The Islamic terrorists want the US out of Saudi Arabia, and the US out of Isreal. And of course, Isreal out of Palestine.
They want to oust the house of Saud, the other Gulf-princes, and the half-secular dictatorships in the rest of the Arab world. And they want to create an Arab Islamic state in Palestine.
Thats simple.

Why do they need to blow up themselves in the west to achieve that?
1: (a big one) it's really really difficult to commit a crime in a functioning dictatorship. Dictators are tough on crime in a way that works. They make sure you don't get too much publicity. And that your family doesn't live to mourn you.
2. (another big one) the US-Isreali presence in the Middle East is a source of constant embarrasment: here you have all these oil-billions and millions of strong young men, and still, you are humiliated by a handful of Jews and some crazed fundamentalist Christians, living on the other side of the planet.
Demonstrating that you can hit and hurt the west is a strong power-statement.

Erm, there is a world outside the thread, JB. The viewpoint that terrorists are irrational and can't be swayed by changes in public policy is one put up by terrorism "experts" like Walter Laqueur. Just because I say I disagree with a position shouldn't be taken as an implication that I believe you hold it. It's a discussion, not a tennis match.

But, whatever, justifying those points you say were absent from the thread discussion is the kind of you-said-I-said "debate" I find entirely tiresome, so let's leave 'em aside. Others can pick through the detritus of what's left of my earlier post to see if anything useful remains. I wouldn't want to make this about me.

A couple of things interest me (actually, as well - although the "100 years ago" bit was merely a hypothetical example, I am fascinated to know what Islamic terrorists threatened Europe in 1904 - it's not that I don't believe there were any, I am actually interested to know). The first is, what do you conceive "radical Islam" to be? It's a phrase you hear a lot, but I'm not entirely sure I've ever seen it defined. Is it fundamentalism? We-ell, that would include the friendly Gulf State despots. So, what then?

And secondly, the essential question of the thread (now), if the underlying anger isn't due to the situation of those angered, what is it due to? You say "ideology" but what is its source? And why is that culture rather than another that produces it? On the other hand, if the anger is situational in origin and you're arguing that the step from anger to violence is ideologically formed, why would that invalidate efforts made to diminish the underlying anger? To object to doing so seems to me akin to deliberately depressing someone's immune system and then trying to keep them in an aseptic environment to stave off disease. And how does one fight an ideology, particularly without tackling the social situation that gives it an audience? And should one? (I speak more widely here than just so-called Islamo-Fascism; I get the impression you dislike all "radical ideology" whatever that means.) What if the ideology is right?

Incidentally, these questions are directed to y'all as a whole, whoever feels like making a response.
____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chatsubo:
also, when dealing with an enemy who seems to think that the 7th Century was the highpoint for human culture - its not going to be hard to out tech them.

---

Exactly. They are stuck at tier 1 pumping out foot soldiers while the West tech's to tier 3 for Knights and Gryphons.

Game over man. Game over.

-----
I only buy clothes that express my deeply alternative lifestyle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M:
The Islamic terrorists want the US out of Saudi Arabia, and the US out of Isreal. And of course, Isreal out of Palestine.
They want to oust the house of Saud, the other Gulf-princes, and the half-secular dictatorships in the rest of the Arab world. And they want to create an Arab Islamic state in Palestine.
Thats simple.

---

They've also stated in the past, starting with UBL's 1996 fatwa, that they wished to restore the widest boundaries of the largest Muslim empires. That includes a specific reference to taking back Andalusia and, presumably, rolling right up to the gates of Vienna. And once they did that, and had nukes, do you think a group that kills women for using makeup is going to sit back and be satisfied with their situation? This is everybody's war. Everyone's free to wait as long as they want to to fight back, but make no mistake: it's everybody's war.

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBellham:
Allow me to clarify: Where are the Haitian terrorists attacking the United States? Where are the *Chinese* terrorists (and not Mulsim Uighers) attacking their own repressive government?

