Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

*sigh*

Someday you will realize what it is like to feel loyalty to a concept, an idea, a nation. Until then, you can only wonder what drives people.


On that note, And also related to politics, lets pick up something mentioned both earlier and now.

And my view on the terrorist side is that the religious fanaticism mainly comes from the leadership, while the bulk of the fighters are recruited from people who only wish to strike back at an entity they have legitimate reasons to be angry at.

Well first off not all terrorism is Religious fanaticism. A significant portion can be completely secular, or state-financed, or both.

But how about we move to discussion of the reasons behind terrorism?

[SalmonGod]

Someday you will realize what it is like to feel loyalty to a concept, an idea, a nation. Until then, you can only wonder what drives people.

I feel loyalty to the humanity and the virtues it is capable of.

[Reelya]

Well, there's many. Environmental terrorist, Anarchists (they only Identify with the Anarchist's Cookbook!), the US militias, various Independence organization resorting to violence, One for every religion, Black/white/Whatever Supremacists, Socialists, Fascists, etc.


Odds are there are some out there that endorse what you believe. But you don't plan on murdering Civilians now do you?

Exactly how many people have environmental terrorists blown up? Actually, there was Judi Bari, who was blown up by the FBI so they could pin anti-logging activists as terrorists (she did survive for a while, but in a wheelchair, and her group won a lawsuit for millions of dollars against the FBI). So, the number of greenies blown up by law enforcement far exceeds the number of greenies blowing other people up. Who are the real terrorists in that case? Gotta go, so i can't discuss this too much, but here's the Judi Bari wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judi_Bari

Turns out every arresting FBI officer on the day, was trained 1 month prior to the bombing (by the lead officer in the arrest) in something called "bomb school" where they practiced planting pipe bombs in cars (the same type of bomb that exploded in her car), and responding to the event - and "bomb school" was held on land belonging to the timber company which was the target of those same anti-logging activists. And the agents got to the crime scene just minutes after local police and took control of the entire scene - even though they were based in another city.

[misko27]

The number of things people are willing to let go is absolutely minuscule, and limited to things that could not possibly reflect badly on anything they have ever done or supported. Which is to say, almost nothing.

So, the number of greenies blown up by law enforcement far exceeds the number of greenies blowing other people up. Who are the real terrorists in that case?

You, are taking the example of the FBI blowing someone up as a representative case? They had the bomb on them. Seriously, let that one go. These people light luxury houses on fire. There are independant ones that send letter bombs to people(which is cited by the NY times and other organization BTW). It's terrorism.


Come on, I gave you guys something to go to (Why terrorist do what they do). The people on my side are all asleep now. I want to sleep.

[DWC]

I think my whole point is that we should stop picking sides in this war.  The leadership on both sides are fighting for their own selfish purposes, with zero honesty or concern for the people they're using to fight for them.  Of course, the same could be said for just about any war throughout history.

Given that this is my view on the American side of the conflict

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I fully believe that the "War on Terror" has been deliberately carried out so as to make it self-perpetuating, providing never-ending profit for the military-industrial complex.  Collateral damage is unspokenly intended.  I've seen plenty of testimony and behavior to indicate that at the very least, U.S. military leaders don't really care much about collateral damage and push their soldiers to behave in ways that will obviously result in it.  Anyone who thinks I'm being too cynical about this should go watch the Winter Soldier testimonies.

And my view on the terrorist side is that the religious fanaticism mainly comes from the leadership, while the bulk of the fighters are recruited from people who only wish to strike back at an entity they have legitimate reasons to be angry at.

And this is why it's insanity to marginalize the importance of understanding both sides.  If people would bother to do so, they'd realize they have no reason to identify with and fight for either group.

That theory about starting wars for the benefit of the defense industry is kinda silly. While issues with the defense industry is probably the most closest thing to a RL conspiracy theory there is, it doesn't make sense now that the wars are basically over and the gov't is cancelling contracts and procurement left and right in the defense industry. They don't need a war to give money to the defense contractors, people like war-like projects when there is peace anyways, thats when all the super neat-o 200 million dollar fighter planes and missiles and shit are built. What other contractors? The foreign ones like Sodexo that provide all the civilian workforce in the warzones? The little companies that popped up to sell protective clothing?

The big dollar profits for the domestic defense industry have nothing to do with stuff intended for unpopular low-burn counterinsurgencies. If they wanted to stir up trouble for the benefit of the defense industry they'd start a new cold war. That era was immensely profitable for the defense industry. There is certainly a lot of politics and waste and inefficienies topped with some border-line corruption at best, nobody is going to start a war to create demand for sheets of steel and bullet proof glass.

