GameBanshee Forums

Let's start with the basics. Terrorist is a person who values his beliefs above his own and other peoples' lives. He is convinced he has the right to try and achieve his goals by whatever means necessary. Now let us look at the identity of the average modern terrorist: it's a young Islamic man/woman with a rudimentary education obtained from a medrese or similar Islamic educational institution. Also the main idea they proclaim is the world domination of Islam, with the simultaneous annulment of all other "opposing" religions.
Now we're being told that religion has nothing to do with terrorism and terrorists are bad guys who just want to blow things up. Anyone is still buying this? Terrorism is but one aspect of a global civilizational conflict between the West and the East, between Christianity/Judaism on the one hand and Islam on the other. Those who don't see it are using "the ostrich algorithm". We are told that the majority of Muslims are good people, and that's indeed true! The majority of any group or population are good people, who just want to work, eat and breed in peace, however its not they who decide. As history teaches us, 2-3% active element with 7-8% support is enough to bring about change on any scale. The rest 90% is just ballast, that can be swayed in any direction by the energetic and the fanatical. Remember, how all Germans became great guys after 1945? Industrious, honest, level-headed, did someone drop new Germans off Mars, to replace the ones who applauded Hitler in their millions?
To understand the fundamentalist, we must try and look at the contemporary western society through his eyes. Western culture is built upon the framework
of liberal freedoms (I will speak more about liberalism and its destructive nature later). Freedoms as an outsider may see them: freedom to kill as many people as you like and in return get a comfortable cell with food 4 times a day plus a TV-set. Freedom to commit any crime and walk free if you have the money to afford a good lawyer or if you're simply smart enough to stay behind the scenes. Freedom of pornography, of sexual intercourse starting from the age of 10, freedom of homosexuals being united in a Christian church, freedom to rape and get the same conditioned cell as payment. Freedom to drink alcohol, take drugs, freedom to eat yourself to death, gorging your gut with cheap food and doing nothing that would earn you the privilege. Freedom to be idle and receive money from those that work day and night, and others, oh so many others.... Now you may understand why fundamentalists view us with a mixture of disgust and contempt. Later I'll speak about the reason they also look at us with hatred.
To be continued.

I would argue that a terrorist is a person who employs fear and intimidation to further his ideology. A terrorist doesn't have to blow up planes or kidnap and murder people, Fear and Hatred are evolutionary instincts... a terrorist often knows that if you plant enough seeds of fear, you reap a harvest of hatred. Do something epic like 9/11 and you can expect to be harvesting these crops for decades. Hatred produces more hatred, blinds rationality and cause mass hysteria. Terrorism is nothing new, it has been employed since the days where slings and spears were weapons of mass destruction... and often it only worked on your neighbours, news didn't travel so fast back then.

Darth Gavinius wrote:I would argue that a terrorist is a person who employs fear and intimidation to further his ideology. A terrorist doesn't have to blow up planes or kidnap and murder people, Fear and Hatred are evolutionary instincts... a terrorist often knows that if you plant enough seeds of fear, you reap a harvest of hatred. Do something epic like 9/11 and you can expect to be harvesting these crops for decades. Hatred produces more hatred, blinds rationality and cause mass hysteria. Terrorism is nothing new, it has been employed since the days where slings and spears were weapons of mass destruction... and often it only worked on your neighbours, news didn't travel so fast back then.

Yes indeed, I agree with your definition, however I was speaking about the narrower terrorist breed, those that stage concrete violent acts to further their goals. And yes, terrorism isn't a new phenomenon, I just attempted to explain it in terms of the current confrontational trends.

Pekka wrote:
<snip>
Now you may understand why fundamentalists view us with a mixture of disgust and contempt.

No, I don't.

The vision of "atrocious freedom" you're presenting here is a deliberately simplified image that doesn't even qualify as a fragment of truth : it's a distortion of reality. Now I can very well imagine that this vision, or a very similar one, is presented to the appropriate people to motivate their terrorist acts. And it can be catchy, to someone who is poor, uneducated and lacks interesting perspective for his life.
However, it should not be forgotten that this is not a true vision, it is a deliberate manipulation created for a specific purpose. A simplistic, often very immature and selective vision. If someone "views us with a mixture of disgust and contempt" based on a misguided concept, I certainly feel sorry for them, but I feel no understanding towards people who feed this propaganda to youths and encourage them to kill.

