Has Terrorism Changed Your Philosophy of Life?

Extra

My question was rhetorical. Asherman was suggesting Islam has a goal of taking over the world. I dont think they do. I think they just want us to stop meddling in Islamic countries where they feel we have no business.

There is action and reaction going on here. But most people dont see it that way. They just see an act of terrorism and ascribe no reason for it other than "they hate us". Well they do hate us, question is, why? And what could we do to make them hate us less?

Asherman,

Excellent points.
Here's one thing I wonder:
How long has the West been at war with terrorism?
&
Who is making more progress in their goals: the West, or the terrorists?

A case could probaby me made either way.

I mean, if we say we've been combatting terrorism for 40 years (conservative estimate), by whatever methods we've been using, perhaps we should re-think, because, why isn't the war won yet, for example? Its strange that this war takes much longer, is more difficult to win than one against a much more powerful foe such as the Axis. What makes us think that "Okay, this conflict has been going on for 40 years, but if we just do this over here a little harder, put some pressure here, etc, this will end it all. Elect me, and I'll get 'er done in 4 years."

Are we making progress against terrorism?

It appears that we're almost at a sort of standstill.
Yes, large pockets of potential threats of terrorist activity have been eliminated. Then again, terrorist organizations seem more active and organized than ever before, more of the general population in the USA is "living in a bit of fear & terror," etc., than ever before. The success of and symbolic power of 9/11 Twin Towers going down has inspired terrorists for at least a generation, and probably more. If we aren't careful, this thing could take on mythic proportions like the Trojan Horse, David & Goliath, etc.

Which way is the pendulum swinging in this war. Right now, I see it as almost a standstill.

I don't like that. Just, this is how it appears to me today.

Steve,
Yeah, I know your question was rhetorical.

I guess I was just taking off on it: Its extremely difficult to get rid of all terrorist groups everywhere.

I agree with you that *some* of the terrorists are reacting to our actions at this point. Thats sort of what I meant by my 10 year old kid comment.

Lets say I am a 10 year old kid in the outskirts of Baghdad. I see my dad, uncles, and sister get killed when the American flags roll in. Yes, I'll hear that they came to liberate us. But I'll also hear the other side. The various terrorist messages, that happen to come from people much closer to me. As I grow to manhood, is there a chance I will want to avenge the blood of my father? I believe so. I mean really, how would we feel if we had a terrible leader in the USA, so the Iraqis came here, killed a bunch of us, stormed our capitol, and took out our leader? Then, after occupying us awhile, the Iraqis would install a new leader that was approved by them. Would Americans rush to praise the Iraqis as our liberators, or would we see pockets of "terrorist" Americans trying to push the Iraqis out of USA? I think we'd see both.

I think you have a point that *some* of the groups are just pissed because they see us as on their holy land, etc. On the other hand, I think there are other groups out there too. Groups that at this point, would attack us even if we took all troops home, disbanded our military entirely, and all became isolationist and peace loving.

Action --> Reaction. Its been going on over there for thousands of years.

Its just that we happen to be involved more directly in it all now.

Steve,

Both the Christians and the Muslims believe that the whole world should be brought to their own views about God. They will continue their missionary activities probably as long as they exist. However, the radical Islamic terrorists are not Islam as a whole. The it suits the terrorists to define the conflict which they have initiated and pursue as a "war between civilizations" where one side or the other must cease to exist. That doesn't make it so. Few in the Western world have much problem co-existing with Islam, and probably most Muslims could get along fine with the West. The degree to which the terrorists can convince Muslim populations that their very existence is threatened is one measure of their success in meeting a primary objective ... the establishment of "pure" Islamic Republics. The West isn't fighting against Islam, but against a small fanatical group of radical terrorists. The radicals need to foment hate and fear directed at the West to mask their own weaknesses. The radical Islamic terrorists have defined the West, led by the United States, as THE ENEMY. They will foment hatred against us, and attack us no matter what we might do. If we attack them, we will be defined as aggressors. If we do not, we will be defined as weak and afraid, vulnerable to further attacks. We can not let them define the conflict.

