1
   

World War 3. Has it begun?

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:14 am
Suicide Bombs Potent Tools of Terrorists



Deadly Attacks Have Been Increasing and Spreading Since Sept. 11, 2001

By Dan Eggen and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 17, 2005; Page A01



Quote:
Unheard of only a few decades ago, suicide bombings have rapidly evolved into perhaps the most common method of terrorism in the world, moving west from the civil war in Sri Lanka in the 1980s to the Palestinian intifada of recent years to Iraq today. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide attacks in the United States, suicide bombers have struck from Indonesia to India, from Russia to Morocco.

Now governments throughout the West -- including the United States -- are bracing to cope with similar challenges in the wake of the deadly July 7 subway bombings in London, which marked the first time that suicide bombers had successfully mounted an attack in Western Europe.
Continued:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/popunders/nextag_wp_june_05.html

World War 3. Is this the way it will be fought? Has it started?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,596 • Replies: 67
No top replies

 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:17 am
World War 3 wll be started by an errant push of a nuclear button. The concentration now should be on eradicating nuclear weapons.

Toss the terrorists onto the back burner.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:41 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote


Quote:
World War 3 wll be started by an errant push of a nuclear button. The concentration now should be on eradicating nuclear weapons.


IMO getting rid of nuclear weapons is a pipe dream. No nation that has them is about to give them up. In addition the number of nations with that capability will increase. I would doubt that any nation no matter how radical would use them. The danger is that they fall into the hands of terrorists. Who would not be constrained in the of use any form of WMD.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:45 am
So you don't mind them falling in to the hands of, oh let's say, North Korea?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 07:56 am
Brown
North Korea already has them and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. IMO there is far more danger of their use by the terrorists, should they fall into their hands. Than the use by any nation. Including North Korea. I do not believe, despite the rhetoric that any nation is ready to commit suicide. That can certainly not be said for the terrorists
0 Replies
 
HickoryStick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:36 am
I think that we are facing WWIII, and I hope I'm wrong. If you look at what China and Korea are up to, you may think the same.
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:43 am
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:00 am
Would suicide bomb attacks against military targets be considered "terrorism"?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:49 am
Brown asked
Quote:

Would suicide bomb attacks against military targets be considered "terrorism"?


Some call it insurgency,others freedom fighters and than again some call it terrorism. No matter how it is called it is indicative of the way war is being waged at the present time. Since it is being waged in every corner of the world. What else can it be called if not a world war.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:57 am
au, Good topic. It is WWIII, but it's a new kind of war where the enemy can't be readily identified, and they kill their "own" as much as who they consider the enemy. They identify themselves as Muslims, but they also attack Mosques to kill hundreds of their own. Talk about a screwed-up world, we have it in ace of spades today.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:32 am
Wait a second CI, are we talking about terrorists, or Muslims?

You shouldn't get the two confused. There are plenty of terrorist attacks that have nothing to do with Islam.

There is also nothing new about terrorism or even suicide attacks. They have been going on for thousands of years. The fact that bombs are now the weapon of choice is due to the availability of new technology, nothing else.

But, for this conversation to have any real meaning, we should define terms.

I assume we are talking about terrorism in general, not Muslims.

If this is the case, we should have a definition of terrorism that we can all agree with (at least for this thread).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:46 am
Brown

Be realistic. All Moslems are not terrorists. However, at the moment almost all terrorists, or whatever you choose to call them, are Moslems. Has there been an instance where a suicide bomber was not a Moslem.
I would also ask you what you would call those who place bombs in buses, trains, markets and the like with the express purpose of killing innocents if not terrorists.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 12:16 pm
Inside London terrorists' minds

Quote:
Brit probers find bombers weren't fringe freaks


By HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


It was a double shock to Britain to learn the men who blew themselves up were ordinary, cricket-mad, middle-class youths from suburbia."They were suicide bombers - and they were British," exclaimed a shocked Daily Telegraph, which ran a giant copy of one of their birth certificates on its front page.

It really shouldn't have come as such a shock.

Although the popular assumption is that the typical suicide bomber is an uneducated, crazed loner from a poor community with no prospects and nothing to live for, the truth is far different - and far more disturbing, because it makes everything even more incomprehensible.

Studies of suicide bombers have shown they tend to be well-educated, comfortably well-off and from supportive families. One in five is married. Some are parents.

They aren't usually even longtime terrorists.

"The recruits who do the suicide attacks are mainly walk-in volunteers who only joined the group a few weeks before the attacks specifically to do the attacks," said University of Chicago Prof. Robert Pape.

"Most have no experience with violence until their very own suicide attack," said Pape, whose much-discussed new book, "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," is based on an examination of 462 successful suicide bombings since 1980.

The popular image, he added, was created out of a lack of information and some natural, but wrong, assumptions about what "the type of person who would commit suicide would be like."

Princeton economist Claude Berrebi studied Palestinian attackers and found that only 13% of suicide bombers were raised in poverty and more than half had some college education.

A 2001 report on Palestinians suggested that the more educated a person was, the more they supported terrorism: 46% of illiterates did, compared with 68% of those with 12 or more years of schooling.

