The Hard Truth about Terrorism

[Crypto2015]

Perhaps you need to listen a bit more carefully then:

"By polarization here, I mean dragging the masses into the battle such that polarization is created between all of the people. Thus, one group of them will go to the side of the people of truth, another group will go to the side of the people of falsehood, and a third group will remain neutral, awaiting the outcome of the battle in order to join the victor. We must attract the sympathy of this group and make it hope for the victory of the people of faith, especially since this group has a decisive role in the later stages of the present battle...
Dragging the masses into the battle requires more actions which will inflame opposition and which will make the people enter into the battle, willing or unwilling, such that each individual will go to the side which he supports...
This was the policy of battle for the pioneers: to transform societies into two opposing groups, igniting a violent battle between them whose end is either victory or martyrdom, whose emblem is either glorious war or humiliating peace."
The Management of Savagery - Abu Bakr Najri

As I said, the West has bent over backwards to do exactly what they wanted. They actually did far more than they ever really expected at the turn of the millenium.

What do you suggest then? To stop any sort of resistance movement against the Islamization of the West and get used to being killed in malls, theatres, night clubs, museums, etc.? No thanks.

 

[Laika]

I do not agree with much of the above, but I appreciate the thoroughness of your response.

Good answer.

Isn't this common sense? Does this really need to be said?

Apparently, yes.

The idea we can win a war on terror is a dangerous one. If we don't recognise how impractical it is we won't recognise that we are simply trading out civil liberties for the illusion of security. The knee-jerk reaction to yet another terrorist attack has been to keep pushing a policy which doesn't work and probably never will work without major restrictions on our civil liberties. Some of the responses in this thread illustrate why it needs to be said (sadly).

 

[Valjean]

I'd join the 20th century (joining the 21st century is probably too big a jump yet) start looking at reason and science and stop following books written in middle ages. Start treating women equal, get over gay life style, get over apostacy, etc., etc.

And the middle East was doing exactly this fifty years ago. It was our heavy-handed exploitation that turned them back to fundamentalism.

If you keep poking at a hornet's nest don't complain if you get stung, and if you want to stop the stings, poking it harder isn't the best approach.

 

[Crypto2015]

Good answer.



The idea we can win a war on terror is a dangerous one. If we don't recognise how impractical it is we won't recognise that we are simply trading out civil liberties for the illusion of security. The knee-jerk reaction to yet another terrorist attack has been to keep pushing a policy which doesn't work and probably never will work without major restrictions on our civil liberties. Some of the responses in this thread illustrate why it needs to be said (sadly).

If your forefathers had thought in the same way as you do the US would be a Communist country right now. Of course that ideologies can be defeated.

 

[Crypto2015]

And the middle East was doing exactly this fifty years ago. It was our heavy-handed exploitation that turned them back to fundamentalism.

If you keep poking at a hornet's nest don't complain if you get stung, and if you want to stop the stings, poking it harder isn't the best approach.

I am from Argentina. We never invaded a single Muslim land. Yet, hundreds of people were killed in my country in Islamic terrorist attacks. Explain that.

 

[Quintessence]

The idea we can win a war on terror is a dangerous one. If we don't recognise how impractical it is we won't recognise that we are simply trading out civil liberties for the illusion of security. The knee-jerk reaction to yet another terrorist attack has been to keep pushing a policy which doesn't work and probably never will work without major restrictions on our civil liberties. Some of the responses in this thread illustrate why it needs to be said (sadly).

All animals have knee-jerk reactions to recognized threats.

I remember the day that the twin towers attacks happened. I was in high school at the time, and activities for the day were basically suspended as all the classrooms tuned their televisions to the news. As I watched it, I recoiled in horror not at the attacks, but at how people would react to it. I knew right then and there that the United States government would overreact (because doing anything else would be politically and socially taboo), and that the aftermath responses would be an order of magnitude worse than anything I was watching on that screen. It's depressing how right I was.

