(this is for those who haven't thought over it yet)

you hear it everywhere. the word terrorism is used by politicians from russia to usa. it's an evil we have to fight, because it's attacking us from all angles outside our borders (...chechnia's from the inside).

but let's stop for a minute. terrorism isn't something new. it has been around for decades. that means that this isn't really the century of terrorism, even though it's common to look at it that way.

look it up. check your history books. in latin america, in europe, and elsewhere.. the way west germany had to deal with terror actions from east germany. in spain they have had to deal with ETA since the 70s or so.

actually the statistics read that terrorism has declined in the last decades. there were a much higher number of acts of terror before the 90s than after the 90s and today. it is just that certain politicians have, through the media, made the public believe that there is much more terror now than never before.

so while it seems that we are flooded by acts of terror, in reality the terror worldwide has been on a decline.. just compare today's number of acts of terror with earlier times. but here we are being lead to believe that it has exploded in the past years. and so it won't sound any strange when they decide to go to war on it in order to (as they say:) stop it.

dumbening, isnt it

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

but then you have the type of terrorists who fight for their freedom.
what if it was yours?

(i'm saying that to put things in perspective.)

that was the biggest and the deadliest attack from outside on the most powerful country in the world

but have we seen any attacks like that since?
not saying Bush went out against a non-existant enemy called terrorism. i'm saying he went out against a small enemy he blew up way out of its proportions. turning it into something very different. now he's at war with it.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

it's the only war declared by a president against an individual/group and not a state.
here we have a state against an enemy without government and borders.
similar to the war on drugs theory.

my definition of terrorists:
those who promote their ideology or struggle through violent/deadly means which target not only the military, organizations, governments, but also civilians.

and at times it seems like a war against a religion, or against something as vague as the islamic way of life. the war that followed after 9/11 did bring an unusual amount of God/Allah into it.

and it was first of all bush that made it into a religious war. osama bin laden (going back to the beginning of this war) said himself that the agenda of al qaeda was to make USA back out of the middle east. not necessarily to promote islam and to end american freedom. (unless that means america's freedom to have a presence in the middle east, of course.)

but when bush responded to 9/11 he responded to "islamic terrorists" and announced that God was on USAs side. and Allah (arabic for god, for those who don't know) ironically became the devil, being the god of the enemy and all.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

There have been some very religious tones and positions injected into the terrorism debates. The fact is the US (due particularly to 9/11) has been dragged into the world arena, as it relates to terrorism. There is one underlying fact of terrorism and it's relation to religion and that is terrorism itself is evil while religion (from most points of view) is not. Simply religions seek for the most part to achieve a moral, pure and righteous existence.

The problem arises when terrorism is used as a tool of EXTREMIST religious groups to force, their own warped sense of a moral, pure and righteous existences, on the world. I have a cousin who grew up in England and had a kid in school with him who was a devout Muslim didn't bother anyone and was relatively normal. One day a classmate said something about this kids faith, and without hesitation the kid turned around and stabbed the other classmate with a pencil.

The point I am trying to make is, it is impossible to understand any form of religious extremist, and also it is important to separate the extremist from the non-extremists. There are many followers of Islam living in this very country that are appalled at the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam. That said there are Christians in this country who are appalled at the atrocities being perpetrated by Bush in the name of their God. Christian extremists also exist. Whether or not they should be head of state is a question that will be answered in November.

Common came out with a song a few years back that always comes to mind when I think about religious choices, freedoms and beliefs. The title is G.O.D. (Gaining One's Definition), and what I feel is the most important line in his rhyme is "Who am I or they to say to whom you pray ain't right". The problems with our world today is Bush doesn't agree with this statement and neither do the Islamic extremist. Looking back on my cousin's story about his classmate, I realize that we will never understand WHY.

and the whole part before that line is really the best part of the song. heh, perhaps common would have added a line about how we should also seperate between the extremist and the average believer, if he wrote it today..

>The problem arises when terrorism is used as a tool of
>EXTREMIST religious groups to force, their own warped sense
>of a moral, pure and righteous existences, on the world.

yep. the taliban was a prime example of an extremist group, who also treated their country severely. i remember before 9/11 that people on here were talking about the problems in afghanistan, and all those fleeing the country.

but do you think that 9/11 was an extremist religious act with the purpose of forcing al quaeda's own warped sense of moral onto USA? (i guess you don't, and that you just talked about religious extremists in general.)

...i'm not so sure about that. to illustrate it: if there was an extremist religious agenda behind the attack on USA, they'd fly the planes into a cathedral instead. (i know... it's possible to say that the twin towers were the cathedral of capitalism. but then, capitalism isn't really a religion ...at least not to most of us!)

