Well as you know, Ed, we humans aren't very bright. We like to think we are, and we like to tell everyone else we are, and try to prove it at every turn, but we're not. That's how it is.

I do worry a bit that, a al vietnam, our enemies are encouraged to fight on by continued dissent in the us and our nominal friends.

But, I think the opinions of westerners are not very important with regards the transformation of the mid east. What matters most are the opinions of inhabitants of that region.

The terrorists are now concentrating on killing other muslims, and tho this observatoin hardly ever appears in western medias, it is how the "insurgency" is becoming percieved by the "arab street". They are losing their sea to swim in.

Originally posted by p0tsh0t
The terrorists are now concentrating on killing other muslims, and tho this observatoin hardly ever appears in western medias, it is how the "insurgency" is becoming percieved by the "arab street". They are losing their sea to swim in.

That's very precsient. I like it. They are killing their own in protest to the perception they have that they have adopted an American puppet government. They feel encroached upon now. I don't know how they feel, and I don't pretend to know, but I bet some of them pretend to think that they preferred life under Saddam Hussein's rule.

And just maybe, since Saddam was constantly blaming US for how horrible life was for them, and how the UN sanctions were the cause of their collective misery, they probably held a grudge against the US and other western countries from the beginning. But of course, they never mind that in the UN sits other countries of Arab and Muslim persuasion, no that never crosses their minds.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Well as you know, Ed, we humans aren't very bright. We like to think we are, and we like to tell everyone else we are, and try to prove it at every turn, but we're not. That's how it is.

But in this so called World of educated minds, are some not more better educated than others?
Is that why some who have had a better education than the members of terrorist organizations can see the futile and irresponsible ways in which they act?

Does terrorism actually boil down to education? Or the lack of it?
Worth a thought eh?

As hard as it is to say, I think that in the "War on Terrorism" there is a right and a wrong. The murder of 3000+ completely innocent people (9/11)cannot be justified in any way. If you have actually convinced yourself that the islamic terrorists are in any way good people, then you cannot call yourself a patriot.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Does terrorism actually boil down to education? Or the lack of it?
Worth a thought eh?

No, it doesn't boil down to education, it boils down to organization, which these groups are becoming more and more. One of the characteristics of organization is that there are educated (and wealthy) people at the top, and there are plain old grunts at the bottom.

I certainly doesn't hurt these organizations, however, that the 'grunts' in the middle east are hardly educated at all. I also think that's why we Americans got together so well for WWII, but ehh... not so good now.

Yes, they have organization, but they lack strategy and wits.

They could have nickel and dimed the west forever, but they made a huge miscalculation with 9/11. Two nations lost to the greater satan, did they even imagine it?

But despite that blunder there are still those willing to jihad on their call. I think this is due to...call it educational reasons. Without this pool the jihad organizers have no one to do their dirty deeds for them. And as i see it, relying on low talent people to do the actual point work is an inherent flaw in their system.

The only good that has come from the jihadists has been indirect and unintended. Democracy is a powerful lure to those ruled by tyrants, and binladen practically invited it into the middle of islam.

Thinking like this, i can imagine fractures within his organization, questioning the big guys savvy and the like. Nickel and diming may yet still be possible, but they are only hurting themselves by continueing to burn the village to save it. They need to wait for the giant to go back to sleep, but waking him in the first place was stupid, and it may not be possible to go back to the 5/10 days.

I agree, p0t.

These guys and their organizations are not all that organized, true. They are amateurs, and look at what they're up against. The entire wester world? They don't have a chance of winning, but they can learn. They can exploit their opportunities as they are presented, and every once in a while, one will slip through the cracks.

If that crack ever happens to let a nuke through, of any size...

I'm afraid its only a matter of time.

These guys and their organizations are not all that organized, true. They are amateurs

Many of the older generation were trained by the c.i.a. including bin laden. Why would one assume that they didn't pass this training on to the current generation.

I don't think acts of terrorism are committed to show power or to declare victory. The real purpose is to set in motion certain events. If you look at it that way you'd see that they are actually quite effective. Whether the terrorists themselves believe this or not doesn't mean that it is false. Their actions do create backlash, relative to the actual death toll and the victims. So as far as having an effect, they definitely do.

I have seen the events unfold over the past couple of years. And its obvious now that acts of terror mainly result in
1. more restriction of rights everywhere,
2. more chaos and destruction,
3. and more animosity between arab nations and the west.

Now we all know that governments openly support the #1 result, and a great deal of money is made through #s 2 and 3. Defense spending, Oil profits, and telecommunications are just a few of the businesses cashing in bigtime right now. Some of which (money) undoubtedly makes it into the pockets of politicians. (the feds have caught members of congress red handed before btw).

With all that in mind, would you still be able to believe that terrorism is "bad for business"?

As far as the terrorists are concerned, I believe they are puppets just like the sheeple. I can only assume that #3 is really on their checklist. And its what drives them in the first place. But I wonder how that animosity materialized in the first place? Whoever was behind that might be more to blame than anyone else.



[edit on 11-5-2005 by benign]

Originally posted by benign

These guys and their organizations are not all that organized, true. They are amateurs

Many of the older generation were trained by the c.i.a. including bin laden. Why would one assume that they didn't pass this training on to the current generation.

I don't think acts of terrorism are committed to show power or to declare victory. The real purpose is to set in motion certain events. If you look at it that way you'd see that they are actually quite effective. Whether the terrorists themselves believe this or not doesn't mean that it is false. Their actions do create backlash, relative to the actual death toll and the victims. So as far as having an effect, they definitely do.