QuenGalad wrote:No, I don't.

The vision of "atrocious freedom" you're presenting here is a deliberately simplified image that doesn't even qualify as a fragment of truth : it's a distortion of reality. Now I can very well imagine that this vision, or a very similar one, is presented to the appropriate people to motivate their terrorist acts. And it can be catchy, to someone who is poor, uneducated and lacks interesting perspective for his life.
However, it should not be forgotten that this is not a true vision, it is a deliberate manipulation created for a specific purpose. A simplistic, often very immature and selective vision. If someone "views us with a mixture of disgust and contempt" based on a misguided concept, I certainly feel sorry for them, but I feel no understanding towards people who feed this propaganda to youths and encourage them to kill.

As I said, the image I presented was through the eyes of a potential Islamic terrorist, and yes, any picture or belief is subjective by nature, because it is held by particular people, not set in stone. And if I put forward a "simplistic" interpretation of the modern western freedoms, propose your own, more comprehensive version. I, for one, would be delighted to read it.

Promised Part 2 or why do they hate us?
It's quite simple, really. They hate us, because despite all the above-mentioned drawbacks of the western way of life, the West is still stronger, richer and has more influence in the world. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak against the strong!
Still, don't pat yourselves on the back yet. The world is in a constant state of evolution, and todays masters can become tomorrows slaves. Reread the history of the Roman empire or the book "Time-machine" by H. Wells if you prefer fiction, and see what happens to the complacent, to the rotten, to the decadent, to the weak-spirited. In the end the frenzied beats the passive, the hungry conquers the gorged, the wolf devours the lamb. Liberal mantras and pity towards the misguided wont save you when they come to blow up your house and kill your children.

Since the above seemed more like a lecture than a starting point for a discussion I'm not really sure where to start, but I'll try to comment nonetheless.

How the idea that terrorism* exist due to envy and hate of freedom became so common that it can nowadays be expressed with a straight face is completely beyond me. The erroneous nature of the claim should be obvious if you consider
1: When, and in what context the organisations that uses terrorism where formed. Hamas or al-Qaeda did not pop up as a result of any domestic legislation in the west, but due to local circumstances.
2: Who are they targeting? Any nation that happen to have the above mentioned freedoms or nations that have a long history of imperialistic actions in these organisations home region?
3: The statements of the organisations themselves, for example both Mahmoud Zahhar and Osama Bin Laden have stated that they do not fight for Islamic world domination but rather what they see as legit defence against foreign interference.

I'm horrible at history so I don't dare to say much about the fall of the Roman Empire, perhaps someone can help us there?, but I don't recall reading anywhere that it was brought about as a result of compassion and liberal values. This might not be an important point to make, but I dislike the sight of random non-facts being used to further some kind of social-Darwinist drivel, whether applied to individuals in a society or conflicts between nations.

*: I used the word terrorist because it's so commonly understood, but it pains me somewhat as I see very little difference between someone who kills children with a bomb strapped around the waist and someone who does so with a bomb released from an aircraft.

it pains me somewhat as I see very little difference between someone who kills children with a bomb strapped around the waist and someone who does so with a bomb released from an aircraft.

You mean you don't see the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? Really?
I always find it offensive when people compare the military to some criminal scum.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:You mean you don't see the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? Really?
I always find it offensive when people compare the military to some criminal scum.

Well, It depends entirely upon what the soldier in question is doing. I see a big difference between a terrorist and someone like Romeo Dallaire for example, but between the mercenaries of imperialistic ambitions and al-Qaeda? No, not at all.

Dottie wrote:Since the above seemed more like a lecture than a starting point for a discussion I'm not really sure where to start, but I'll try to comment nonetheless.

How the idea that terrorism* exist due to envy and hate of freedom became so common that it can nowadays be expressed with a straight face is completely beyond me. The erroneous nature of the claim should be obvious if you consider
1: When, and in what context the organisations that uses terrorism where formed. Hamas or al-Qaeda did not pop up as a result of any domestic legislation in the west, but due to local circumstances.
2: Who are they targeting? Any nation that happen to have the above mentioned freedoms or nations that have a long history of imperialistic actions in these organisations home region?
3: The statements of the organisations themselves, for example both Mahmoud Zahhar and Osama Bin Laden have stated that they do not fight for Islamic world domination but rather what they see as legit defence against foreign interference.