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

>my definition of terrorists:
>those who promote their ideology or struggle through
>violent/deadly means which target not only the military,
>organizations, governments, but also civilians.

sound like the American government is the terrorist!

>it's the only war declared by a president against an
>individual/group and not a state.
>here we have a state against an enemy without government and
>borders.
>similar to the war on drugs theory.

These wars against mentalities (terrorism, poverty, and drug addiction) have been largely unsuccessful. They're open mandates because there is no way to truly eradicate any of them. The problems with the wars on terror and drugs is that they're focused on destroying the people that supply terror and drugs, rather than eliminating the demand for either.

I guess progress is more definable when you can say X number of people have been killed or arrested, but like our system of capitalism teaches, where there's a demand in a free society there will always be an enterprising supplier.

Unfortunately treating demand is usually much more expensive and labor intensive. But if actual progress is wanted, this is the route policy will have to go.

the problem really is it's the ONLY one.

like BAM !

"Hey Y'all are part of the world too.."

>"Hey Y'all are part of the world too.."

hehe exactly...

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

really.

"They hate us cause we're free and cute."

yeah right..

you're on the route to being labeled an anti-american AKA a terrorist (or just "them")

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

!
>
>"Hey Y'all are part of the world too.."

n/m

Even if I am critical of this administration
American international relations
Even if I considered that this is the worst executive Ever

I can not accept the idea that this supposed to happen, someone from inside manipulate it
whatever

It's just too evil to believe that bush and his hawks let it happen.
n/m

you can't ignore the evidence simply because you find it hard to believe that individuals within the government would perpetrate such an event

are praised when they're used for the "good cause".

guess you mean not specifically by flying planes into buildings, but more like bombing civilian areas.

they declared war on terrorists, and ironically made the lines between terrorism and war go away. definitions got mixed up and shit.


░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

"How can we hurt them really bad without having neither the money nor the weapons to go at it openly ?"

so yeah Plane into a building.
Bomb into a trashcan.
Athletes taken hostage.
Bombs in trains.


Cheaper than any war.
and it hurt real bad.


But guess what were the method used by the various anti-Nazi movements in Europe during the Nazi occupation ?


it's really about the cause.

i think all countries have proud events in their history that can easily be labeled terrorism today.

take mine for example:
during WWII, the brave young men of the norwegian civil army planted a bomb in the nazi headquarters in oslo. they blew up the whole damn thing, killing many. you can find it right under the chapter "bravery" in the history books.

and i must admit that i view it as an heroic act of defiance against the occupying force. of course.. naturally.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

tools have no morals.

that show that worldwide terror attacks have declined now, then in the past, such as early 90s and 70s and 80s? I was just wondering what the source of that information is. Is there a group that monitors the frequency and severity of worldwide terror activity around the globe? Just curious ......

but have lost it. saw it being referred to on the net some days ago.. when i find it, i'll post the link.

actually what sparked this post was the political editor of a norwegian newspaper, who in a TV debate pointed out how the worldwide fight against terrorism is taking place now although there has been terrorism going on for ages. (and he mentioned acts of terror to west germany as an example.)

is ridiculously low.

Especially since the end of the cold war.

Severity ?
hmmmm..

I dunno.

But i'm sure 2001 was a HIGH year.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/373317.jpg
http://www.state.gov/www/images/chart70.gif (this one goes back to '77)

....and concerning the increase in terrorist attacks in 1999:
"The number of persons killed or wounded in international terrorist attacks during 1999 fell sharply because of the absence of any attack causing mass casualties. In 1999, 233 persons were killed and 706 were wounded, as compared with 741 persons killed and 5,952 wounded in 1998.

The number of terrorist attacks rose, however. During 1999, 392 international terrorist attacks occurred, up 43 percent from the 274 attacks recorded the previous year. The number of attacks increased in every region of the world except in the Middle East, where six fewer attacks occurred.

There are several reasons for the increase:

* In Europe individuals mounted dozens of attacks to protest the NATO bombing campaign in Serbia and the Turkish authorities' capture of Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan.

* In addition, radical youth gangs in Nigeria abducted and held for ransom more than three dozen foreign oil workers. The gangs held most of the hostages for a few days before releasing them unharmed."

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1999report/review.html

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

http://www.state.gov/cms_images/appg1.jpg

because if you look carefully ... the terrorism rates were very high in 2000, dropped slightly in 2001 ... and then made a VERY significant drop in 2002 and 2003, actually to the lowest rates that have occured in OVER 20 years .... so couldnt this be used as ammo for the fact that the war on terror is actually working?

