian population as that is how one destroys a nation's ability to wage war at all, particularly given that the industry of Germany had been dispersed as much as possible within their cities. If they had conveniently placed all their tank factories in fields miles from the cities (perhaps with bulleyes on the roofs) and had people commute to work, then probably bombing the cities would have been considered a waste of time.

Those who can't see a difference between this and Islamic terrorism simply think the world has always been as it is today, or last week, are...... Well why stir anything up unnecessarily?

demoralising and "terrorizing" the population of Germany was an aim of the allied bombing, just as it was an aim of the Nazi bombing, a secondary aim, but still an aim. destroying industry and communications lines were also aims.

The bombing of Dresden was order for several reasons, firstly it was an important communications hub for supplies to the east, secondly it was an industrial center and thirdly it was in revenge for Coventry. Churchill was particularly angry about the levelling of Coventry, because he knew it was coming, but could take no major defensive actions as that would alert the Germans that their codes had been broken. The revenge angle was also a propaganda tool for the British.

I am not saying that Dresden was not justified, and I am not saying that modern terrorism is justified.

terrorism is a specific weapon of warfare, but its use is not moral justifiable in many cases.
The fact that some nations have historically used terrorism in a justifiable manner no more excuses modern Islamic terrorism (for example), than the fact that the allies in WWII used guns excuses a punishment shooting in Belfast.

I can see a difference between allied bombing campaigns and modern Islamic terrorism, but I can also see that some their methods where similar, this similarity however has no bearing on the morality of either group.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by brodski

I can see a difference between allied bombing campaigns and modern Islamic terrorism, but I can also see that some their methods where similar, this similarity however has no bearing on the morality of either group.

Yes, I agree in principle, but there is also a difference, the way our planet is divided up, between how nations behave and how individuals behave.

What we normally call terrorism these days is ascribed essentially to individuals, or groups of them. We can hardly call Al Qaeda a nation. The difference is in the goals. Nations do unpleasant things, and sometimes dishonorable things too, but in the examples here, they are a matter of national survival.

Our terrorists today could take the approach of lobbying and campaigning for support for their beliefs, but instead they choose to kill all opposition.

Certainly there are some here who say that, for example, the USA (and others) kills in the name of democracy. That may or may not be right in all circumstances, but there is nevertheless in my mind a very obvious difference between those goals and the "terrorist" ones, and I have no hesitation in choosing sides, and that includes accepting certain unpleasantness. Some think we have to pretend that terrorists are no more than common criminal with all the rights we give ourselves.

Of course if we all felt that way there would be nothing left to debate here, would there?

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Jon_in_london

An Islamist extremist could simply argue that their actions are within the context of the standards and capabilities available to them.

The key word being standards. Based on your commentary I think you see no difference between theirs and ours, and you confuse actions with standards in a manner that is purely subjective.

You don't want to win, you just want to appear better.

[cbish]

Could you've been a terrorist yourself ?

Naw, way too lazy! Plus I don't give a sh$t about enough stuff to bother.

Except, we need more diapers on horses! That, I'd blow myself up for!