I'm horrible at history so I don't dare to say much about the fall of the Roman Empire, perhaps someone can help us there?, but I don't recall reading anywhere that it was brought about as a result of compassion and liberal values. This might not be an important point to make, but I dislike the sight of random non-facts being used to further some kind of social-Darwinist drivel, whether applied to individuals in a society or conflicts between nations.

*: I used the word terrorist because it's so commonly understood, but it pains me somewhat as I see very little difference between someone who kills children with a bomb strapped around the waist and someone who does so with a bomb released from an aircraft.

1. Terrorism isn't limited to regular organisations like Hamas, nowadays any security expert will tell you that terrorism networks have a largely loose structure. What does it mean? It means any radical Islamic youth can get in touch with others similarly inclined and plan a terrorist attack, or even carry one out on his own. Making a simple chemical explosive is child's play, when you have basic instructions (accessible on the net as well) and do a bit of absolutely legal shopping.
Second - I never said that there aren't concrete political goals that terrorists want to achieve, such as the destruction of the state of Israel. But how likely are they to stop if they do achieve these goals? Radical Islam is now in a state of expansion, Christianity was in that stage in the Middle Ages (Crusades), now its Islam's turn. I make no moral judgments here, its neither good nor bad, akin to a force of nature like hurricane or tsunami. Sure, you can close your eyes and pretend it's not there, but guess what happens when it comes to visit?
The West has to adapt to this reality, and what does it do instead? Instead it goes on with the drivel that terrorists have no nationality, nor religion! How can this be? Everyone else has nationality and religion (well, atheists, Jedi or whatever) and terrorists don't? Are they some special species bred without any human defining traits? Obvious idiocy under the guise of political correctness. Immigration policy is totally screwed up as well. Why does the west keep allowing more and more muslims in? Why? Because they assimilate so well in a western society, don't they? Because they don't stick to their customs and don't come into conflict with the indigenous population, obviously. Because their mullas don't preach radicalism (point finger at London). Sorry for the rant, but the blindness is just plain annoying . Look what Merckel said a week or so ago about how the immigrant assimilation project has failed in Germany, and don't forget what happened in France not so terribly long ago.
I am not calling for radical measures, but its definitely time to stop and think about the direction Europe is headed for now (bear in mind the low birth rates among the indigenous populace).

A bit about the Roman empire - it died, among other things, because it lost its will to live. Nations and states mature, thrive and grow old just like individual people, only the time-scale is very different of course. Indeed, every death is a new beginning, as nature doesn't tolerate emptiness. But the new often has very little to do with the old, Rome is hard to compare with Early Middle Age Italy, in terms of greatness if nothing else.
A quick test - name a nation or a group of nations that you think are on the rise and have a great future ahead of them, don't think long, fast answer please. Don't know about you, but I came up with China or possibly India. How about the EU or any of its members? Anyone?

A short return to the topic of the fight against terrorism western-style. Anyone remembers what Tony Blair (or whoever was PM at the time) said in 2005 after the London explosions? He spewed the usual clihes how the terrorists and organizers are to be found and put to justice. Who finds this phrase feeble and ridiculous, raise your hand. Ok, you're gonna put a couple more guys in jail and it is going to change what? Will radicals everywhere in the world suddenly tremble in fear of the savage British judiciary system? Oh, the horrible things they do to you in an English prison! Unspeakable.

Right now the whole thing can be compared to a football match, where one side plays strictly by the rules and the other uses all the dirty tricks in the book and even comes up with new ones. The outcome is still uncertain and the stakes are very high.

Oh yes, soon as I finished the above post I remembered another platitude that amuses me every time I hear it It's the famous statement that "terrorists want us to abandon our liberal way of life", always pronounced in absolute seriousness, with a grave expression. This statement defies elementary logic.

What will happen if the West suddenly relinquishes its liberal restraints (not gonna happen, no worries)? Obviously, a huge crackdown on terrorists and potential terrorists will begin then! Preemptive strikes, retaliatory actions without limits, 100 dead for each European citizen killed.

