I think I support what terrorist die for.

Hello all! Here me out for a second. What do you think is better out of the following two situations: one dying for an idea or one dying for something material (as mere examples, money and etc.)? Now, let's look at what terrorists seem to die for: (1) an idea that they will go to their positive form of life after death and (2) to show their hate towards Western authorities. Anything else? Let's put aside what the terrorists' acts cause, such as feelings of fear, and what each act involves, such as the killings of innocents. Alright, now, in contrast, let's look at what (I think) today's U.S. soldiers (and other soldiers of other armies) die for: (1) money for college (can we all agree on this as fact by now?), (2) money for anything else (mortgage payments and etc.) and, possibly, (3) the idea that they are genuinely doing good with their time in the service. I am a bit skeptical of the third possibility, however, as I have always heard that money is the main reason to join the army and etc. Just think about how recruiters of the army and etc. attempt to go to poor neighborhoods and look for teens who need money for college. Do these teens (our children) care about democracy at this stage of life?

OK, allow me to move further a bit and make a drastic conclusion. In a world where dying for ideas/beliefs is dead (as I see), a world where people die for material things has arose. Think about this for a minute and, in addition to thinking of U.S. soldiers (and other soldiers) dying while pursuing paychecks, think of property crimes and anything else that shows people caring for material things rather than abstracts things, such as ideas.

Do terrorists die for money? Not that I can tell (especially when considering suicide terrorists). To me, it seems that they are so married to their ideas that they are willing to die for them. This is a beautiful thing! Again, I am putting aside what the actions of the terrorists involve (so, of course, I don't condone killings of innocents and the like). Which of us can die for just an idea? How many are in the U.S. army and etc. (and other armies) that die for ideas only? Not much, or we wouldn't have to pay these soldiers .

Let's debate this!

reply to post by they see ALL


I have to disagree with you on some fundamentals that you've not given enough thought to...

1. Terrorists (in terms of your definition) kill themselves in the act. It is no American soldier's aim to die in battle. I see the act of suicide as cowardice in all but a few cases.

2. Terrorists kill innocent people. Innocent people are the target actually, making their plight evil and misguided.

Someone who walks into a building strapped with a bomb with the intention of killing children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, deserves nothing but the worst that hell has to offer.

I just think that maybe trying to go to college is a bit more noble.

Originally posted by SantaClaus
reply to post by they see ALL

 

I have to disagree with you on some fundamentals that you've not given enough thought to...

That's possible. I've only been thinking about this for a couple of days now.

1. Terrorists (in terms of your definition) kill themselves in the act. It is no American soldier's aim to die in battle. I see the act of suicide as cowardice in all but a few cases.

I tried to get away from simply suicidal terrorists. Hopefully, we can discuss all terrorists. Your point reminds me of something I desire to mention: sometime before the 9/11 terror attacks, whether conspiracies were involved or not, a group of terrorists left their homelands/bases and moved to the U.S. to commit the greatest terror attack of all time. They entered the U.S., surrounded/living with their enemies and even trained themselves for the mission (flying the planes and etc.). All for what? Money? They certainly didn't get paid for this mission . What soldiers do you know or have heard of that sneak into enemy countries with nothing to performs missions. All I have heard of is the CIA. These terrorists, while entering the U.S., didn't have guns or anything to help them fight off enemies (if they had to) while in the U.S. They did all of this for what? An idea. Whether it was a good idea or not is up to interpretation and is not relevant for me right now. I am just shocked that people still die for ideas today.

2. Terrorists kill innocent people. Innocent people are the target actually, making their plight evil and misguided.

I don't want to talk about what each terrorist act involves, such as the thing you mentioned. Let's focus on dying for ideas, as opposed to the acts that allow the dying (such as suicide) and the acts of the terrorists in question.

Someone who walks into a building strapped with a bomb with the intention of killing children, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, deserves nothing but the worst that hell has to offer.

As I said in my first post, I don't condone this behavior.

I just think that maybe trying to go to college is a bit more noble.

I never said it wasn't. The power of money is incredible . Actually, though, I think dying for something more than material is better. What good are material things when one is dead?

terrorists are only terrorists to those they attack.

hell, the US could be considered terrorists. anyone can be. you throw a rock at my house ,your a terrorist. dying for what you beleive in is not terrorism, dont know why we label it as that

I understand what you consider noble, and I also believe it based on your terms.

I guess I'm just confused as to what utopian terrorist you are referring to? I am not trying to focus on 9/11, as that is only one case. What terrorist doesn't "terrorize" innocent people? I don't think the cost to those who have not done wrong is worth the ideals of anyone.