Anyways, moral relativism stops making sense at a certain point. There is a cycle of violence when you get two antithetical identities in each other's business. With the middle east, this all boils down to the Israel/ Palestine issue and it's 100% of the reason why the west is mucking around in the middle east stirring up fanaticism everywhere. That's the primary kind of terrorism anybody is worried about anyways right? I know you got others out there but they are more on a law enforcement level (The ELF setting SUV's on fire or whatever) but so much 'never-ending-war' level.

[SalmonGod]

I don't think you're getting his point.

Group A accuses Group B of a whole bunch of stuff.  Group A is occasionally caught framing Group B for that stuff.  And you're saying that isn't cause to wonder how much more often Group A does such things and isn't caught.  That it should simply be accepted that Group B is still every bit as bad as Group A says.

[misko27]

Hey, people talking without me! Buona Sera.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Everyone's evil.

[SalmonGod]

Everyone's evil.

Thanks for the warning.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Everyone's evil.

Thanks for the warning.

Less of a warning than a thought. Everyone's evil to someone else, no matter what you try. It's a matter of finding common ground in most cases and marginalizing the extremists. Just a thought from a poor guy who knows a bit about Jewish-Arab sentiments.

[GlyphGryph]

Come on, I gave you guys something to go to (Why terrorist do what they do). The people on my side are all asleep now. I want to sleep.

There's are a few types of terrorists, as far as I can see - the first is the group that commits terrorism because they can get away with it, and they think they personally will benefit from the results. These are the leaders, the politicians, the generals and the warlords. There are quite a few of these in the employ of the US government right now, and the US is (generally) quite supportive of these guys, so long as they profess the right sorts of beliefs. These are by far the most dangerous type, because they have something the others don't - effectiveness. There's still no comparison to the campaign of terrorism launched by Mao, and hopefully there never will be again, and the various US mafias haven't really been averse to engaging in a little campaign of murder and intimidation to get their way before.

The second group is more interesting, because these terrorists do what they do for the same reason gang members or cultists do. This group has nothing to lose, no voice, and no power, and joining a terrorist organization seems like a way out, or a way to matter. It allows them to exert control over their life, to find something of value and a place on society. It involves a lot of social pressure, from what I've read, and a lot of overt manipulation by the leaders. When you're at the bottom of a pit, and someone reaches out a hand and tells you they'll pull you up to freedom, you take hold. You'll find this type of terrorist throughout the Middle East, especially in places like Palestine.

Finally, there's the fanatics and idealists. These are the people that are committed to the idea, and truly believe they are doing the right thing. They'll often support the first group, and be the first on the front lines for their cause, because they believe in their heart that this is what they were meant to do. This seems to make up the bulk of domestic terrorists in the US and other heavily westernized nations which is (I think) telling.

In essence we have: The Powerful, The Desperate, and The Righteous.

Of these, I think the first can be controlled but not really dealt with - they only conduct terrorism because they think they have something to gain, so if circumstances become such that they have nothing to gain and something to lose, they'll probably stay away. It takes a special person to be a member of this group, a certain level of ruthlessness and sociopathy, but the ones you have to worry about generally aren't stupid. Effective laws, and clear consequences seem to be your best bet here. Unfortunately, societies tend to tolerate them as long as they direct their terrorism against some "other".

The second group is immune to worrying about something to lose, because they HAVE nothing - except that which has been given to them by their allegiance to a terrorist organization. I think what you need to do here (and I think history bears me out) is to give these people something to lose. No, you don't have to respond to "terrorist demands", and it's probably better if (instead) you act pro-actively. Additionally, you need to give them a more productive outlet to express control and progress. These people are participating because they feel they have nothing to lose and no other choice - take away those motivations, and there's a good chance they'll stop being terrorists.

The final group is probably the toughest nut to crack, but I don't think they make up as significant a portion of the terrorist population as people would have us believe.

[Reelya]

The number of things people are willing to let go is absolutely minuscule, and limited to things that could not possibly reflect badly on anything they have ever done or supported. Which is to say, almost nothing.

So, the number of greenies blown up by law enforcement far exceeds the number of greenies blowing other people up. Who are the real terrorists in that case?

You, are taking the example of the FBI blowing someone up as a representative case? They had the bomb on them. Seriously, let that one go. These people light luxury houses on fire. There are independant ones that send letter bombs to people(which is cited by the NY times and other organization BTW). It's terrorism.

