Understanding Terrorism

I agree. The main problem is that it's much easier to destroy than to build. You can build up a ton of goodwill and peaceful intentions, only to have it all destroyed by a single person. And unfortunately, there are always people on the fringe on both sides of any conflicts willing to prolong the conflict.

While understanding is obviously the best way to solve problems, it's also the least practical. We're not going to send millions of Americans over to the Middle East to understand their way of life, for example.

In the end, I think the best thing to do is to stop poking into other people's business as much as you can. And generally support the other people's views even if you find them repugnant.

 

I'm not disagreeing with that; Israel's response is entirely predictable. Hamas probably even expected it. But its just as silly for Israel to think that their attacks in Gaza won't encourage more reprisal attacks.

 

I understand that sentiment, and wholeheartedly agree that it is, for the most part, true. But that generalization (actually, a stereotype) goes both ways:

Most terrorism is, at the moment, being perpetrated by muslims, or people who claim to be muslims. Ergo, the other stereotype forms.

 

i think one form of terrorism (the non state type) is carried out mostly by muslims today but i completely disagree with those who say there is no state terrorism cause i think there is

more important the world does not agree on a definniton of terrorism so its not like any1 side has a hold on the truth. there is no international law that defines terrorism as state or non state only so its left up to interpretation

 

A fair point and I agree. US foreign policy has had terrorist elements for decades.

The counterpoint is that countries (particularly large and developed countries) don't generally strike out at random civilians.

(i know, i know - referencing a comic book movie is kind of silly - but I think it's a darn good point.)

 

Rocketsjudoka, I agree.

I'd add more, but you're doing an admirable job arguing my position.

 

Terrible generalization.

Wow - I agree with rhad! Spooky! Did someone steal your account password?

I agree to a large extent. The main problem I have is that it is just plain unrealistic to say the Israelis should just sit on their hands while Hamas launches rockets. Not sure any country in the world could pull that off, much less one that has polarized factions like Israel.

Don't try and save face now. You got busted! Your cred is shot!

Disagree. It wasn't designed to create terror among the civilian population, rather it was a statement to the George III.

Otherwise isolated except for the connecting thread of religion. Almost all intrastate terrorism in the last 20-25 years has involved Islam. That doesn't mean the vast majority of muslims are terrorists, but that in turn doesn't mean there isn't a connection between Islam and the terrorism we're experiencing. It's hardly ignorant for the population to make those intuitive connections.

 

It was still private property. It was private property that belonged to a company with special government treatment, but it'd be like torching a Bank of America branch right now.

 

Disagree. It was no more terrorism than graffiti is.

 

No. You must have matured some.

 

lol - it happens. Eventually.

 

I agree that a heavy handed response isn't the solution and also with your overarching 'bring them up economically etc reduces support for the radical elements.'

It's like Christmas all over again.

My bad, I meant to write interstate terrorism. Not intrastate! Big difference. Certainly there are a lot of insurgencies involving muslims, and some (although less I think) involving other religions or ideologies. I think it is important to examine why people think there is a connection between Islam and terrorism, rather than just blanketly calling those who see such a connection ignorant. There is a factual basis for the claim. The IRA, SP, and ETA for example, aren't striking out at other countries. They really are/were localized insurgencies. With the exception of Hamas, however, you have a lot of interstate terrorism that lands squarely at the feet of Islam. Again, yes it's a warped version. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceloving people. But Islam seems to lend itself to inflexible doctrine and Muslims seem to be susceptible to the warped version. Unfortunately, you can't lay that all at the feet of the 'poverty theory.' Remember, most of the 9/11 terrorists were not poor or downtrodden. Bin Laden and his No. 2 weren't.

As for the Marxism point, I have trouble not believing that Al Qaeda, for example, doesn't actually truly believe in Islam.

 

You make some points but I think you jump to a conclusion too quickly here.