I have seen the events unfold over the past couple of years. And its obvious now that acts of terror mainly result in
1. more restriction of rights everywhere,
2. more chaos and destruction,
3. and more animosity between arab nations and the west.

Now we all know that governments openly support the #1 result, and a great deal of money is made through #s 2 and 3. Defense spending, Oil profits, and telecommunications are just a few of the businesses cashing in bigtime right now. Some of which (money) undoubtedly makes it into the pockets of politicians. (the feds have caught members of congress red handed before btw).

With all that in mind, would you still be able to believe that terrorism is "bad for business"?

As far as the terrorists are concerned, I believe they are puppets just like the sheeple. I can only assume that #3 is really on their checklist. And its what drives them in the first place. But I wonder how that animosity materialized in the first place? Whoever was behind that might be more to blame than anyone else.



[edit on 11-5-2005 by benign]

Didn't Bin Laden say he nevered worked with the CIA?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Didn't Bin Laden say he nevered worked with the CIA?

Didnt Bin Ladden also say alah commited 9/11?

I think you could be right there Devil.

Or was it done in the name of Allah?

Here is the difference:

A US soldier/marine/airman/sailor has the UCMJ to follow. A terrorist follows their hatred.

A US soldier/marine/airman/sailor cannot lawfully target civilians unless they take up arms, meaning they are no longer civilians, but combatants. If a woman or a child picks up a rifle and starts shooting poeple, they are now a combatant and can be killed. It happens often and is a tragedy. A bullet that comes from a woman or child can kill you just as easily as one that comes from an adult. A terrorist targets women and children who carry no weapons and are killing no one. They say that there are no innocents. I beg to differ.

Terrorists are like cockroaches. They breed and fester in the dark and shadows. When you finally see one, it is already too late. For every one you see, there are thousands that you NEVER see. Still breeding and festering until their hate erupts to the surface.

Whether or not you support them, they will be there, teaching their hate to others.

Excellent description Xman.

That says exactly what most people want to write.
I think some who have posted within this thread will have a bit, no, a lot to say about your post. I for one am in total agreement with you.

xman,
Not all terrorists are like that.
The PIRA has rules and regs which are far more brutally enoforced than ANY military.
The UVF/UDA have similar.
Many terrorist units like HAMAS I believe have similar rules.
Dont try and catalog them as just this and that, its grey.

Eddie,

I'm a little confused as to what was the original proposition...

Are you asking why people who are terrorists support terrorism, or why people who are victims of the terrorism support it? eg. Americans or Britains who support the terrorist agenda?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Eddie,

I'm a little confused as to what was the original proposition...

Are you asking why people who are terrorists support terrorism, or why people who are victims of the terrorism support it? eg. Americans or Britains who support the terrorist agenda?

I was letting this thread develop slightly with different views as to why people support terrorists and their ways.
Meaning the general public who have no ties what so ever with these groups. I know some of the comments have been about"what is terrorism" but i hoped that this would lead into the initial topic of "why people support terrorists".

That's what I thought.

I used to work with young people. Then I worked as an Army recruiter which was a job that gave me a much more intimite angle on young people and how they feel about what is happening right now with terrorism.

The opinion is mixed with the kids that I tried to recruit. I didn't run into any who were extreme on the side of terrorism, but I did come across many who were totally extreme in the anti-terrorism realm...but they still didn't want to join the Army.

Before I got a job, when I was either homeless, or a full-time student, I frequented a lot of coffee shops, as you might imagine. Here is where I found the militant anti-Bush, pro-terrorist people. And like I said, for the most part, these people were pretty ineffectual otherwise. They weren't about to go join some terrorist cell any more than they were about to clean their cars out.

These people I called the slackers and neo-hippies. Actually I call them dirty hippies, but I don't want to offend any dirty hippies that might be here.

First of all you have to define terrorist. Those fighting in Iraq are called insurgents and what does that mean? There are several definitions. Generally an insurgent is a person who rebels or revolts against a ruling government, or constituted authority, more appropriately - an established government. One who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party.

Also in a yahoo search you see hyperdictionary in the first place position, with the new definition, obviously to help the readers understand the term more clearly:

a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
[n] a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
[adj] in opposition to a civil authority or government

Quite obvious this was added to define what insugent means in Iraq, but anyway, the main definition is one who rebels against an ESTABLISHED government. Those who fight in Iraq are not insurgents, as they don't fit the defintion, they are fighting against an invader and all those who collaborate with that invader - not their own government, as Sadaam's regime was overthrown. Insurgent is a euphemism instead of terrorist or Iraqi guerilla to help American citizens to not see fighting Iraqi's as IRAQI's, but mysterious INSURGENTS. Simple propaganda.

Terrorists are supported for numerous reasons:

To enact policy within a governing institution through the destruction of it's citizens
Out of respect for those who fight in a Jihad cause
For a Muslim to gain a heavenly reward for aiding one who fights in a Jihad
Belief that America is Satan
Belief that America is the cause for world suffering
To stop U.S. support and aid to Israel or Zion
Belief that America is stealing Muslim commodities such as oil
The family name of an individual could be destroyed for not providing aid to one performing Jihad
Financial gain for providing assistance

I'm sure members could come up with an exhaustive list.

Terrorists are a variety of guerilla. But I dont think its useful to dwell on what we term them, to parse the meaning of "insurgent".

As to why americans or britons would support the terrorists: Maybe other ancillary issues can cause them to oppose any endeavor of their domestic foes. Abortion, the environment, gun control, culture and such. Also consider the deep polarization of america prior to 9/11. Then throw in the trait that some folks have to be very passioinate, and other aspects of human nature. And a target of terrorism who welcomes it becomes an inevibility

What i really think is that those who say they root for bin laden, say it to get a reaction.