Terrorism

[flowperson]

Bobx...well that may be part of it, but I think it goes deeper.

Chris...I think it is a deep resentment directed towards the process of being somehow singled out, demonized, and labeled. And the onset of all this being when native cultures come under the influence of Western interests, long before "terrorist" attacks occur. They become primary reasons and causes for all that is negative and despicable in the societies in which they exist. Thus this all automatically comes to rest on the shoulders of native /tribal groups. The current demonization of immigrants in the U.S. is also an aspect of all this, IMHO

In actuality these groups were simply being themselves and were being true to their traditions and ingrained (and perhaps geneticaly-based) heritage. We've seen this occur ad-infinitum throughout history over the past 800 years when Western influences bump into entrenched and functioning indigenous societies. Of course when anybody or any group is attacked merely for being themselves, and in the process believe themselves to be innocent and without guilt, then they eventually fight back because that is at the root of everyone's societal and tribal ethos.

The U.S. could have helped out in the fighting part of WWII quite a bit earlier than we did, but didn't get into it until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by an oriental culture that was demonstrably and visually very different from white Europeans. And we even went so far as to move Japanese-American families to concentration camps to assuage our racial fears. That's a gross simplification of the point I'm making here because it applies to modern societies only, but IMHO, the basic effects are still functioning out there everyday.

flow....

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by bob x

That the murders they committed did not advance even their own interests in any way.

Nelson Mandela became president, and one of the most revered statesmen on the planet. Jerry Adams shares power in Northern Ireland. Fidel Castro has ruled for how long?

I agree Chris that the word terrorist these days is used solely to justify the unjustifiable and to spread fear amongst the sheep. Watching CNN over here, and in interviews with the general public in the US, the perception is that a terrorist is not a soldier but some bogey man hiding in the dark somewhere ready to rape your babies. Oppression and injustice breeds angry young men. Its that simple. Give them a light to rally round and they will rally and do what they can by whatever means are at hand. American military might cannot be taken on directly...so how else can they expect people to vent their anger. Shame of it is that they tend to kill factionally amongst each other than join forces to make life truly impossible for the invaders.

Tao

[wil]

Originally Posted by bob x

That the murders they committed did not advance even their own interests in any way.

No? Do you think the IRA or PLO would have become recognized political forces without their militant side?

and Flo....I was gonna congratulate you on your little stepping upto the plate and on the soapbox about forum decorum and the face and feel of discussion... but it appears that atta boy is a little late.

[flowperson]

wil...The kind strokes are always appreciated my friend, even when the source is a "reconstituted mountain man".

Heh...you can take the man out of the mountains, but you can't take the mountains out of the man.

flow....

[flowperson]

I didn't mean to post again here so soon, but I ran into this during my daily reading and it was too good to pass up.

Yeah...Islamofascist. I wonder what right wing think tank came up with that one. Whichever one it was, it will probably get the Phyllis Schlafly award for innovative excellence at this year's convention of the John Birch Society. The statuette is a pair of bronzed puckered lips floating in air suspended on a lucite rod from a silver base. It's indefinite whose or what sort of lips they represent.

Over here in the U.S., as ambitious pretenders to the Republican throne continue to beat the big base drum of fear in the hopes of out-machoing their brother opponents in pinning the fascist tail on the donkey, many of us just continue to shake our heads in wonder and disbelief at the pure ignorance of it all.

flow....
ps
Oh...Hey...I just glanced at the article again and the winner has already been decided. It's called, "The Freedom Center"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/op...hp&oref=slogin

[bob x]

The current demonization of immigrants in the U.S. is also an aspect of all this, IMHO

The Palestinians acted the same way that some people in the US do when a new ethnic group, typically blacks, but often Mexicans, and around where I live often Arabs, move into a neighborhood where they used to be rare or absent: trying to burn them out or intimidate them away through violence. I have no sympathy for that kind of behavior.