Ok, have you ever seen V for Vendetta? I suppose I support that type of terrorism. It seems V didn't kill anyone but the criminals that had done the world wrong.

So I am for your idea, I just think you ask too much of the situation.

American soldiers I have been with....... they risked their lives and sometimes died for an idea as well. Their reasons for enlisting may have vastly differed from those that we call terrorists, but each and all knew, as I did, that they would be called upon to put their lives on the line for an idea. Consider also, as I do sometimes, that the term "honor" is out of fashion amongst the average populace. People died for honor -- not a smushy desire for respect but the thought of upholding the basic precepts of their nation -- protection and honor.

What I have seen in the past 15 years or so..... many people don't believe that the soldier lives and risks and is wounded or dies for a just cause. That doesn't matter to the soldier. Those are etherial concepts (I'm generalizing and prostheletizing..... give me some rope, okay?).

From my own perspective, it was a sense of justice and tempered with honorable actions. Did I see things that were inconsistant with that? Yes, certainly. As with all cross-sections of humans, there are good, and there are bad, and there are those that fall somewhere in between.

I understand your view, the thought that those we characterize as "terrorists" are working within the framework of their own beliefs, and I think that is mostly true. I think what is different for me is that nobody I've known would have ever targeted civilians as an infantry action. Certainly the United States did target civilians, particularly with the dropping of atomic and hydrogen bombs on Japanese cities. I also support that decision. I think it saved American lives.

I read and understand that you want to not focus on some of the more ...... what...... undefensible? ....... aspects of terrorism, but to me, it's part of what makes up the difference. Do I believe that some of the actions of the U.S. government in recent times could be construed as terrorism? Well, frankly, yes, however for me the proof of that is still somewhat lacking, but my suspicions fall close to that.

I think a terrorist commits or tries to commit acts that will frighten others. It's not a warrior action, it's a (IMO) cowardly action. I believe a terrorist gains satisfaciton from injuring or killing civilians and gets gratifications from inducing fear in a society that more civilians actions will be forthcoming.

Ah, but the soldier. She or he, doesn't wade in the quagmire of such notions. They do a job to the best of their abilities. For honor.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by argentus]

In a way, our soldiers do die for a cause. They die for the cause of freedom. Maybe they signed up for college money, but that's not what they are thinking about when they die, I am sure.

I have to agree that dying for a cause is better than dying for material things, but the nobility of dying for a cause is directly related to the nobility of that cause. The terrorists we are (supposedly) fighting are dying for their belief that it is noble to kill innocent, defenseless people. Our military, when they must die, die for the cause of freedom.

I need to emphasize that I believe now that the wars presently underway have aspects far from noble, and far from what the general public has been told. That is not a reflection on our soldiers in any way. They are, each and every one, heroes. They deserve our respect and our prayers in their endeavors, whether or not those endeavors are right or wrong.

TheRedneck

I think I support terrorists dying.

Preferably at the hands of well trained soldiers.

Soldiers can be considered terrorist.

It isn't really a question if the terrorist is wrong or right, it is what kind of terrorist you are and the form of terrorizing you do. If what you do is say, sign up to defend your country for whatever reason and gear your training towards killing those that would threaten you and your country, does that make you worse than a terrorist who straps a bomb to themselves and kills innocent people. Then again, are the people involved really innocent? Are they or aren't they giving the terrorist a need to defend themselves from having another culture, religious mind set, or government system forced on their way of life?

It is all terribly too complicated to just take one side in my opinion.

Take the Irag war for example. Do I think the Iraqis should have a democracy, yes. But is what we have now a successful Democracy in practice anyway? Who am I or we to decide what kind of system they should have? By going into their country and forcing it upon them do we not prove what several fanatics have tried to preach to those who think the US is evil and wants the world to bend to its ideals?

I just don't know anymore. In the long run I don't think a successful, healthy society can use terror as a means to control its people, terrorist do just that. Yet again, does our own country not do the same?





[edit on 23-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Off-topic and I don't care. What you wrote...... that really touched me. Thank you.

As you were.

Originally posted by 30 Seconds
dying for what you beleive in is not terrorism, dont know why we label it as that

Probably because of what the act that causes a terrorists' death (like suicide) involves (like the killing of innocents).

Originally posted by SantaClaus
I understand what you consider noble, and I also believe it based on your terms.

Cool. I am glad I have gotten through one ATSer .

I guess I'm just confused as to what utopian terrorist you are referring to? I am not trying to focus on 9/11, as that is only one case. What terrorist doesn't "terrorize" innocent people?

All terrorize (and kill or attempt to kill) I guess. I desire to discuss all terrorists, particularly the ones supposedly lurking in today's Middle East.

