what is terrorism?

[Nick Young]

Terrorist apologists doe

[russwest0]

its what the brown ppl do tht make us go take their oil

[Nick Young]

its what the brown ppl do tht make us go take their oil

Dawg, arabs and persians aren't a different race. They are just white people with dark tans. Real talk, look it up.

[russwest0]

Dawg, arabs and persians aren't a different race. They are just white people with dark tans. Real talk, look it up.

huh they look like brown ppl to me

[RidonKs]

Its an idiotic talking point no serious politician actually believes. islamic radicals primarily want us to abandon our interests (supporting pro american dictators and israel) in the middle east and as a secondary goal for islam to dominate the world.

i gotta be honest man it kinda boggles my mind that you can say something like this, believe it (because its not the first time you've said it), and your response to this blatant neo-colonialism is to shrug your shoulders and not just say "this is what america does, theres nothing i can do" but actually "this is what america should do and i support it"



here's another tidbit worth reading. below i quote the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001 immediately after the 9/11 attacks. in plain speak, this was an intensive study that came out of the Pentagon into how American communications policy should respond to the worst terrorist attack on american home soil in the country's history. inevitably, the study veers into reasons, causes, and explanations. it says nothing about justification. nobody but the terrorists themselves every speak of justification, and confusing explanation with justification is at the core of the problem with discourse on the subject.

if the explanation was really that they're all just genocidal fundamentalist warriors, that's what this study would probably indicate. that is not what the study indicates. it is not dense reading, i suggest people have a look at the report itself or read the following quotes carefully.

Anti-American attitudes. Opinion surveys conducted by Zogby International, the Pew Research Center, Gallup (CNN/USA Today), and the Department of State (INR) reveal widespread animosity toward the United States and its policies. A year and a half after 15 going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5 % of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.

well no surprise there. we all know egyptians and saudis hate america. how much more they might have hated america in 2004 (time of the poll) compared to 2000 would be interesting to find out. the fact that over 80% of a random survey of foreign political commentaries were found to be negative is also unsurprising. i hope we all agree however they "they are just jealous" cannot possibly be the reason for these anti-american attitudes.

let's examine the reasons... or just let the task force do it for us.

Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America’s national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.

Although many observers correlate anti-Americanism with deficiencies in U.S. public diplomacy (its content, tone, and competence), the effectiveness of the means used to influence public opinion is only one metric. Policies, conflicts of interest, cultural differences, memories, time, dependence on mediated information, and other factors shape perceptions and limit the effectiveness of strategic communication.

often you hear the argument that at least one source of increased radicalization is weak foreign policy posturing. this is a bill o'reilly favourite if you ever tune into his program. if obama was more hawkish in what he said and more stern in how he said it and less accommodating to the rest of the world, he could have prevented the embassy bombings and the ambassador assassination in benghazi.

but as the authors of the study write, this is only one metric we can use to weigh one source of the violence. the others listed can be weighed just as heavily and in my eyes, since in life what you actually do is always way more important than how you go about doing it stylistically, ought to be given much more weight.

but let's move on to the meat of the study's argument.

The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

1) Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

2) Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

3) Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

4)Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

5) What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam

i could not elucidate the issue any better than do these five consecutive reinforcing points. read them and let me know what you think.

finally

Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of “dissemination of information,” or even one of crafting and delivering the “right” message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none — the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam. Inevitably therefore, whatever Americans do and say only serves the party that has both the message and the “loud and clear” channel: the enemy.

yes. the issue is credibility. for any superpower throughout world history, THE ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CREDIBILITY. we have the force and we are going to show you we are not afraid to use it, no matter the catastrophic consequences.



now all of this is more or less what the progressive left has been saying about the war on terror since it began in 2001.... or i should actually say since it began in 1982 when the Reagan Administration first announced ITS "war on terror" with about the same splash and rhetoric as the Bush 2 Administration.

except my source for these quotations IS THE FKING PENTAGON.

[Nick Young]

huh they look like brown ppl to me

No dawg, they are Caucasians, they just have dark skin because living in the hot sun all their lives and being super tanned. They are white people.

[StephHamann]

Terrorist apologists doe

[SCdac]

lmao @ terrorist apologist

"that terrorism. so hot right now. I hate America!"

*goes back to eating hotpocket in mom's basement in cushy suburb*

[RidonKs]

lmao @ terrorist apologist

"that terrorism. so hot right now. I hate America!"

*goes back to eating hotpocket in mom's basement in cushy suburb*

are u laughing at the name terrorist apologist or the fact that people are apologizing for terrorists? because nobody in this thread has made any apologies for terrorists, i wholeheartedly believe they belong in prison for most of the rest of their lives,

i'm interested in discussing issues. i've raised many interesting points in this thread, not least of which is the essay itself which, as i said, is a very worthwhile read if you absorb it with an open mind (and after which you're free to disagree with). only mavssuperfan has shown any willingness to explore the issues with me, which is a shame but i suppose not totally unexpected.



regarding your post which i just re-read, i see the surveillance issue as totally distinct from the military intervention issue. on both topics, state governments claim its actions are necessary to protect its population against international terrorism. but they are different only in the sense of foreign (intervention) vs domestic (surveillance) policies. with some overlap but you get that all the time.

wide-scale continuous or semi-continuous killing, conquering or invasion of land in wars, ethnic cleansing, murderous dictatorship, etc, I'm hesitant to plainly call "terrorism"

this i agree with. i used two definitions of terrorism in a post earlier, one from the british terrorism act and the other from the fbi code of regulations. neither of them are as sweeping or encompassing as what you just described... which i think is correct. a proper definition of terrorism should not be so broad.