---

Perhaps you'd like to post a list of acceptable incidents of terrorism before I bother to look again? Go ahead and come up with whatever narrowly-defined set of answers you'll accept, and then we can all play the game more effectively.

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

Hey, its not like I agree with their goals, think they are nice, or don't want them rounded up into a small damp and cold space.
But I don't think it's necessary to participate in the hyperbole to see the need for locking them up. If there was democracy and opportunity in the Middle East, thesse guys would not have anyone, not even their siblings, paying for the bombs.

btw - that means that on a very theoretical level, I actually agree with the neo-cons. What I don't agree in is that democracy can be achieved through a messy, unplanned, and illegitimate occupation that looks most of all like scrambling for oil. But that's just me I guess.....

While writing a long and didactic post about the different types of terrorists and how their teleologies are essentially the same, my slow brain finally caught up with what I was really trying to say.

It’s true that many terrorists come from privileged backgrounds. It‘s also true terrorists causes have many different types of goals. However, it’s equally true that in all cases, terrorists fight because someone has been disenfranchised. The disenfranchisement may be political, cultural, ethnic, economic or something else, and it may be real or imagined, but the terrorists feel someone is denying someone else their “rights“ as human beings.

So, while folks in the Weather Underground or the Red Brigade or November 17 or even OBL may be well educated or personally wealthy, they are fighting because some one else is not.

Now, there are significant differences between the various terror groups, as some of you folks have pointed out. Insurgents who use terror differ substantially in their goals from AQ and their ilk. But in the end, you still only have three choices: destroy them, compromise with them, or remove the cause of the complaint.

Destroying the so-called radical Islamic terrorists is not an option. Even killing their leaders and dismantling their infrastructure is not proving effective (and historically it never was - Ireland and South Africa are case studies in this.)

I’m not sure it’s possible to compromise with a non-state entity as splintered and heterogeneous as the various radical “Islamic” groups. I would, however, be interested in hearing suggestions.

Which leaves removing the cause of the complaint. Easier said than done, but if the first two options aren’t going to work, it’s the only path that remains.



This post brought to you by Aventis - Our Challenge is Life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Splitcoil:


They've also stated in the past, starting with UBL's 1996 fatwa, that they wished to restore the widest boundaries of the largest Muslim empires. That includes a specific reference to taking back Andalusia and, presumably, rolling right up to the gates of Vienna. And once they did that, and had nukes, do you think a group that kills women for using makeup is going to sit back and be satisfied with their situation? This is everybody's war. Everyone's free to wait as long as they want to to fight back, but make no mistake: it's everybody's war.

_Politics is a big whore._ -Romanian proverb

---

Very true. In these post 9/11 times, can't help stop thinking about that old quote from Leon 'Icepick' Trotsky - You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

they have the internet on computers now?

quote:

---

Perhaps you'd like to post a list of acceptable incidents of terrorism before I bother to look again?

---

Well, you could pick just about any of the early skirmishes of the American Rebellion; certainly the Boston Tea Party would count. Let’s never forget that the American’s “tactics” of attacking bivouacs at dawn, shooting from behind trees and rocks, and attacking supply lines were widely considered to be terrorist tactics back in the old country.



This post brought to you by Aventis - Our Challenge is Life.

quote:

---

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise we were privileging the straw man of "poverty and hopelessness" as the only other possible alternative"

Dude, what thread are you reading? Who and what post makes that claim?

---

M is rubbishing the point that a couple of people put forward that "terrorists are middle class therefore poverty cannot inspire them".

quote:

---

"Are you saying that oppressed and destitute people are usually cheerful and placid and it's only these 'radical ideologies' that are getting them uppitty?"

No, I'm saying, "My best guess is that digitalprimate's list can provide a few powderkegs, but ideology is typically required to light the match and add fuel of it's own to keep the fires burning."