Ahmagad, take your children away from the computer! - mass deportations, counter hostages, all that jazz. How is it in the interests of terrorists? Sure, they are suicidal, but they aren't dumb parrots, like most of the modern western politicians.

You know, it would be much easier for all of us if we clarified things a bit here. Are you interested in a discussion, or just trying to give a lecture in written form?

I may have been too emotional in the above post, for which I apologize. It just shows how stongly I feel about the subject.

Yes, I want a discussion. Express your views, prove me wrong. Maybe I am overestimating the threat? My goal wasn't to lecture, but to bring this problem into public light on this forum.

I find the first post in this thread so obnoxious and objectionable I can't understand why it hasn't been removed. I'm certainly not going to dignify such bull**** with a reply other than to request it is removed.

Will GB be allowing Osama Bin Laden to post here next?

Pekka wrote: The West has to adapt to this reality, and what does it do instead? Instead it goes on with the drivel that terrorists have no nationality, nor religion! How can this be? Everyone else has nationality and religion (well, atheists, Jedi or whatever) and terrorists don't? Are they some special species bred without any human defining traits?

It's not drivel... if you give terrorists nationality or religion, then you are saying the state or their religion are answerable for their actions - and treaties, friendships, the UN itself falls apart. I.e if a Saudi Arabian living in the UK blows up a US plane over US soil that would be a declaration of War on the United States - but by the UK or Saudi Arabia? Now not all Brits want to see the destruction of the US... and it is unsanctioned by the UK government and Saudi Governments, who have responsibility as to how their citizens conduct themselves. Our Nationality is not a role we choose, our religion might be... but we equally cannot hold to rights all of Islam for acts of terrorism, all of Christianity for the Inquisition, all jews for the Policies of Israel.

If nationality and religion are the only traits you define as human, I worry... it is often these two factors that make us Un-human (inhumane). If a nation or religion adopts an ideology of hatred, then it takes on social acceptance within that society. Like no women priests, no abortion (even for rape victims), blacks/jews are an inferior race, women are worthless, women must bear the burden for family honor. And these are ideologies accepted by groups that aren't even terrorists.

Terrorism breeds in areas of social instability, people want to believe in something and don't want to have lived a worthless life - hence they are willing to die for a cause. Fundamentalism preys on human inadequacy, almost all cults brainwash through societal bonds - a sense of familiarity and brotherhood - look at Scientology! Even armies train people this way, you don't fight for your country or for medals, you die for the person you stand shoulder to shoulder with because they are real.

I will stop now... because I don't want this to spiral into any sort of a rant.

It's alright, I just wanted to be sure. No harm done.

Frankly, I think we are all making a mistake of over-interpreting terrorist actions as some sort of philosophical, economical and moral statement. Of course, the ordinary young man who attaches a bomb to his body must first be fed all sorts of propaganda, just like you described in the first post. And an attack that is organized and performed by a single person might actually be caused by the said person's fanatical disagreement with the world they are living in.

However, most terrorist actions are orchestrated by organizations. Organizations that have money and power. And that's what terrorism is all about : controlling resources, making money and seizing power that could have otherwise gone to somebody else. Once we realize that someone had to supply the explosives, the ammo, the pilot's licenses, the logistics service and all that, we see that this is not a philosophical issue, but an economic one.

The hatred and contempt of "liberal lifestyle" could be substituted with anything else for these purposes. If we suddenly got all the women mummified in burkas and stripped of all their rights, they would still find something else to use as hatred fuel, because what they really need in an enemy. It's much easier to control people "in the times of war", as George Orwell so neatly described.

To Galraen: you completely misunderstand the message in my first post. I attempted to give a glimpse of the western society through the eyes of a radical islamist.

I believe that knowing your enemy is very important, in fact it's impossible to beat an enemy without knowing the way he thinks, what makes him tick and why.

You can't defeat an ideology! You can only make it submit for a while. Racism is alive and well long after the Civil Rights Movement, right wing Neo-Nazism still thrives even though fascism was defeated, and sympathy towards holocaust victims is being replaced by more and more resurgent Anti-Semitism. We hate these things (the majority), but for the most part we have to protect their rights to these views - lest we become them.