[SCdac]

Ridonks, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're less interested in "discussing issues" and more interested in hearing what you want to hear and discussing things only from your angle. You claim to have a deep conviction against terrorism in your last post ("jail for life"), but it seems hollow and forced based on everything you post on this issue. But whatever, idc. You're asking me to read the article in the OP, ok. The article claims attacks by by Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc, are only on "uniformed military", which is a laughable and false claim that takes little research to debunk. Bombing a night club, for instance, is not against uniformed officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

For obvious reasons it shoots down any credibility to that article. Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough, there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism. Palestinian terrorists have in the recent past bombed busses, cafes, shopping malls, and super markets. Same for other extremist groups/individuals in other regions of the world which is not in any way, shape, or form related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (Just using that as an example, in other words).

[GimmeThat]

the lack of negotiation in which to obtain ones goal through excess force


the varying degrees of it has been subjected objectively by the advancement of humanity/civilization

[Nick Young]

Ridonks, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're less interested in "discussing issues" and more interested in hearing what you want to hear and discussing things only from your angle. You claim to have a deep conviction against terrorism in your last post ("jail for life"), but it seems hollow and forced based on everything you post on this issue. But whatever, idc. You're asking me to read the article in the OP, ok. The article claims attacks by by Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc, are only on "uniformed military", which is a laughable and false claim that takes little research to debunk. Bombing a night club, for instance, is not against uniformed officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

For obvious reasons it shoots down any credibility to that article. Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough, there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism. Palestinian terrorists have in the recent past bombed busses, cafes, shopping malls, and super markets. Same for other extremist groups/individuals in other regions of the world which is not in any way, shape, or form related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (Just using that as an example, in other words).

It's the trendy cool and progressive thing to be a terrorist apologist these days. Pretty sad what universities are teaching to the latest generation of sheep like Ridonks.

[nathanjizzle]

terrorism is when you are ****ing your girl from the back, and just as you are about to *** you jam your thumb into her asshole and as she turns around and gives you a dirty look you bust all over her eyelids.

[RidonKs]

Ridonks, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're less interested in "discussing issues" and more interested in hearing what you want to hear and discussing things only from your angle. You claim to have a deep conviction against terrorism in your last post ("jail for life"), but it seems hollow and forced based on everything you post on this issue. But whatever, idc. You're asking me to read the article in the OP, ok. The article claims attacks by by Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc, are only on "uniformed military", which is a laughable and false claim that takes little research to debunk. Bombing a night club, for instance, is not against uniformed officers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uicide_attacks

For obvious reasons it shoots down any credibility to that article. Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough, there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism. Palestinian terrorists have in the recent past bombed busses, cafes, shopping malls, and super markets. Same for other extremist groups/individuals in other regions of the world which is not in any way, shape, or form related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (Just using that as an example, in other words).

well i guess i am interested in hearing what i want to hear and discussing things from my angle... but no more than anybody else on ish yourself included. in fact those two things pretty much describe not just everybody on ish but everybody in the world. so no shame there man :) no offense taken either, i just toss the neutral remarks right back at you. maybe i do seem hollow and forced when i say terrorists should go to jail... its up to you to decide for yourself if im genuine or playing devils advocate or totally uneducated on the matter or trying to be 'fair and balanced'. all i can do is tell you what i think.


but i have to say my friend, you just aren't reading carefully.

the article does not state that hamas/hezballah attacks are only against uniformed officers. the author very clearly states that "some actions that do not qualify as terrorist attacks are labeled as such"; examples being attacks on uniformed on-duty idf soldiers. this fact reinforces the entire thesis which is that people don't understand what terrorism is.

that was not a big mistake you made, misreading the author's views. certainly not enough for me to altogether shoot down your personal credibility (as in, i'll still read your posts, both of us being spurs fans)... but as soon as you thought you saw an easy empirical error, you went so far as to say that single mistake shoots down all credibility of the author.

you see where i'm headed with this i hope. read carefully, interpret charitably.



two more sentences you wrote which i don't think qualify as valid extrapolations of the essay

Simply saying "terrorists aren't actually terrorists" is not enough; there needs to be a concise explanation of why attacking, say, a shopping mall full of civilians is a justified action of war or political activism.

you'll have to point me in the direction of where he makes the first claim or even implies it. the entire thing is about defining terrorism or terrorist... unless you're retarded, you don't define a word by saying it isn't actually the same as that word (ie. the definition of terrorists is that terrorists aren't really terrorists). so i don't know what you mean here.

as for the second part, nowhere does he reject the notion that attacking a shopping mall full of civilians is an act of terrorism, not does he suggest it could be a justified action of war or a form of political activism.** again if you would like to quote the section of the article from which you inferred this, i'd be interested.


**technically it could be a form of political activism which covers just about anything you do with intended political consequences, including blowing up a mall

[RidonKs]

blrrmp