---

If you're defining ideology as religious, then that's bollocks, I'm afraid. Many terrorist or 'freedom fighter' groups have struggled against oppression without religion being the focus. The Papuans, the Aborigines, Native Americans, Incans, Mayans...

And if you're not defining ideology as religious, then of course it is ideology that drives an oppressed group, the ideology being 'to win freedom' or whatever.

quote:

---

M is rubbishing the point that a couple of people put forward that "terrorists are middle class therefore poverty cannot inspire them".

---

I might be, if that was what I wrote, but it wasn't.

The thing about this discussion is that the different issues are being mixed up.

One might seperate the question into several categories.

1: why does terrorism arise in some *countries* and not in others?
2: why do some *people* become terrorists and not others?
3: one man's terrorist is anothers' freedom fighter, for instance, the Hezbollah is on the US list but not on the EU one. How do we determine wether a claim is fair?

If one wants to limit terror on a long term basis, one needs to understand 1 and 3.
If one wants to find and stop terrorist individuals, one has to understand 2 and 3.

In all cases, an understanding of the ideology/religious views behind the terror is relevant, but personally, I think a lot of people overdo it.

Like someone said: an individual can be a fundamentalist muslim or a Basque nationalist without throwing bombs. And a guy can be an Iraqi individual identifying himself as a freedom fighter, without being al-Qaeda or Baath supporter.

getting back to the topic at hand - people always underestimate the West cause we are soft, decadent, like DVD players, freedom and comfort and cool gadgets - but this is our strength.
Our flexiabilty and creativity that is enabled by our freedoms make us the baddest motherfuckers on the planet.
We beat the Nazis, we beat the Stalinists, and we will beat the Islamo-fasicsts.

they have the internet on computers now?

Recently I read a lot about the motivation for women volunteering as suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel. With women usually is easier to find the motivations, unlike men, when simply "it is my duty" would be enough.

Of a total of ten bombers I could get enough info (thanks to a series from Spanish journalists in Palestine), half were motivated by Israeli actions, either revenge or despair (fiancé/husband/family killed by Israeli actions, middle class family dispossessed and with no future prospects), while the other half were motivated by the own sick situation of the Palestinian areas (accused of adultery, going to be married to a man she hates, to save her father, under suspicion of being an Israeli helper, in need of money for a brother's medical procedure, to take the place of an arrested family member...).

In this case, either you make sure there are no explosives available and there is a totally secure perimeter (quite hard in practice, although the Israelis try very hard), or you kill/remove all Palestinians/Israelis (a bit late for that), or you just make sure there will be no more volunteers. And as that showed me, it is no good if Israel suddenly stops using violence, as there are many motives still valid. But just pouring money and help, trying to educate the population, as the EU did for a while, will not work either while people are willing to die for revenge.

So, identifying causes is good, and may help you reduce the incidence. But some causes may be beyond your ability to do something about it.

José

If Israel pulled out of Palestine tomorrow, for good, I think that might go a long way to stopping Palestinian attacks.

How about if they stop bulldozing Palestinian farms to build their damn wall, whilst they're at it...

"Go ahead and come up with whatever narrowly-defined set of answers you'll accept"

I'll settle with what I've got: "Where are the Haitian terrorists attacking the United States? Where are the *Chinese* terrorists (and not Mulsim Uighers) attacking their own repressive government?"

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

Please don't use the phrase "Islamo-fascists", Chat. It's a bullshit misnomer thought up by people who want to paint anyone who disagree with their approach to the "War on Terror" as akin to those who appeased Hitler - so I don't know why you are using it. Fascism is a particular kind of political structure - AQ ain't it. (And "we beat the Stalinists"? What the hell does that mean?)

"War" - it's war, you know! It's war - quick, let's invade Alqaedastan!

