Has Terrorism Changed Your Philosophy of Life?

Yes,Swifty. Fundamentalism is the "intellectual" side of it. Some fundamentalist are not terrorists, but I sometimes think that they are the greatest, most ready, candidates for that form of military action. Their extremism goes so far as to justify murder,e.g., the man who shot the doctor for practicing abortion, the Jewish Yeshivas (sp?) who are calling for the religiously sanctioned assasination of Ariel Sharon (comparable to actions by the Ayatolla Khomeni), the McVeighs of our country, etc.

JLN



No such thing as religiously sanctioned assassination. These were people who are fighting the give back of the West bank. One because they believe it is part of greater Israel and secondly they would have to evacuate in the give back. I will neither condone or excuse their threatened action. But religiously santioned never. I don't even know who could sanction it. We have no such thing as a Pope or Ayatollah.

The article I read cited them as saying that it was God's will that Sharon be assasinated.

In a strange way, have the radical terrorists brought more understanding and awareness of the world to the average American? (here's where the flames might begin): Could it be said that the terrorists have been successful in some ways. If "success" could be defined as bringing more awareness to the plight of your people, your region of the world, etc.?Have the terrorists actually been extraordinarily "successful" in some respects? Especially when one considers the relatively small amount of people & resources they utitilized.

Here's a thought that flashed through my brain:

Let's say the terrorists goal was to make the average American aware of and understanding of Islam and the middle-east a tiny bit more.

It appears that this change has taken place.

The average American knows a bit more about Islam,than they did 4 years ago. Its on their radar screen way more than it was 4 years ago. When I say "average American" here, I'm talking about the ones who couldn't find Spain or Canada on a map, etc. (not to offend anyone) In a weird way, has the recent terrorist activity resulted in the average American learning a tiny bit more about Islam and the mid-east?

In fact, some Americans appear to be a bit more sympathetic to the plight of the middle-easterners (not the radical terrorists), than they were 4 years ago.

Its a strange psychological thing going on. As abhorrent as 9/11 was, I see plenty of people seemingly "more sympathetic" and certainly more aware of middle-easterners than they might have been prior to 9/11.

I'm aware there's very little connection between 9/11 and the vast majority of Islam. Just strange how this event, in a weird way, increased our national awareness of Islam. Could it all actually be a bizarre step toward increasing worldwide understanding?

A simple example: Way more Americans could tell you what the Koran is, compared to 4 years ago.

Note: To be clear: I don't condone terrorist activity in any way. I was just considering Swifty's & some other comments, and was thinking how a relatively small group of people affected the radar screens of millions of jaded Americans...

That's the way it usually is with fundamentalists. Humans don't possess the moral right to justify and commit atrocity so they invoke the Divine instead and in the process, recruit the greatest number of idiots trainable as lapdogs to their cause. They know the "Divine Bureaucrat" will never send them a subpoena for assassination of character. They depend on ITS non-contradictory silence. To a terroist - or anyone even nations who need to justify beyond legitimacy or morality - a silent God is indispensible! So far, it's been successful! But to invoke God in such a manner is a mutilation even for those who don't believe in God.

JLN


Bush said God told him to be president or some such nonsense. Does that mean his presidency was sanctioned by God? Saying it does not make it so. If it did I would have won the lotto at least four times.

Thank you for those declarations and pronouncements of opinion from the point of view of an enemy of the USA using the notion that in wartime such an enemy has some devinely endowed right to wrap themselves in the banner of our freedom of speech to scorn and criticize our government and it's duly appointed and elected officials.
Reminders that this is not Nazi Germany, The Gobi Desert, Papa Doc Duvalier's Haiti or some such other fanciful scenario in Hell may be omitted.

The 'point' here seems to be reversed; while terrorism will only tend to reinforce opposing philosophical ideals, such as intellectual openness, and freedom of personal belief, the philosophy of fundamentalist religious belief, it must be admitted has certainly affected the 'detail' of freedom of movement around the world.
The only cure for mindless hatred is education of the children of its proponents - now that's a challenge!

[the internet may just be our greatest ally, in the long run.]

Extra Medium,

From the Terrorist's point-of-view "success" is measured by the degree to which they have accomplished their objectives. What do they want?

Their Goal. The destruction of humanistic/materialistic Western Civilization. In their view, the values we hold are in direct opposition to their notions of what the "proper" interpretation of the Koran is. They represent God and we represent the un-godly. It is their divine duty to fight, even die, to bring the whole of humanity to their idea of correct worship of God.