Nowadays, I'm fortunate enough to be in an environment where I can insulate myself from this sort of nonsense. It sure does wonders for one's mental health.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The idea we can win a war on terror is a dangerous one. If we don't recognise how impractical it is we won't recognise that we are simply trading out civil liberties for the illusion of security. The knee-jerk reaction to yet another terrorist attack has been to keep pushing a policy which doesn't work and probably never will work without major restrictions on our civil liberties. Some of the responses in this thread illustrate why it needs to be said (sadly).

With all due respect to our interchange in a different post, you might find Revolutionary Adventurism worth reviewing. Let me add that, in my opinion, diluting the definition of terrorism and sliding casually between the terms 'terrorism' and 'terror' complicate the issue/

 

[Valjean]

Details, please.

Vindictive ire and retaliatory vengeance isn't always well thought out. Angry people lash out indiscriminately.
My own country recently invaded a completely innocent country for a trumped-up offense.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What you are saying is simply not true. Christianity does not encourage terrorism. If Christianity encouraged terrorism, I would be engaged in terrorist activities, just like most of the hundreds of thousands of Christians living in the US. Your cultural environment does not shape your religious convictions. On the contrary, your cultural environment is shaped by your religious convictions. That's why Muslims that were born and raised in the West turn to terrorism. What's killing you right now is the idea that all religions are created equal. As long as you fail to understand that different religions teach vastly dissimilar moral principles, you'll keep dying.

PS: There have been several Islamic reformations in the past. Reformation movements are always a return to the original tenets of a religion, as contained in the texts regarded as sacred. ISIS is by all means an Islamic reformation movement. That is why Muslim men and women from all over the world are running away to join ISIS. They realize that ISIS is being faithful to the original tenets of Islam.

Christian nations radicalized still persecute, imprison and even kill gays. (Such as the 'Kill Gays' bill supported even by Westerners such as senator Ted Cruz for a while.)

Color me unimpressed with the moral piety of Western Christians when they still believe Leviticus 20:13 was given as instruction from the penultimate loving and just being in *any* time period. I find the bible to be just as backwards and barbaric as the Quran. With a few pages of flowery platitudes covering over chapters and chapters of atrocity.

 

[Crypto2015]

Details, please.

Vindictive ire and retaliatory vengeance isn't always well thought out. Angry people lash out indiscriminately.
My own country recently invaded a completely innocent country for a trumped-up offense.

I am not searching for vengeance. I am just trying to prevent the complete annhilation of my way of life. The two terrorist attacks that I mentioned were those of AMIA and the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

 

[Crypto2015]

Christian nations radicalized still persecute, imprison and even kill gays. (Such as the 'Kill Gays' bill supported even by Westerners such as senator Ted Cruz for a while.)

Color me unimpressed with the moral piety of Western Christians when they still believe Leviticus 20:13 was given as instruction from the penultimate loving and just being in *any* time period. I find the bible to be just as backwards and barbaric as the Quran. With a few pages of flowery platitudes covering over chapters and chapters of atrocity.

No Christian believes that Leviticus is a penal code that must be applied today. Leviticus says that disobedient children must be stoned to death. How many Christian parents stone their children to death? None. Any attempt to equate Christianity and Islam as far as morality is concerned is ridiculous. Whenever a bomb explodes in a mall or in a subway, the first thought that we all have is "was it another Islamic terrorist attack"? Nobody thinks "was it another guy killing in the name of Jesus". There is a reason for that.

 

[Windwalker]

I am not searching for vengeance. I am just trying to prevent the complete annhilation of my way of life. The two terrorist attacks that I mentioned were those of AMIA and the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires.

Both of which were attacks on Israeli targets. Do you consider these an attack on Argentina as a country, an attack on the Argentine way of life? It seems to me to be a beef with Israel, but I could be wrong here.

 

[Acim]

In the wake of the Orlando attacks in Florida, we are now once again discussing how to fight terrorism. In the rush for politicians to seem more "decisive" on the issue there is something which badly needs to be said.