And as I said before, JB, one major reason (for example) Haitians and Chinese don't engage in terrorism is lack of resources. (Actually, the Chinese example is so bizarre it's difficult to list all the reasons it's unhelpful.) But those are just two cases - are you really arguing there's no terrorism in today's world but it has a Muslim source? As Splicoil implies - using the present notoriety of AQ as your evidentiary basis for the notion that whacked-out world-views are the primary (and sufficient) cause of political violence requires taking a very carefully framed geographical and historical snapshot.

____________________
Nga saymong chig gö.

quote:

---

"Go ahead and come up with whatever narrowly-defined set of answers you'll accept"

I'll settle with what I've got: "Where are the Haitian terrorists attacking the United States? Where are the *Chinese* terrorists (and not Muslim Uighers) attacking their own repressive government?"

---

Not to be too pedantic, but it's not just a question of motive and opportunity. Perhaps it's helpful to think of terrorists as the dominant predator in a particular ecological niche. Their hunting behavior may be obvious enough, but the factors that make this behavior possible may not.

The fact remains, however, that there are only a few choices in dealing with dominant predators, none of them easy or necessarily feesable.


This post brought to you by Maytag - A Whole New Way to do Laundry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chatsubo:
getting back to the topic at hand - people always underestimate the West cause we are soft, decadent, like DVD players, freedom and comfort and cool gadgets - but this is our strength.
Our flexiabilty and creativity that is enabled by our freedoms make us the baddest motherfuckers on the planet.
We beat the Nazis, we beat the Stalinists, and we will beat the Islamo-fasicsts.

---

Brother Chatsubo, I so want to drink a beer with you now. You da man.

Additionally, I believe the root reason why we must destroy the militant Wahabbis and their ilk is because they want to put an end to rock 'n' roll. The Wahabbis and Britney. They've all got to go.

Politics is a big whore. -Romanian proverb

this may be a spectaulary innapropriate comparison, but I am reminded of the Iain Banks book 'Consider Phelbus' - which is about a galatical war.

One one side you have the hedonistic, freedom loving, post-human collective - the Culture, and on the other side is your bog standard religious fundamentalist bully boys, the Iridian.

All neutrual expected the Culture to back out of their fight, as a massive war would get in the way of having fun, but to everyone surprise, the Culture embraces the war with a savage and very effective ruthlessness.

Because, as a society, that is so freedom loving and individualsitc, they welcome, or even needed more, the opportunity to define what they stand for, than did the fundamentalists.

Oh, and the Culture win. (Though a few trillion people get killed)

they have the internet on computers now?

"are you really arguing there's no terrorism in today's world but it has a Muslim source?"

For the record, I'm only making the arguments that I'm actually making, not the ones you think I might be making if you make a whole host of additional assumptions. That means I use the word ideology because I don't want to limit it to religion, or cultural any more than socioeconomic factors (nor is 'whacked-out' a requirement, certainly not for military movements, tho I might be willing to consider it for those that specificlly target civilian deaths for political purposes).

I'm trying to make the point that what strikes me about the root cause argument is that it tends to de-emphasise the need for an organizing set of principles, something akin to a worldview to *take* the other elements in the list and transform them into an argument that terrorist tactics are a justifiable means to solving the 'root cause' problems.

Without an ideologial basis, the other root cause elements don't seem to reliably lead to terrorism, and terrorism doesn't seem to require those elements (tho it can certainly incorporate them with gusto).

This thread started with a quote from a guy saying numbers and willingness to die for a cause (ideological more than socioeconomic, near as I can tell) might be 'why radical Islam might defeat the West.' A back-of-the-envelope calculation lead me to question the numbers.

I'm told I'm ignoring root causes. The guy quoted at the top of the thread wasn't talking root causes, he was talking numbers and ideology. I still think radical Islamists are wrong to think they can call on the numbers of all Muslims to act according to a terrorist ideology.

I'd ask you to explain how poverty can inspire terrorism at the same time it can prevent it thru lack of resources, but I think the answer might go to my argument that the usual root causes list is insufficient.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~