"In a stable society, the ones who do these kinds of things are Timothy McVeigh types. But in a revolutionary setting, the best and brightest - who are on the cusp of change with rising aspirations but feel they're being stymied - go for it," University of Michigan psychology Prof. Scott Atran said.

"Arguably the greatest terrorist threat lies with uprooted and egalitarian Muslim young adults in European cities," he said. "Immigrant integration into European societies has always been harder than in America."

One common factor among suicide bombers is a deep sense of humiliation.

"Most would-be suicide bombers I have interviewed say they act to restore dignity to their real or virtual community, humiliated by military occupation," Atran said.

Pape cautioned against linking all suicide attacks to Muslims. He said the most prolific bombers, with nearly 80 attacks in recent years, are Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, Marxist Hindus who originally invented the suicide vest.

"Jihadism most eerily resembles the immigrant-based anarchist movement that terrorized the world a century ago, killing U.S. President William McKinley," as well as leaders in Europe, Atran said.

French-Israeli filmmaker Pierre Rehov, who interviewed failed suicide attackers and the families of bombers for his upcoming documentary "Suicide Killers" has a simpler theory: It's about sex.

A strict Islamic household, even in a Western suburb, creates dangerous frustrations by separating women and men, he said.

"They have too much oppression. When they reach the point where they detonate the bomb, for one second it is absolute power - they are beyond all human rules. It is like orgasm when they actually do it," Rehov said.

Muslims believe strongly in an afterlife that isn't like the spiritual Christian heaven, but a land of real physical pleasure, he said.

"It's like if you've never been to Australia but you know it exists. They know for sure, as a fact, that heaven exists," he said. "And they strongly, strongly believe in the story of the 72 virgins."

The only way to prevent suicide bombings is to stop people from becoming human bombs in the first place, Atran said. And that means being more clear-eyed about just who's out there getting ready to strap on explosives.

"About jihadism, all we hear is that it appeals to the destitute and depraved or craven and criminal. Understand that jihadism is not that," Atran said, "and we may start to really do something about it. That's not a call for therapy, but 'know thine enemy.'"
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 12:44 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
World War 3 wll be started by an errant push of a nuclear button. The concentration now should be on eradicating nuclear weapons.

Toss the terrorists onto the back burner.
somebody needs to define the elements of world war.Acording to gustav a nuclear bomb starts it. this sounds good.How many countries need to be deeply involved.I guess if half the world can go on about their business its not a world war yet.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:26 pm
Quote:

However, at the moment almost all terrorists, or whatever you choose to call them, are Moslems


If you are going to make statements like this, you are going to have to define the term "terrorist".

You seem to be using the terms "suicide bombers", "terrorists" and Moslems interchangably, It doesn't seem that these words mean at all the same thing.

I am making a very reasonable and simple request. You are using the word "terrorist" to make a point which I think is questionable at best. But it is impossible to discuss this unless you define the word you are throwing around.

Please define the words "terrorist" and "terrorism". Then perhaps we can have a reasonably intelligent conversation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:35 pm
ebrown, Most of us already have a good understanding of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism." Using those words in conjunction with Muslims makes sense. Otherwise, the use of those words can't be used as an adjective for anybody. We are not claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, but it's common knowledge in today's world that most of the terrorist acts are undertaken by Muslims. If you wish to limit your use of those two words, you are free to do so, but quit trying to teach us the understanding of words as used by most people on this planet - including some Muslims.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:42 pm
ebrown_p
I beg to differ. I am not using the term Moslem and terrorist interchangeably. I said that most terrorist at this point are Moslems. Is that not so? As for what is a terrorist, those who bomb trains, buses, hotels, resorts and the like, for the express purpose of killing civilians. eg. London, NY. Madrid, Turkey and etc.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:47 pm
Quote:

Most of us already have a good understanding of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism."


If this is the case, why don't you explain it to me? I am just asking for a simple definition... nothing more.

These words are being used... both here and in the general political scene in many different often contradictory way. My suspicion is that they have nothing more than propaganda value.

CI's point that everyone uses the word is meaningless. Everyone who uses it has a different meaning. Palestinians use the word to refer to Israeli army action in occupied territory. Certainly your definition is different to theirs-- but again I suspect that everyone uses it for nothing more than propaganda value.

If I am wrong... there is absolutely no reason why one of the people throwing the term "terrorist" around can't provide a simple definition for the word they are using.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:53 pm
Au, that's a start. I think you know where I am going with this, but just to be fair I will spell it out.

Any definition of a word that is not pure propaganda, should apply to any act commited by any group, person or nation.

You are defining terrorism as "Using bombs for the express purpose of killing civilians." (I think that is a good start)

Are you willing to say anyone is a terrorist if they take an act that is expressly designed to kill civilians (i.e. people not in an army).

You also used "bombs" as part important or are people who shoot civilians or use some other way to kill civilians would apply. (Technically the 9/11 attack did not involve bombs, but I think we all would call this a terrorist attack).
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 01:55 pm
Then you'll have to ask the Palestinians what they mean by their use of the word. If you want a definition, it's as simple as looking in the dictionary. If you like, you can look in your dictionary for all the other words you use. They are all "gnerally" accepted definitions. Your "demands" are only ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » World War 3. Has it begun?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 11:06:28