I don't think the cost to those who have not done wrong is worth the ideals of anyone.

That is so true and so philosophical. But, I am sorry, I want to stray from what the terrorists' actions involve.

Ok, have you ever seen V for Vendetta?

Yes.

I suppose I support that type of terrorism. It seems V didn't kill anyone but the criminals that had done the world wrong.

That's interesting.

So I am for your idea, I just think you ask too much of the situation.

Cool.

Originally posted by argentus
American soldiers I have been with....... they risked their lives and sometimes died for an idea as well.

Thanks for the personal touch .

Consider also, as I do sometimes, that the term "honor" is out of fashion amongst the average populace. People died for honor -- not a smushy desire for respect but the thought of upholding the basic precepts of their nation -- protection and honor.

What I am about to type is a bit of a cop-out, but here it goes: aren't terrorists dying for something political (an idea) and/or something religious (an idea)? So, both terrorists and, as you have shown me, soldiers can die for ideas (such as ideas of honor in the cases of soldiers). Aren't, though, terrorists dying for their idea of honor ?

What I have seen in the past 15 years or so..... many people don't believe that the soldier lives and risks and is wounded or dies for a just cause.

Yeah, I think I feel that whay. I think that in WWI/II, soldiers actually believed in what they were fighting for. Maybe this was because the U.S. faced a genuine threat in these wars, WWII especially. Maybe also because the pay for the soldiers during this time was low (I am just pondering here) . Nowadays, as I have heard, in the case of the U.S. army, one is given a better pay in accordance with how high the possibility is that he/she will die (so, those in the front lines, are getting paid more/the most).

From my own perspective, it was a sense of justice and tempered with honorable actions.

Very good! You were connected to an idea.

I understand your view, the thought that those we characterize as "terrorists" are working within the framework of their own beliefs, and I think that is mostly true.

That's good that you understand me.

I read and understand that you want to not focus on some of the more ...... what...... undefensible? ....... aspects of terrorism, but to me, it's part of what makes up the difference.

Hm. Maybe I can defend terrorist actions (if I really tried) . I think I tried once on ATS.

I believe a terrorist gains satisfaciton from injuring or killing civilians and gets gratifications from inducing fear in a society that more civilians actions will be forthcoming.

Let's look past this and try to think about what a terrorist thinks about right before doing these things. Maybe he or she is thinking of a religious idea or a political idea? Add this to the fact that he or she is getting, as far as I can tell, nothing worldly and there we have it, a person doing something for nothing material.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
In a way, our soldiers do die for a cause. They die for the cause of freedom. Maybe they signed up for college money, but that's not what they are thinking about when they die, I am sure.

True. But, maybe some are thinking "oh man, I am dying now so when will this money for college come in handy?" You see, I just wish that these kids being recruited pick better jobs than the army, as this can get them killed (and then how will this money help them?). Let's take away the pay checks that the army gives and let's see how many still want to fight .

I have to agree that dying for a cause is better than dying for material things, but the nobility of dying for a cause is directly related to the nobility of that cause.

True and very well-said. I want to move from the actions, though. Let's try to think as a terrorist would. What ideas does he or she think about?

Originally posted by Illahee
I think I support terrorists dying.

Preferably at the hands of well trained soldiers.

Ouch. This is a very great contribution to my thread .

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Soldiers can be considered terrorist.

Anyone can I guess.

It is all terribly too complicated to just take one side in my opinion.

You ask great questions.

reply to post by they see ALL


I'll ponder your responses and get back to you when my [aged] brain is more fresh. Right now, I'm feeling that your smily laughs are a little out of place and off-putting. I don't want to focus on that, as you may construe that symbol differently than myself. I see the smily laugh as somewhat derisive, and in the context with which you used them, I think they're out of place. Just my opinion.

For now, consider the possibility that when you remove all the variables that your posts seem to indicate you want to in relation to terrorism, that the person in question might not be construed as a terrorist. I don't think it's very realistic to contemplate "what if terrorists didn't do X and Y, how would we feel?" Documented fact of the matter is, that they do.

Talk with you inna morning.

Cheers

I could be wrong about this because I haven't done a lot of research, but I've been told or heard that many of 'suicide bombers' and terrorists who go on suicide missions gain two benefits. One, according to their religion they're supposedly guaranteed to go to Heaven and have a place of honor there, and two their families (wives, children, etc.) get money and/or a guarantee that the organization they're doing the mission for will take care of their family.