Extra Medium,

1. Terrorism, low-intensity/guerilla warfare, has been around for a very long time. Napoleon complained that the Russians didn't play fair when they burned Moscow after surrendering it. The attacks made on the retreating Grand Army by civilians, was denounced as murder. The Spanish resistance was never completely subjugated by Napoleon. The French Underground in Nazi occupied Europe was to the German high-command labeled terrorism. Our irregular soldiers and operations are heros, theirs are always murders. That is part of the trouble with engaging in irregular operations, the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is very easy to cross. Covert operations are notoriously difficult to conduct without crossing common ideas of right and wrong. Humint virtually dies if one side is unable to subvert the loyalty of someone in the opposition. We pay money for people to betray their trust, we blackmail some into working for our side ... which ever side that might be. It is a very dirty business, but a necessary one if you want to avoid catastrophic surprise attacks. Many are capable of delivering such attacks, but only a few may be toying with the idea of actually implementing such an operation. We need to know the intentions of very group capable of launching attacks on our country.

However, you may be asking instead "when did radical Islamic terrorists begin attacking western interests"? They played us off against the Soviets all through the Cold War, and they hated us both at the same time. They switched sides often, depending on who they thought was currently most likely to win. As Moscow Center lost control, the radicals became much more independent. They conducted campaigns of highjacking aircraft, and blowing them up. They took over a cruise ship and murdered American passengers. They invaded the Olympic compound and murdered Jewish athletes. They carried out assassinations. The exact date of the "first" attack may never be agreed upon, but for all practical purposes ... since about 1994.

2. Who is making most progress, the West or the Terrorists? Thats difficult to assess. Up until the 9/11 attacks on New York and D.C., most Americans tended to ignore the trends. Attacks were always far away, and limited in scope. Attacks on American military units were not taken very seriously by the public (they were all volunteers, right? And what were they doing in _____?") The terrorists used that time to build networks and cells, to train and indoctrinate recruits. They had been taught irregular tactics for use against the Soviets in Afghanistan. From the Soviets they acquired weapons, munitions and more training. They were in the race for years while America slumbered.

Since 9/11 things have begun to change. Afghanistan is no longer a terrorist stronghold and sanctuary. Pakistan did not rise to join the Taliban, but instead its government chose to side with America. Terrorist financial dealings have been struck repeated and mostly effective blows. Iraq as a de-stabilizing element and open supporter of international terrorism in the region is gone after decades as an irritant. The Iraq campaign has clearly demonstrated that the United States is willing to use it's military might in appropriate situations. Other rogue states, such as Libya and the DPRK, were sent a clear message and the danger of either to world security has diminished. If Iraq can be stabilized as a secular government with humanistic values, it will be a model for further progress in stabilizing the region.

America is now awake and aware of the dangers posed by radical Islam, and it will be more difficult in the future for them to operate here. They will still likely have some successes that equal, or exceed, the attacks of 9/11. Further attacks, I believe, will only harden American resolve in combating the threat. Changes in security and in how we manage our security has taken great leaps forward. Now we are watching more carefully and are less likely to under-rate the opposition.

We have captured or killed large numbers of their limited human resources. We have disrupted their C-cubed system. Their capability is being eroded away. On the other hand, they have indeed convince some to join their ranks. Those new recruits will be less trusted and much less skilled as operatives because they can not be adequately trained or controlled.

3. "Then again, terrorist organizations seem more active and organized than ever before, more of the general population is "living in a bit of fear & terror," etc., than ever before." Yes, it must seem that way. Before 9/11 knowlgible members of the intelligence community were warning that we were being far too complacent, but few would listen. After 9/11 its become difficult to avoid the subject of radical Islamic terrorism. We are flooded with media reports and the Commitariate never ceases to pontificate. The country has been roused to take active measures, some of which make us uneasy, and that has empowered opposition. The Democratic party, not being in control of the Executive Branch, can find nothing positive about the Republican responses to the threat. This makes for a nice campaign issue, but in the end if Kerry is elected I doubt that there will be much, if any change, in our approach to the problem. What will likely change, is that the more radical Republicans and extreme conservatives will become as bitter and poisonous as the Democrats are today. Shame.