Nelson Mandela became president, and one of the most revered statesmen on the planet.

Only by renouncing violence; the violence that had been committed earlier had the effect of delaying freedom for 40 years.

Jerry Adams shares power in Northern Ireland

Their demands were for a complete British evacuation, and unification with the Republic. Nothing could happen until they recognized that these demands were never going to be met. And nothing could happen until they stopped committing their crimes.

Fidel Castro has ruled for how long?

He did not take power by a campaign of random murders.

[flowperson]

Yep..."the devil always be in the details", whilst higher powers are attempting to paint bigger, clearer, and possibly sustainable pictures of reaity.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

What do all of these groups have in common as far as motive and tactics?

Originally Posted by bob x

That the murders they committed did not advance even their own interests in any way.

The terrorist tactics gave them the credibility to be considered players. Without the armed conflict there is no incentive to negotiate with terrorist groups. The terrorist tactics do force change. They force governments to the negotiating table. Look at what the terrorist tactics in the ME have done to the American public's will to fight. You can't say it's unsuccessful from the terrorist's point of view.

Chris

[Eclectic Mystic]

I don't think the terrorists have a good grasp on what their *True* best interests are, though, because obviously, then, they would be advancing them more successfully.

[bob x]

Look at what the terrorist tactics in the ME have done to the American public's will to fight.

It has made more Americans willing to consider such notions as nuking Mecca to radioactive glass, or killing any Muslims within reach. It has pretty much wiped out any willingness to listen to Muslim grievances.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by bob x

It has made more Americans willing to consider such notions as nuking Mecca to radioactive glass, or killing any Muslims within reach. It has pretty much wiped out any willingness to listen to Muslim grievances.

lol...who are you...Henry Kissinger's accountant? You gona start preaching from that Nobel Peace Prize winners seminal tome "Limited Nuclear War"?

[bob x]

I am not endorsing such views. The question was asked, what effect has had terrorism had on what America is willing to do? I answered. If you think that *I* am a hateful anti-Muslim bigot, you should see what other kinds of attitudes are around.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

I don't think the terrorists have a good grasp on what their *True* best interests are, though, because obviously, then, they would be advancing them more successfully.

You could equally substitute "terrorist" for "Americans" in that statement.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by bob x

I am not endorsing such views. The question was asked, what effect has had terrorism had on what America is willing to do? I answered. If you think that *I* am a hateful anti-Muslim bigot, you should see what other kinds of attitudes are around.

Glad to know your hate of Islam is mild mannered armchair variety. I dont like Islam, but I have travelled well enough to know that people are people are people. I can separate people from their cultural inheritance to see that a humanity unites by far the great majority of us.

[DrFree]

What is terrorism?

• Any use of military force against non-combatants?
• Any use of military force that we don't know how to defeat?
• Any use of military force against us?

There was a time when gentlemen fought wars in nice, neat lines. Only those in uniform need get bloody. Those who didn't fight by the rules were ruffians and terrorists.

At least that was the story told by the gentlemen, and then only in Europe. Ask the people that lived near the battles, and the story was different. Armies pillaged, raped and murdered wherever they went. Terror was the standard tactic.

What's different today is that the little guy in the fight can hold the 800-pound gorilla hostage with guerrilla tactics. When you're the bully on the block, the peewees will ultimately find ways of bringing you down without the direct fights that you're sure to win. The US and other "great powers" have scruples about annihilating the enemy, and they can't tolerate losses. We lost a couple thousand people on 9/11 and will soon have lost about 4000 in combat in Iraq. Those are horrible losses, but compare them to the numbers lost in WWII or worse in the Civil War, and the significance of the numbers begins to pale.

I'm certainly not advocating a return to the catastrophe of pre-21st Century war tactics, but as the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The West (the US, especially) has lost its taste for the sacrifices of war. How long until it recognizes that war is no longer an acceptable other means of diplomacy.

Namiste.