The United States is their primary target for several reasons. The US is largest, wealthiest, of all the developed nations. Destroy the US, and the others will fall easily. The US is the primary exporter of the sort of culture that most offends the radical Islamic terrorists. Hollywood movies that make material possessions, individualism, and open sex seem desirable is, they believe, leading people into the hands of evil. Equality of the sexes and the acceptance of "deviant sex" in advertising and song can not be allowed to tempt Muslims from the Path of God. Ownership of cars, houses, radios, televisions, and a host of other material possessions detracts people from the worship of God. It is wrong, they believe, for human-kind to subvert the Will of God by refusing to accept fatalistically whatever might happen. The list of grievances goes on and on.

In their view compromise is not possible, co-existence is not possible. The whole world must submit to their religious beliefs, or perish.

The "why" of their goal is a little more difficult to explain. Not all radical Islamic terrorists are really all that devout, but most are still True Believers. The motivations for joining terrorist groups varies from "pure" religiosity to crass opportunism. Some are manipulators, and others are easily manipulated. Their cultural set requires them to be manly, brave, and if they should die in a good cause they expect to go directly to a wonderful paradise. That paradise is a stark contrast to the humiliation that many feel in not being the dominant religion/culture in the modern world. They are Gods favorites, yet the world that they despise gets all the goodies. How could it be that God would let the Unbelievers be so powerful and rich? It is satisfying to see the rich and powerful humbled when you are at the bottom of the heap. To many it is a divine test of their own faith and willingness to put the Koran above their own interests. For a fighter to indulge in forbidden behavior to "deceive" the enemy is an acceptable tactic, and so some feel they have a "pass" to do whatever they wish ... so long as they are willing to die for the cause.

Many educated and wealthy youth are drawn into the Movement by their idealism. They see the faults of their parents and of authorities, and decide that they will do better. They will change the world so that no compromise will be taken with their ideas about what the Koran says and means. "Ask not what you can achieve in the World, but what can you do to advance the Cause of God and your People against the wicked; you will be richly rewarded in paradise".

Objective: Drive all unbelievers from existing "Islamic" lands. afghanistan under the Taliban, and Iran to a lesser extent typify the sort of Islamic nations that they want to exist everywhere. Large fundamentalist populations are essential if the radicals are to gain full power. This makes the situation in Pakistan (which possesses nuclear munitions) particularly dangerous. The government isn't democratic (if it were) the radicals would be in power, imagine Bin Laden with missiles pointed at New Delhi. A similar situation exists in Saudi Arabia. The Royal House has "compromised" itself with the West for crass material gain. The Keepers of Holy Sites has invited the Infidel onto the sacred soil, and tolerates the use of military bases against the forces of radical Islam. The religious schools of Arabia, financed by Saudi wealth, are among the most radical anywhere and several generations have been raised to follow the most radical interpretations of the Koran. The terrorists want to bring down all governments, in lands they consider Islamic, that do not conform to their ideas of what an Islamic government should be. They argue that governments that are progressive have sold out to the United States and the West. The Democratic Will of the People requires governments along the lines of those adopted by the Taliban, and the most conservative leaders of Iran.

Objective: Isolate, weaken and destroy Israel. No tears will be shed if every Jew, who refuses to convert, dies. The humiliation of having the combined armies of the Arabic world defeated by tiny Israel really rankles. If all world support for Israel was withdrawn, they believe, then they could easily destroy Israel. All attacks against Israel and Israeli interests are divinely blest. It is in the interests of the terrorist to maintain Palestinian disaffection and hatred of Israel. Large Palestinian populations in countries like Jordan make it difficult for the government to institute progressive policies, or make compromises with the West. Continual unrest and violence keeps the pot aboil, and provides a rallying point for terrorists and their supporters.

Objective: Attack western interests, especially US interests, everywhere possible. Until 9/11, this objective was mostly pursued outside the US and Europe. They were still building their networks and learning how to best harm western interests. They did what damage they could, but tried to avoid so angering the west that effective military action would be taken against them. They were encouraged by the success of seizing Iran as a Islamic Republic, and the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Bombing attacks against overseas US military assets was good training, and helped build popular support from those who hated the success of Western values.