Things are not at a standstill. A week in politics is the equivalent of "Forever". The world situation is just as dynamic. Nothing remains at a standstill for long. We will be attacked again, and they will lose more hidden cells. Americans will die both here and abroad, but an even higher percentage of the opposition is being taken off the board. Much is happening, its just out of sight and properly so.

As I see it, the task of eliminating terrorism as a form of violence is as daunting as the age-old effort to eliminate war, another form of violence. I don't see much chance of achieving either for a very long time. It will require major--I mean truly revolutionary--changes in the ways humans organize their lives, including their economic and religious systems. Regarding radical Islam's absolute rejection and call for the elimination of Western cultural values and World Capitalism, I saw an equally absolute rejection and call for the elimination of socialist values and World Communism in past decades. Everywhere we look we see a mirror image of ourselves.

Using Asherman's most astute, and exhaustive assessment, i would precis the kernal of the thrust of terrorism to be concentration on those aspects of the nature of their adopted enemy, most vulnerable to being subverted by precisely targeted wanton acts of violence.
The importance of freedom can be subverted by fear.
Democracy can be subverted by the perception that exceptional authority is justified.
Economic stability can be subverted by introducing uncertainty into the planning process, and forcing the consumer base into the 'wait and see' mode.
Precisely those measures required to resist a seemingly irrational enemy, will destroy a free democratic society; the only way to overcome this threat is to overtly ignore it; to proceed as would an elephant attacked by a fly, exacting swift and certain devestation to the fly, whenever it surfaces, but otherwise appearing to carry on as usual. Seeking out the maggots from which the flies come, and preventing them from laying new eggs of discord.

BoGoWo, I think I agree with that.

BoGoWo,

Yes, I mostly agree with you. However, we can not entirely go about our lives as though the threat did not exist. We do need to be more careful and alert. Some annoying restrictions, like paranoid airline security checks, are going to be around for awhile. Though we hate it, we have to be prepared for increased costs to fight this war we've been forced into. I expect that the National Debt is again going to be far too large. We are going to lose more fine young Americans in foriegn lands. We can expect further attacks on American targets, though hopefully the damage can be kept to the minimum. These are the sort of inconviences that occur in every war. This is sort of threat to the nation is novel in that it isn't faught by large uniformed armies on well-defined battlegrounds. This time any place may suddenly be a battleground, and the combatants may to all appearances be civilians. This time the home front may be the front line if we can not keep the enemy busy on his own turf. Once again the war will be in full color 24/7 on national television, and again the coverage will fool folks into believing they know more about war than they really do. One of Napoleon's dictums was to underline the importance of moral and will as the key to victory. Our national moral and Will will be tested again. I'm confident that the radicals who intend our defeat will be as thoroughly proven wrong as those who have challenged the United States before. We are not immune to defeat, but neither are we easy to beat.

I think Bo's assessment is not substantiated by circumstance. This is the "they hate our freedom" line peddaled by the neo-cons, and i believe peddalled rather cynically. Certainly the genuine nut-cases like Bin-Laden consider the west to be licentious and therefore to be destroyed. This plays into the hands of American propagandists who want to paint this struggle in terms of a conscious, all-out assault on "freedom and democracy." Given the questons about the vote in Florida in 2000, and Ashcrofts unhealthy desire for broad police powers, it is difficult to believe that the true neo-con wants freedom and democracy, given that they may interfer with the stated goals of the PNAC.

Egyptian and Algerian "terrorists" want Islamic states (and Algeria very nearly had one, until the military stepped in); they aren't in the "terrorism" game to bring down the United States because they hate freedom and democracy. Lybian "terrorism" was the exploitation of existing terrorism--Palestinian--and some state-sponsored terrorism sponsored by Got-Daffy in a misguided and bungled effort to make himself a champion of the Palestinians. The necessity of placating his military support has lead him to abandon any such games PDQ--the bayonets which support his throne want western goods and western comfort.