No power in the world has yet overcome (ir)rational hatred.

I may have misunderstood your intent, for which I apologise, but I'm afraid the ridiculous simplification and false statements offends as much as the rhetoric.

young Islamic man/woman with a rudimentary education obtained from a medrese or similar Islamic educational institution.

Actually the education better than most people in the world get, and probably better than in more than a few 'Western' countries. Islam has done as much if not more towards education as Christianity, and done it for a lot longer too.

Also the main idea they proclaim is the world domination of Islam, with the simultaneous annulment of all other "opposing" religions.

That is 100% BS, unlike Christianity Islam is not an aggressively proselytizing religion, unlike Christianity. You have to effectively seek out conversion, it isn't thrust upon you unless you place yourself in a position of confrontation with Islam, in which case you should be confronted with a 'join us or die' option. Which historically was more the Christian approach than an Islamic one.

Terrorism is but one aspect of a global civilizational conflict between the West and the East

True, but it was the West that picked the fight.

between Christianity/Judaism on the one hand and Islam on the other

Gross simplification, and false. there has always been tension between the three main branches of the Judaic based religions, but the war between 'The West' (in reality the US & it's puppets) and Al Qaeda is really nothing to do with religion. Religion is just another propaganda tool in their conflict.

Most volunteers are of course Islamic, but for the most part it's not religion that is their motive. It's a feeling of gross injustice, betrayal mixed with a strong dose of desperation.

It's been over 60 years since Palestine was stolen from the Palestinians, and all the talking, all the 'Road to Peace' BS has lead nowhere. No matter what false promises whoever is in the Whitehouse makes, Israel continues to ignore UN resolutions and expand into the occupied territories with impunity, and ever inv#creasin subsidy from the US.

They continually see the US brand one Arab/Islamic state after another branded by the US President as 'The Axis of Evil' whilst he continues to do business and give privileges to two of the worst perpetrators of 'State Terrorism' in the world; Israel and, ironically, Saudi Arabia!!

Don't forget that Al Qaeda was in fact invented and financed for years by the CIA to fight the USSR in Afghanistan, then betrayed and left to the tender mercies of the Northern Warlords when it had served it's purpose.

Terrorism breeds in areas of social instability, people want to believe in something and don't want to have lived a worthless life - hence they are willing to die for a cause. Fundamentalism preys on human inadequacy, almost all cults brainwash through societal bonds - a sense of familiarity and brotherhood - look at Scientology! Even armies train people this way, you don't fight for your country or for medals, you die for the person you stand shoulder to shoulder with because they are real.

Right on the money, throw continued betrayal into the mix and you have the perfect breeding ground. It's not Islamic Clerics (nearly all of whom are actually anti-terrorist) that are the main recruiters for Al Qaeda. it's 'Western' political Leaders, their puppets and clandestine organisations, such as the CIA and Mossad. Benjamin Netanyahu has done more to help recruit terrorists than any Isalmic cleric, the only one who may have recruited more is George W Bush.

Western culture is built upon the framework of liberal freedoms (I will speak more about liberalism and its destructive nature later). Freedoms as an outsider may see them: freedom to kill as many people as you like and in return get a comfortable cell with food 4 times a day plus a TV-set. Freedom to commit any crime and walk free if you have the money to afford a good lawyer or if you're simply smart enough to stay behind the scenes. Freedom of pornography, of sexual intercourse starting from the age of 10, freedom of homosexuals being united in a Christian church, freedom to rape and get the same conditioned cell as payment. Freedom to drink alcohol, take drugs, freedom to eat yourself to death, gorging your gut with cheap food and doing nothing that would earn you the privilege. Freedom to be idle and receive money from those that work day and night, and others, oh so many others...

Funny, I thought we were talking about 'Islamic' terrorists here, not the Tea Party!!!

The bottom line is that the terrorists aren't my enemy, they are the enemies of corrupt politicians and the mega rich corporations that own them. I just happen to be caught in the middle, potential 'collateral damage' as the US Army likes to put it; and come close to being that on too many occasions. I could well have been a victim on the 7th July 2005, had been, I would have died cursing Tony Blair and GWB more than the bomber!