When we discuss terrorism we have to understand that terrorism is a tactic and nothing more. It is not a lifestyle. Islam preaches carrying arms in self-defense or in repelling an attack on Muslims or Muslim lands, as in resistance. As rocketsjuda said, the common thread here is insurgency or a history of conflict, and Islam is used as a vehicle to unite otherwise disparate Muslims living in many different regions of the world in a call for resistance, not terrorism. Terrorism is the tactic employed by some if not most, but it is not like there is an Islamic doctrine that outlines asymmetrical tactics to employ against the enemies, or advocating suicide bombing of civilian installations as the way to go. I am not sure how that explains a theological connection between Islam and the tactic of terrorism.

Terrorism was very much a concept developed and coined in Western Europe (French revolution), and then modern terrorism was first used by leftist revolutionaries (e.g. Marxists) and anarchists, and then finally adopted by Muslim revolutionaries and insurgents who believed it was a successful model to follow in their own struggles. So I fail to see how it is in any way unique to the Islamic experience. Muslim terrorists are hardly innovative in this respect.

I also don't get the distinction you make between interstate and intrastate conflicts. The fact that non state actors may take on sovereign states probably has more to do with the technological revolution of the past half century as well as an overall erosion of the concept of state sovereignty. It is much easier now than ever before for ragtag insurgents to raise a fighting force that may well rival that of an entire state, or at least be enough to cause some serious instability in any given region of the world. Just look at what drug cartels have been able to accomplish despite the massive worldwide effort to curtail their activities. It is a function of the times.

 

Very few terrorists call themselves terrorists.

Last I checked nobody claimed the Koran outlined asymmetric tactics. The logical connection is that in many many terrorist attacks (London, Madrid, Bali, NYC, Iraq) the terrorists have been Muslim who clearly state them are a mission for Islam. It ain't rocket science.

It doesn't have to be "unique" to Muslims. Noone could claim that since there are obviously terrorists who aren't Muslim. But when a preponderance of terrorist attacks are by Muslims, one must think where there is smoke there is fire.

The distinction relates directly to the claim that Americans are ignorant because they connect Islam and terrorism. When the majority of interstate terrorism is conducted by Muslims, who claim they are on a mission for Islam, you can hardly fault the public for drawing that conclusion. It isn't idiocy but an intuitive conclusion.

 

What difference does it make? I am just pointing out terrorism is a tactic, not a religious edict. It is a relatively modern tactic in asymmetric warfare. And it works! (that is why it is used)

Just an evolution in military tactics, nothing more.

Yes they were carried out by Muslims claiming to be defending Muslims and Islam. There are Muslim terrorists, that is a given, not the same as Islam leading to terrorism. The latter is a theoretical argument that must be supported by theological evidence, which does not exist.

Again, it is just a tactic.

I understand why the impression is there, but lets call it what it is: intellectual laziness. Drawing conclusions for the sake of simplicity or lack of intellectual rigor is not a virtue. All I am saying is lets call it for what it is. I understand the reasons for it, but ignorance is not bliss.

 

I honestly don't know what this distinction gets you. I don't think it gets you anything. It doesn't disprove a link between Islam and terrorism if that's what you're getting at.

This is just idiotic. Under this interpretation, you can't put the Inquisition at the feet of Christianity, or any other 'bad' effect on any religion. After all, every religion, as YOU read it, would really be an ok thing. It's really just the wholly warped and totally unrelated crazies who practice terrorism, having nothing to do with religion. I disagree. When someone points to the Koran and says "hey, we're doing this because this is what it says to do" - the particular method is linked to the religion. Again you're caught up in the notion that someone terrorism has to be 'unique' to Islam for there to be a link. That's just unsound logic.

The intuitive conclusion withstands intellectual rigor so again I don't have any idea what your attitude is about. Considering there is rigorous debate on the issue itself in both the policy and academic communities, I think you're making somewhat of an ass of yourself acting like you are making a factual determination.

 

Dammit I hate it when I agree with Hayes.

 

All I can tell you is that ISLAM is over 1,400 years old, when did you hear about death chants from the Muslim world to other countries unless if it was due to occupation? ISLAM and MUSLIMS lived side by side with CHRISTIANS and JEWS for humdreds of years without any religious tension. It all started with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 1948.