Hussein attempted to support terrorism on the cheap, by promising payments to the survivors of suicide bombers in Palestine--he often failed to pay up. The Taliban were as much a bunch of nut cases as Bin Laden and company--putting them out of business was well worth the effort. But this administration had its eyes fixed on Iraq all along, and Afghanistan has been the poor relation of U.S. policy all along. Indonesian and Phillipino terrorists have ties to AQ, but they are home-grown extremists with agendas solidly based in greivances with the non-fundamentalist character of their national governments. Absent AQ, they would still exists; absent AQ they would be almost ineffective, as opposed to marginally effective as they are now.

Without the festering greivance of Israel, which gauls Muslims everywhere, and absent the specific involvement of the United States in nations such as Egypt, most of the resentment in the Muslim world would not focus on us. Without the provocation of the Palestinian problem, and without perceived U.S. support of repressive regimes in the Muslim world, terrorism boils down to a handful of fanatics who have some sympathy from, but little to no direct support from the majority of Muslims.

Then you get a situation such as we have here with people such as Ted Kozinksi (sp?), Timothy McVey and Eric Rudolph. Which is to say, a lunatic fringe which the human race will likely never eliminate.

I consider the "they hate freedom" canard to be dangerous, and more dangerous because of the persistence of this flawed and misleading notion within our nation. It is the thin end of the wedge for those who would impose stronger state controls over our lives. It is a very convenient propaganda ploy for those who would contend that we are "fighting for our freedom" in Iraq, and can be used to justify a host of evils. It is little examined by Americans, who respond to the appeal of a sophomoric contention that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and others hate us for it.

I cannot accept that analysis at all.

Setanta

I usually don't respond when I agree with someone but I think your assessment here has pretty well hit the mark. This is not a battle of Idealogies as you've made clear. Nevertheless idealogies being the easiest to digest by the masses have always been used as the best recruiting device to gain support and die for the cause if necessary. They always supply their own justification and naturally wrap around the necks of the great unwashed. I suspect that there are quite a few Islamic leaders, especially among the mullahs, who are privately among the most un-Koranic people on the planet. There is also not much doubt as to what Mohammed himself would have done with them.

The real subtraction of freedom can just as likely occur in your own backyard by your own government's reaction to those on the outside who presumably want to take it away. Freedoms you may lose in the process are like the "temporary taxes" that never disappear. To an extent, americans are now in the unenviable position of also having to monitor it's internal response.

Who is an un-Qur'anic person? And why in private? Mohammed might know but I don't. Please enlighten.

Steve

Like many of the Popes - especially of the Renaissance - THE WORD and the institution it created is used as a power base of personal ambition. In the words of one, Leo X, I believe, "God has given us the papacy. Let us enjoy it!" not that I put the mullahs in the same league as the Popes but you get the idea.

"In private" because what they do is a violation of the spirit of the Quran not through ignorance but through ambition and maintenance of personal power using the Master's sacred text for their purpose. We already have an example of this in the West when you consider all the preachers, self-proclaimed evangelists,etc. SELLING SALVATION and holy water in Jesus' name. The mullahs of course (and others) are playing for bigger stakes but the hyprocisy isn't any different. From everything I've heard of The Prophet, as one not willing to turn the other cheek too easily - though ready to forgive ignorance - would have had violators of the Sacred Quran executed BUT not for any sin commited against himself which hopefully I haven't done either.

I think Steve has a point that one cannot know, and we as non-Muslims are in no position to judge, who among the mullahs and imams, is or is not consonant with the creed embodied in the Quran.