You can't stop every terrorist attack.

As we go about blaming various agencies for their respective failings to prevent the Orlando attack we miss a much deeper point: The government is not omnipotent. Even totalitarian governments can never eliminate the risk of terrorism. They expended a great number of resources and lives trying to find a conspiracy because they assumed that they existed. Even without looking at the abuses this facilitated even if everyone had used this power for entirely benevolent ends there good intentions can only dubiously justify legal systems without a presumption of innocence, where guilt is established in suspicion and not evidence, where people may be considered "suspect" because of their families and friends, their work colleagues, the books they read (or the websites they visit). In expecting the government to prevent every terrorist attack, We trade our civil liberties for an illusion of security.

This isn't necessaily an argument against totalitarianism on moral grounds nor that we cannot take measures to "manage" the threat of terrorism. Rather, that we should not give in purely on our irrational fears and that we should evaluate security measures based on evidence of their effective as and not ideology. if we start thinking totalitarianism is morally justified (and we are a long way down this road already) we should not do so based on the illusion of of its omnipotence as a basis for our security. The government cannot make the world 100% safe even if that is what we sincerely expected and demanded of it.

I find this to be a reasonable message that seemingly can't be stated assertively by a 'leader' without taking a lot of flak for it, likely leading to many questioning their role as leader. It seems like non-leaders must realize this on their own, or discuss among other non-leaders. To be fair though, there are official types that will correctly state that while a terrorist just has to be 'right' 1 out of 100 times to be effective, we have expectation for security to be right 100% of the time. It's nice that security types try to hold themselves to that standard, but I would think all reasonable people would realize that is essentially demanding perfection.

I recall after 9/11 in the U.S., my perception was a unity among Americans that I feel has been expressed few times before that and rarely after that. But the unity was seemingly quickly replaced with idea that security types and leader types probably did something inherently wrong and it would be wise to point fingers at people in the U.S. and presume they are guilty of some wrong doing. I do think that is a bonus for anyone engaging in terrorism / violence to have emotional minds turn against less emotional minds as probably hiding something, probably engaged in some sort of coverup.

I do think though that for political discussions, it could be helpful to be honest about who the external enemy is, or is presenting themselves as. This is me getting at point of "radical Islamic terrorist." The dancing around that is odd. Because 'they' will use it in recruitment videos? What, you think they aren't going to use everything possible in recruiting people to their view of things? Don't we do the same thing? It does seem like part of the politics and PC version of that is suggesting we lie about certain facets because we don't want to upset members of society who have potential to join with the enemy, i.e. the moderate Muslims will take it as if we find all of Islam as objectionable. I think it's the dancing around it that makes this possible. Had we stuck to the narrative of "radical Islamic terrorism" from onset, we could've plausibly gone through phases where we are alienating moderate Muslims with mere words, but for discerning Muslims, I think it would be understood in way they already filter. Just as we already filter in the U.S. that we have people within our society that are extremists, and so if someone attacks "militant minded Americans," I do think discerning Americans who aren't prone to letting their emotions have the best of them, will realize they already have same considerations.

I do think we can stop all / every terrorist attack. Perhaps not tomorrow, but over a long term. How that looks is something that politics, military, religion, science, art, and philosophy will all constantly weigh in on. Personally, invoking violence to stop violence strikes me as insane logic. I actually believe we all know this, but don't trust the other approach non-violence because of emotional responses to that (i.e. I'll be vulnerable, defenseless) and can set up either historical examples where that didn't work out well or hypotheticals where it can't work out well, regardless of the rebuttal (mind made up). Personally, I don't merely hope non-violence would work, I know it can/does. But is one of those things that is fundamental to existence and takes either several walls of text to begin to truly understand how it works, or just simple realization of what is it you want for yourself? Golden Rule type logic. Helps to be vigilant (steadfast) for Peace, and that can be very challenging in a world that equates justice with punishment. But it is not impossible and Knowledge about all things (namely existential) would, or does, clearly show otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

This is a really disturbing sentiment. Peaceful, nonviolent societies are the exception and we should be glad to be the exception, since those unruly savages can't be expected to meet the same standards.