I, therefore, don't believe that most of them are dying for a cause, or an idea. They're dying for personal gain (a guaranteed cushy spot in Heaven), and for financial gain for their family. Whether or not it's any kind of 'noble' to be willing to die so that your family will have a better life would be a whole different discussion, IMO, but the fact remains that, if what I've been told is correct, they are dying for personal and familial benefits, not for an idea or a cause.

It seems to come back to the old saying that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

There's also the question of motivation - people are indeed motivated by many different things, but how deeply would you need to feel about something to take your own life and that of innocents?

Let's also not forget that strapping on a bomb is the only option for many of these people to strike back.

Many of the "terrorists" are fighting for the same thing soldiers fight for - which is their own concept of freedom, and also against western interference in their countries.

Imagine at some point in the future that the US economy has collapsed, the country is bancrupt, the political system has been taken over by a dictator, there is harsh religious law, hell lets even say they bring back the inquisition.

Now imagine China invades, because of the oil deposits which haven't been tapped - in the first instance because of environmental laws passed at the time, and then because there are no resources to take advantage of the oil - so china steps in,millions are killed in the initial invasion, martial law is in effect, there are detention camps where people are sent without trial.
Because of the oppressive government, people are no longer armed as they are now.

There is only one way to fight back - it's against the christian religion, but a preacher keeps telling people "greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his brother" which people take to mean that suicide is ok.

Sound familiar?

Beofre we make judgements about the situation of others, we really ought to be taking a look at what we ourselves would do in the same situation.

[edit on 24/7/2008 by budski]

I think you bring up very good points Budski, and its a good thing to put oneself in others' mindset.

Where I think the terrorism separates from any action I could conceive of doing is this -- and I'm using your hypothetical situation:

I can easily see and understand striking back at an occupying enemy. What I cannot see myself endorsing is 1) attacking their families, 2) going to neighboring countries, whom I presume supports or agrees with the lifestyle of the dictator, and randomly killing people there, 3) using civilians as human shields, 4) training my children to carry improvised bombs to blow themselves up.

I think I'd have to have been born into the culture that does these things in order to understand even a little bit why it is acceptable, condoned and even encouraged, and the quasi-religious dogma that accompanies it (or so I presume). That said, I don't understand the mindset that would enjoy and revel in the destruction of my family simply because we are "Western", and therefore an acceptable target.

All government, no matter what form it takes, sooner or latter it demands that we all ask ourselves, on an individual level, what we are going to do, live free from it or die trying.

It is odd to me how so many people who are already dead can convince themselves that somehow they are actually alive, they must have a very narrow definition of what life is.

We are a zombie nation like Israel was in 62AD before the Romans sacked Jerusalem.

To bad no one cares about spiritual things or the true human condition anymore.

Just goes to show God is true, this life is fleeting.

Please don't confuse terrorists with freedom fighters

The two are not the same yet often confused as their methods are similar although motives carry different agendas

Terrorists are there to only strike terror on people

Freedom fighters fight for freedom and often will do acts that are considered terrorism.

For instance in the 1940's the members of the French Resistance if fighting today would likely be labeled terrorists because of the acts of sabotage & killing they did. However they were merely fighting for their own freedom against the nazi's

In todays age unfortunately all freedom fighters are terrorists but not all terrorists are freedom fighters

Discotech
That's purely a matter of perception - if those you call terrorists perceive themselves as freedom fighters, then that is what they are, at least to themselves and probably others.

A persons perception is their reality, and there is no way to change that - trying to slap a different label on someone doesn't make any difference to their motivation or self-perception.

reply to post by budski


I don't know really, then who does the right perception lie with ? Does it lie with the majority or the person doing the act ?

For instance again using the French Resistance as an example to those fighting the Nazi's they were freedom fighters but to the Nazi's they were enemies of the state and terrorists.

911 I consider to be a terrorist act, however back when the US funded Al Qaeda to push back the Russians in Afghanistan they were freedom fighters so are Al Qaeda really freedom fighters or terrorists ?

Is taking the battle out of your own country an act of terrorism or is it still freedom fighting ? Whilst I personally consider taking the fight out of the country an act of terrorism it could in essence still be freedom fighting just depends on who is perceiving it

Ultimately it ends up with the question of is what they are doing right or wrong but again that's all down to perception in their eyes and others it's right but to another set of people it's wrong and it's ultimately defined by the persons motivation. If it's solely for inciting terror on the enemy then it has to be terrorism, however if it's for reasons of freeing an oppression then it has to be freedom fighting no ?

What if terrorists started to kill corrupt goverment officials(and some corrupt buisnessmen) only, and left innocent people alone? What if that created a fear in those that were corrupt to maybe change thier ways, or die? It's hard for someone to get bribed by money if they know it's a death sentance, no?