Though the World Trade Center bombing failed, it encouraged them to try again and gave them confidence. They had come to believe that the US was ripe for a major operation, and 9/11 was more successful than they ever hoped for. With the expenditure of relatively small resources they made a very big splash. True, they had finally awakened the sleeping American giant, but what could America do? The terrorists weren't a national government, so any American attack on those who supported, supplied, financed and provided haven for the terrorists could be depicted as American aggression. The difficulties of conducting military operations in Afghanistan where they had beaten the Soviets, should make their stronghold reasonably safe from anything but a few air attacks. If the US attacked Afghanistan they expected the population of Pakistan to rise in their defense, and they weren't entirely wrong. Popular celebrations of the 9/11 attacks opened the doors to new recruits who wanted to share the glory of murdering the infidel.

They expected that the American government would dither, fire a few long range missiles into desert targets and complain loudly in the UN. They underestimated the Will and capability of the US military to strike back even in remote corners of the world. On the other hand, they did have some success with another objective.

Objective: Utilize the openness and values of the west, especially the US, against it. Dissent and opposition to governmental policies are the norm in the US, all they had to do was stir the pot a little. American reluctance to become involved militarily overseas is a theme that could be relied upon to keep the full force of its military from being exercised. American unwillingness to exact, or pay the blood price of military action, encourages terrorists to draw out the conflict and make that price as large as possible. Attacks, successful or not, on the homeland increases anxiety, fear and dissatisfaction with government's inability to fully protect the nation from terrorist attack. American media can be relied upon to do wonderful damage assessment analysis, to point out American weaknesses, and reveal defense plans.

Attacks on American allies, its been demonstrated, can be successful in weakening their resolve. Bomb Spanish commuter trains, and cause a change in government that will recall it's military forces. Kidnap and murder hostages and governments will withdraw their support for rebuilding Iraq as a progressive nation with strong humanistic values. Murder any Iraqi who tries to bring stability to the country and perhaps eventually the conflict will bring radical Islamic government to power. In the meantime, Americans will become increasingly unwilling to accept the cost in lives and treasure to continue the fight to bring progressive values to Southwest Asia where the terrorists are strongest. With the help of Allah a new American administration will come into office and withdraw American forces from the battle. Patience is all that is required to win Victory, and the terrorists believe that time is on their side.

Chuckster, I am of the opinion (if it's not too un-american to do so) that I and you have the absolute moral and patriotic right to wrap my criticism of our government's actions in the banner of Consitutionally granted freedom of speech, while I have no right to claim moral and political power over you on the basis of an alleged God's Will.

BoGoWo, I agree that the internet will very likely serve as a tool for resistance against governmental and religious hegemony in the future. Of course, Saddam was able to effectively control its use, and nuts, like the racists among us, have used it to spread their venom (which, Chuckster, is their right).

Asherman,

Excellent post.

Interesting post Asherman, but far too simplistic. You really think the likes of bin Laden want to impose a global caliphate? No way. The danagerous ones are realistic in their goals. And the ones who dream of bringing down the west like they "brought down" the Soviet Union, are just that, dreamers, and probably used as agents or double agents by western intelligence agencies. Radical Islam doesn't want sharia law in California or London, it can and will go to hell as far as they are concerned, they care nothing for those places. What they want is for western nations to get their stinking feet off Muslim holy land.

I agree, Steve . . . but it makes them no less dangerous, whether their fanaticism is realistic or a product of fantasy land. The Provos [irony]just wanted the Brits out of Ireland[/irony].

And I agree with you Set...(far too much agreeing going on here)

I dont deny there are some very dangerous people about. Its when you start trying to figure out who is pulling the strings, and why, that things start to get very murky.

If you (anyone) had told me a few years ago that it was British govt. policy to deliberately heighten tension in N Ireland at one time for specific reasons and that this was to be achieved by British soldiers machine gunning unarmed British citizens as they went about their business on the streets of a British city...well I would not have believed it. In fact I'm not sure I believe it now, except that it happens to be true.

Ah yes, the truth is often inconvenient. Witness the intellectual contortions of those who continue to assert that an invasion of Iraq was in aid of national security.

It worked though didn't it?

A goal is the star towards which one is guided. It may never be practically achieved, but is a necessary guide to give unity of purpose to an effort. Often goals are very idealistic, but describe group values and the most desired end-state. For instance, the goal of the UN is world peace, but few have ever really believed that a real achievable end-state.