I know that is not what you meant, but think long and hard about what you are suggesting here.

Not only is it not what I meant, it is not what I said (well the bit starting at since...)

The 'unruly savages' are humans in general, not any specific section of humanity. Westerners have preferred exporting their violence recently, but they are still violent.

Humans are collectively violent, always have been and always will be. As such, expect occasional violence and don't expect your society to be immune from it.

 

[Laika]

With all due respect to our interchange in a different post, you might find Revolutionary Adventurism worth reviewing. Let me add that, in my opinion, diluting the definition of terrorism and sliding casually between the terms 'terrorism' and 'terror' complicate the issue/

That's fine. I haven't read that article but I will give it the time. My views on terrorism, particuarly state terrorism depart very sharply from Communist ideology to the point where Lenin would consider me a revisionist and a social democrat. I'm more comfortable with that than lending unwavering support to Communist terror given that it is indiscriminate, is not based on evidence but the assumption that the class enemy exists to the point of manufacturing one. my understanding is that acceptance of that level of violence requires a "domino effect" in terms of intellectual and psychological processes little distinguishable from nihilism. I haven't swallowed that even if it has been an inner monologue that has lasted several years and it sets me on edge whoever says it because I know where it leads.

I probably use terror and terrorism in a way that reflects the moral equivalency of violence committed by either side (regardless of intention). The consequences of organised violence are the same no matter their intention or justification. That is definitely not a communist view and reflects a "social pacifist" view in which bourgeois humanism transcends the necessity of class struggle.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No Christian believes that Leviticus is a penal code that must be applied today.

Except those that do. As per prior post. And bombing in the name of the Christian God was done during the majority of the Bush presidency. When he said he was told to go to war by the same God. We just don't call it terrorism because we'very decided it's official.

 

[First Baseman]

Except those that do. As per prior post. And bombing in the name of the Christian God was done during the majority of the Bush presidency. When he said he was told to go to war by the same God. We just don't call it terrorism because we'very decided it's official.

What are you talking about?

Bush doesn't and can't speak for every Christian on this planet. Where did you get the idea that he said that God told him to go to war?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What are you talking about?

Bush doesn't and can't speak for every Christian on this planet. Where did you get the idea that he said that God told him to go to war?

And Muslim extremists don't speak for every Muslim on the planet. But there are still Christian extremists out there and denying it under 'no true scottsman' is hypocritical.

As for Bush claiming to be told by God,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

 

[McBell]

Bush doesn't and can't speak for every Christian on this planet.

Who said he did?
I mean, other than you in creating this strawman...

Where did you get the idea that he said that God told him to go to war?

From the speeches he made where he flat out said god appointed him president.

 

[Augustus]

What do you suggest then? To stop any sort of resistance movement against the Islamization of the West and get used to being killed in malls, theatres, night clubs, museums, etc.? No thanks.

There are other options beside a) doing exactly what the jihadis want and b) doing nothing.

I'd go with c) Start doing what the jihadis don't want you to do.

This would require people to minimise coverage of terrorism in the media; limit political statements on terrorism to a minimum; accepting terrorism as just another one of life's risks; start viewing it as a law enforcemnet problem more than a military one (although occasional military involvement might be necessary); stop pandering to the Gulf States; stop invading/bombing countries and turning them into terrorist hotbeds; etc.

Along with very harsh penalties and solitary confinement for those spreading terrorist ideologies.

Terrorism is not about killing people, it is about affecting those who you don't kill. The less effect it has, the less desirable it is as a tactic.

Regardless, you best get used to it as it isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Why do you think doing exactly what the jihadis want you to do is the best response btw?