So is the history of US relations to Latin America - USA supported terrorist actions by Luis Posada Cariles, the contras in Nicaragua, the El Salvador death squads, the Colombian Death Squads, etc, etc. There's no end to examples of US-sactioned terrorist actions, far more evidence that against green groups. There's well in excess of 200,000 dead, maybe half a million by Latin officers train in those exact genocide techniques by the school of the Americas - using rape and murder, intimidation and assassination of community leaders was actually all in the manual given to the officers by the US. The SOA proclaims one of their achievements as "helping to end Liberation Theology" - which translating to training the death squads which assassinated such "terrorists" as the Catholic Arch-Bishop of El Salvador.

U.S. Army Maj. Joseph Blair, a former director of instruction at the school, said, "there are no substantive changes besides the name. [...] They teach the identical courses that I taught, and changed the course names and use the same manuals."[1] On the lessons taught at the School, Blair said: "The doctrine that was taught was that if you want information you use physical abuse, you use false imprisonment, you use threats to family members, you use virtually any method necessary to get what you want...[including torture] and killing. If there's someone you don't want you kill them. If you can't get the information you want, if you can't get that person to shut up or to stop what they're doing you simply assassinate them, and you assassinate them with one of your death squads."
[...]
On September 20, 1996, the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals that were used at the U.S. Army School of the Americas and distributed to thousands of military officers from 11 South and Central American countries, including Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, where the U.S. military was heavily involved in counterinsurgency. These manuals advocated targeting civilians, extrajudicial executions, torture, false imprisonment, and extortion.

Basically, right from the horse's mouth - US training of Latin officers includes "corrupt murdering asshole" classes.

---

As for Judi Bari, she had a primed, motion-sensitive bomb under her ass. Show some critical thinking. Would you carry a live motion-sensitive bomb under your driver's seat? It really makes no sense - who on Earth would say "I'm transporting this live bomb, where should I stash it? I know, right up my ass!" Also, if the bomb was supposedly to be planted to blow up logging equipment, why did it have a motion trigger, and not a timer? i.e. it was designed as a car-bomb. Plus, the car-bombs the FBI practiced with a month earlier, were of the same pipe-bomb design as the one that went off.

And they won a $4.4 million dollar settlement from the FBI. So this has been to court, and the court basically decided against the FBI.

Plus, the City of Oakland, California, named a day in the honor of Judi Bari - the day she got bombed is known locally as "Judi Bari Day". At least one other Californian city has a Judi Bari Day, too. Do you think they'd really do that if people believed she was a terrorist.

http://www.judibari.org/

On June 11, 2002, a federal jury returned a stunning verdict in favor of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney in their landmark civil rights lawsuit against four FBI agents and three Oakland Police officers.

The jury unanimously found that six of the seven FBI and OPD defendants tried to frame Judi and Darryl in an effort to crush Earth First! and chill participation in Redwood Summer. That was evident in the fact that 80% of the $4.4 million total damage award was for violation of their First Amendment rights to speak out and organize politically in defense of the forests.

"The jury exonerated us," said Darryl Cherney. "They found the FBI to be the ones in violation of the law. The American public needs to understand that the FBI can't be trusted. Ten jurors got a good, hard look at the FBI and they didn't like what they saw."

"It's really beyond our wildest dreams," said Darlene Comingore, Judi Bari's friend and executor of her estate who stood in for her as co-plaintiff in this suit. "We hope the FBI and Oakland and all the police forces out there that think they can violate people's rights and get away with it are listening because the people of the state of California and Oakland today said, 'No, you can't. You can't get away with it.' "

Lead attorney Dennis Cunningham said the message he hopes the verdict sends is that: "Ashcroft is doing precisely the wrong thing to abandon the (Levi) guidelines and let the FBI go after dissent with a free hand. It's clear that their intention is not about fighting terrorism, it's about suppressing dissent. That's what the FBI has always been about. Hopefully it will make Congress think twice about giving them a free hand." 

[GlyphGryph]

Wait, has misko actually tried to argue that the US hasn't been a big fan of terrorism, hasn't done a whole lot of terrorism, or isn't full of plenty who would consider terrorism a viable tactic?

[Owlbread]

Terrorism is a bit of an annoying word nowadays. It's become the new "Communism", overused to the point of virtual meaninglessness because of its status as the boogieman ideology of the world.

You can come to a lot of interesting historical conclusions with the definition of terrorism; "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Maybe that's the way it should be, I don't know.

[Zangi]

Heck, I love this thread.  You learn a lot of new stuff.  Like Japan attempting to surrender before the bombs...

'Sanctioned terrorism' is not terrorism.  Yea, the US has been pretty shitty to half of the world...