Here in the United States we have been struggling with the notions of "race" and "equality" since the founding of the country. Our most costly war largely came about over the question of how our political institutions should regard slavery. Those who believed in the Peculiar Institution lost that war, but managed to suppress civil rights throughout a large region of our country for almost a century. From the earliest times there were groups dedicated to achieving the goal of Racial Equality. At times it seemed a hopeless dream, but slowly individual objectives leading toward that goal were achieved. Some objectives were to abolish the slave trade, to abolish slavery, to increase literacy rates among the oppressed, to join the military and fight the nations wars. There was success in meeting these objectives, but Racial Equality still seemed an impossible dream. After WWII for a number of reasons the pace quickened. A major objective was to over turn Jim Crow laws. Black and White lawyers worked to overturn precedents on appeal. Students sat down in drugstores and insisted they be served. A woman sat in a "Whites Only" section of a bus. These were all "tasks", or "operations" that led to achieving the objective that in turn would lead to progress toward the goal of Racial Equality. Another objective was to desegregate the schools. Black children were enrolled, and the Federal government "persuaded" to provide Federal protection for students even though in the past the school systems were regarded as not being a Federal responsibility.

Operational planning doesn't just happen in a vacum. Goals are reached by achieving limited objectives. Sometimes the objectives are so important that they almost eclipse the stated goal. Objectives also require detailed planning if they are to be achieved. The requirements to achieve the objective are broken down into doable pieces, or tasks. For the operation unit what is defined as a task by the strategist may look very much like a major objective. Say you are an operations officer who has been tasked with destroying a bridge by some one higher in the organization. That is your task and mission, but it becomes for you the objective. How will you do it? How many men will be needed? What equipment is required? When is the best time? What resources do you have available? What is the defense/security look like around the objective? Even relatively simple missions can be very complex to plan. Now, you might task someone to probe the security/defense perimeter, and/or try to get inside information from inside the target. That will be the objective for those assigned to reconnoiter the target. Another objective might be to gather the equipment and recruit the actual attackers. Training the operational sub-unit is an objective at one level, and merely a task at another. Providing logistics is another objective, and so on until all the elements necessary to blow up the bridge are assembled and the plan implemented.

I think if you revisit my post, you will see that I've categorized the eventual success of Radical Islam as a goal. Among their objectives are things like forcing nations with large Muslim populations to adopt their own notions about what an Islamic Republic should be. Forcing the removal of Western troops from the region exists on several levels.

These folks didn't just become radical haters of the United States a couple of years ago. They have hated and wished the destruction of Western Civilization with its materialism and humanistic values for a very long time. Radical Islam supported the Nazis during WWII. They were behind each of the wars to annihilate Israel. They played off the two superpowers against one another throughout the Cold War, and hated both. Once free of the restraining hand of Moscow Center, these guys began to stage operation against the US and Western interests with increasing confidence. If your memory is just a wee bit hazy, go back and review all the highjackings, ambushes, murders, bombing that occurred from 1994 right up until 9/11.

If it is as bleak as you make out, there is nothing we can do, nothing we can placate the radicals with. We really are in a war of civilisations, winner take all, death to the vanquised.

There is no point in trying to reason with these people. Better to employ all the technology at our disposal now to eliminate this scourge from the face of the earth?

Whew. And this is basically where we are now.

Its a tough question.

The current administration seems to have one method in mind.
The challenging administration seems to have a slightly different method.

But I've yet to see one great final solution to the question.

The question: What to do about terrorism?

Does any politician truly have an excellent answer to this question?

The thing that troubles me is: There are 10 year old kids right now in the middle-east and other places, who are witnessing what is happening. Some of these will grow up to be terrorists. And, can we truly blame them, keeping in mind the conditions they are growing up in, the environment they are educated in, the angle they are seeing everything they unfold in.

This thing isn't going to go away in 5 years. Even with the "best" method. Its tempting to think "yes, just exterminate them all." But of course that can't be done.

The more difficult task is to selectively wipe out, of course. But its like trying to get rid of all the cockroaches in a building, while sparing every last harmless housefly and ant. It would be easier to take down the entire building. And while we all argue about it, new cockroaches are being born.

(I don't mean any disrespect to any individuals by using the cockroach analogy, if anything its almost a note of respect to how tenacious they are.)

I respectfully disagree. This is a very serious business, but it is by no means unwinable, nor is it ulitmately a "war between civilizations" (that is letting the terrorists define the scope and meaning of the struggle). The radical Islamic terrorists have a number of vulnerabilities, and we have some very strong cards ourselves.