At the same time, i would agree with NTS's speculation that there are many mullahs who are hypocrits--in a favorite term of the christians, whited sepulchres full of rotting flesh and dead men's bones. The history of religion from the temple societies forward shows that venality affects the righteous in at least the same proportion as the general population. Given that most accept the dictum that power corrupts, as do i, my opinion is that venality is more likely among religious leaders than in the general run of the population.

One has to be careful not to over generalize about the varied elements in the current "War on Terrorism". BTW, I really don't like that term, but it seems to be the one with currency so it'll just have to do I suppose.

The motivations and beliefs are not universal, on either side. Just as the American electorate is splintered, so is the mostly Muslim population of Southwest Asia. Some are very hawkish and others are ashamed to be thought of as supporters of military action. Some are radicals, but most are moderate in their politics and/or religion. The great majority will support their "side" out of group loyalty. In the Western World most people put national loyalty above their religion. Remember the difficulties JFK encountered in being elected? The radical Islamic terrorists operate from a population base that has weak loyalties to their national governments, but deep loyalties to co-religionists.

Our perceptions are warped by modern mass communications. Television images are dramatic, and what fills the small screen appears to represent the whole rather than a tiny part of the world. Outside the view of the camera, which is easily manipulated by both the observer and the subject, things are often quite different. A "riot/demonstration" (same event, different descriptors) may appear enormous and filled with people beyond emotional control. In actuality, the crowd may consist of only a thousand people who were organized, briefed, and scheduled in advance. Just outside the camera's view may be a hundred thousand people who are unaware of the event, and who may hold drastically different views. This difficulty with knowing just how "true" a television story is exists everywhere. This is a "vulnerability" that the radical terrorists exploit with some sophistication.

Political leadership also represent a wide variety of motives, most of which are not immediately evident to the public. In open societies like the U.S., political opposition is open, vocal, large and powerful. In closed societies, like those in Southwest Asia, opposition is hidden, very quiet, and is most often small and weak because open criticism carries with it severe sanctions. How much difference politically is there between the two social groupings where on one side women are extremely marginalized?

In the U.S. both political parties have to compete for the support of the middle, and so both parties spin their messages to appeal to the politically moderates. The rhetoric necessary to placate, consolidate, and motivate the "hotspurs" of their own party requires a different spin. Out of this tortuous process of building political support sufficient to win elections, it seems near impossible to really, really know what exactly any President/Congressman or Senator believes in their heart of hearts. Governing, especially in the US, is about compromise and consensus building. No single interest group ever has enough power to wholly determine political direction. The Executive, under the Constitution, is given exceptional powers during times of national danger so that the nation can act in a timely, coherent and unified way to protect, defend and secure the interests of the nation. That always, in every American conflict, angers the opposition who predict that the whole thing is a mere excuse for one man/one party to seize perpetual power.

When the political leadership of a group is hidden, as is mostly the case with the radical Islamic movement, motivations are much harder to decern. Who are the leaders really? The public knows a few names and has a few sketchy histories about the presumed leaders. The very nature of organizations built on the cell system makes it hard to identify even where and who exactly is running the show, and what their intents are. To know those things you need to have informants buried deep inside the opposition, preferably near the top of the hierarchy. Failing that you need to be able to debrief and interrogate captured enemy executives. When we gain that sort of information, it is counterproductive to make it public and known to the opposition. We don't call it the "Silent Service" for nothing, for once intelligence is widely known it is next to worthless.

you paint some good pictures Set

As flattering as the thought may be, i cannot take credit. That "strophe" is the product of the translators employed by that raging Queen, King James I.

well I'll just go back the title of the string - did terroism change my philosophy of life - well, do a certain extent it did. Living is Israel, terrorism means mainly that you don't know what is going to happen to you in teh next second. Of course, anybody can say that of himself all over the world, but here about everybody has a few friends or relatives that were killed, and a larger number that were wounded. over a few years, this kind of living in constant fear can make two different things happen - or that you are panicky all the time, or that you start to disregard dangerous things at all. I don't know how most people reacted, but I for one am taking life much easier than I did before. Since you know that it can come from anywhere, there's no poinnt in being afraid.