The radicals willing to take up arms and conduct terrorist operations is relatively small, out of the whole Muslim population. Most Muslims, I believe, want about the same things a factory worker in Ohio might want. They want to be left alone, to be able to build a better and more secure life for themselves and their families. They are willing to compromise some of their beliefs to "get along" with their neighbors. Unfortunately, most of those who live in Southwest Asia have never had much chance at getting those things for themselves and their families. They live in poverty ridden, backward countries where resources are scarce and opportunity for improvement even more scarce. The only thing they have of value is their religious faith, and a scapegoat, Western Civilization as typified by the United States and Israel. It is easy to demonstrate in front of a television camera, but I doubt that many Muslim parents really want their sons and daughters to commit suicide.

Those Muslims in the middle need some alternatives. Put the young to work in productive occupations and they will be less likely to join the Radicals. Make more opportunity available, and people will spend more time pursuing their own interests rather than an Ideal that demands total sacrifice. Give these folks stability, and they will no longer be eager to pursue behavior that is de-stabilizing. These are tough things to accomplish, and can not be done overnight in places where there isn't much to work with and where the West is viewed with suspicion. What we can do is promote governments that are stable, and who do not support international terrorism. Those governments that make terrorism unwelcome should get our support. Governments that are already being pressured by the terrorists require our support, even when we disagree with the strategy they are following.

The small numbers of active terrorists is both a strength and a weakness. Being small in size breaching their security is made more difficult, but on the other hand they can not afford losses. Every terrorist cell that is rolled-up, every leader captured or killed, diminishes their capability. Cut off their money, cut off their support and safe havens and they will spend more time trying to escape than in carrying out murderous operations. They blend into the population, but if the population turns against them they will have no where to hide. Being small in number, they are constrained from operations that are complex or require large numbers. They might muster a coordinated attack on a few targets, but massive attacks or attacks over a wide range of targets is hard to achieve with small numbers of reliable soldiers. They have not yet shown much ability in recruiting outside their ethnic/religious group, and recruiting willing suicide bombers from your local Floral Society is likely to remain slim.

As governments sympathetic to the terrorist's goals become less willing to risk openly challenging the U.S., they will be forced to work much harder. Training camps will be more difficult to set-up and maintain. False papers will become harder to come by. Money to pay for operations may be reduced, limiting operational alternatives. Having to buy explosives, arms and munitions on the black-market from free-lancers is much more difficult and expensive than getting them under the table from a sympathetic Defense Minister in a friendly Islamic Republic.

Communications, command, control and intelligence are also problems that the terrorists have to overcome. American ability to capture almost any electronic emmission make it difficult to communicate except by old-fashioned one-time pads. The time taken to relay intelligence upward and get orders from above takes a lot of time if you haven't secure communications. That time delay makes the system vulnerable to breaches in other ways. With difficulty in communications and long time delays built in for information transmittal, command and control systems break down. That in turn makes coordination of attacks and attack preparation more difficult, if not virtually impossible. Individual cells may be pretty secure as long as they are quiet, but that limits the amount of damage they can usually do. The terrorists have even more problems with intelligence than we do. They almost certainly haven't any better Humint than we, and they have no access to Elint and Satellite systems. What they "know" is what appears in/on the media. Open source material can be very useful, but only when taken in large nets and analyzed by experts. For terrorists who haven't much more in the way of gathering open source material than the average person, they are really limited in what useful intelligence can be gathered effectively.

On the other hand, we have numbers and resources in abundance. Our military and technical intelligence capability is far greater than most people will ever know. Those values that are so hated by the radicals, are the very thing that most people want for themselves, and that sets up emotional dissonance within those who might be expected to support the terrorists. Muslim teenage boys may hate the California teens driving around in sports cars with beautiful, but compliant girls. Those same teenagers would swap places in a New York minute if given the chance ... not the easiest material to turn into really, really True Believers. The Western world has pretty much come to grips with the idea that Theocracies can work, it may take time but those in Southwest Asia can also be brought to that conclusion. It is one thing to set up an Islamic Republic strictly following the Radical's interpretation of the Koran, it is quite another to govern a country for a long time using a 1,300 year old book of religious doctrine.

The values of Western Civilization, humanism and materialism especially, are as deeply rooted in our culture (perhaps more so) than Radical Islam is in Southwest Asia. We will try very hard to accommodate Muslim beliefs within our socio-economic system. They are more likely to shoot anyone who disagrees with them, a very wasteful policy and one that also puts strains on their ability to get the most effectiveness out of the resources they do have.