Just wondering ...

everytime the world has had a very high year in terror, it then declines drastically in the following years. Terrorist are very smart, they take their breaks, let the world get comfortable again and then they strike again. Yes, right now lots of attention is being paid to terrorism maybe more than ever because of 9/11. After such a huge attack Terrorist are going to take a break, they have to. But us being the way we are here in the states we will not stay on our toes for that much longer nor will we play world police forever. People get tired of being on alert all the time and us spending all this money to play world police when we have lots of problems to solve in our own country.

you see a steady decrease
and i'd also lay low after 9/11 if i were a terrorist ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/

2002 and 2003 figures did NOT drop ...

i tried to search for the corrected figures to no avail .... do you know where I could find the corrected graph along with the corrected report? .....

thanks

i can confirm that the statistics i posted are the correct ones.

so this is interesting, cause you have been misled by the CNN article..!
i already knew about this miscalculation deal, as i read about it yesterday . what this article does that the CNN article doesn't is explain to what extent the statistic were wrong. (probably because it was published at a later date, when the correct numbers had been published.) it says exactly how much the numbers increased. the CNN article just tells you that instead of a -decrease- there was an -increase-. an important message for them to send across, but it is a very simplified version, and a misleading one unless you really study the facts. (average joe doesn't.)

if you look at the article i linked to above, the increase was by only 3 attacks. from 205 to 208 (instead of 198 as was the number in the incorrect report). you can check the graph that i linked to, it shows the corrected & updated number for 2003.

there is another side of this issue: the number of people killed in the attacks. the stats were also incorrect on that aspect before being corrected. instead of 307 there were 625 people killed. but! that number is still less than in 2002, when 725 people were killed.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

so this sentance from the CNN article is a misleading overstatement: 'In fact, he told reporters, the corrected report will show "a sharp increase over the previous year."'
the increase wasn't sharp at all. only 3 more attacks, and with less people killed.

man, i didn't know it would be so entertaining to do this sort of research!

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

When people cant even agree on a definition of terrorism?

and the definition gets changed alot to suit all kinds of needs.

but the statistics i linked to have followed the same definition since the 70s.. they even constantly update the numbers from previous years if more info on various incidents pops up, so that the stats only include what can be labeled terrorism according to their definition. it says so below the graph..

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

in the short term, anyway

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

"Of the roughly 2,929 terrorism-related deaths around the world since the attacks on New York and Washington, the NBC News analysis shows 58 percent of them — 1,709 — have occurred this year."

part of my point with this thread is to show that over time (say, if you ignore the giant peak in 2001), terrorism is on a decline. so any short term change is irrelevant.

besides, it has been on a decline. check #42.
and even if the number of acts of terror or the number of people killed by these incidents do increase, you need to take into consideration that USA is actively leading a war against terrorism. they declared islamic terrorists as the enemy and islamic countries as possible enemies. if that doesn't make you a target for terror, i dunno what will.

regarding that article: do you trust the official yearly report of the counterterrorism office of the US state of department, or do you trust an MSNBC journalist's report presented with no data, no background facts?

this smells like propaganda/misleading of the public in action!
my guess is this: they ended up with different stats than those of the bush administration because they operate with a different definition of terrorism. see, the US department of state has excluded all attacks on US military from the stats. logically, because those are actions of war. after all, they declared war on terrorists, and can't derive from that declaration. from the 2003 report:

"Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding U.S. definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, U.S. and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged to be terrorist attacks."
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm

terrorism is commonly defined as attacks on civilians, and definitely not wartime attacks. the NBC journalist operates with a whole other definition of terrorism, which goes against the official definition of the bush administration. that MSNBC article is propaganda - misleading the public with manipulated facts - and unfortunately most people will digest it raw.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

and eloquently put .... i cant dispute some well written stuff like that .....

Anyone who think terrorist is new is overlooking the fact that one of the most influential moments in our nations history, The Boston Tea Party, was a terrorist act.

You could also argue that the first biological attack was the settlers giving smallbox infected blankets to Native Americans.

Terrorism: the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

In other words, it's not a recent phenomenom.

n/m

or bad eastern bloc foreign policy in the cases of terrorism against russia. take your pick.

'nuff said

terror comes from rap music. ask johny taliban
or maybe it terrorism origins in heavy sarcasm
who knows? do you know?
do you trust liars? the media?
do you want to know? or do you want to be told?

yeah. when i look at the counterterrorist policy i see no insight into or focus on the underlying reasons for terrorism. instead they say: "nevermind what causes it, let's just counter it by treating it as the brutal evil it is." but by doing that they are fighting evil with evil. (see the "pursue them aggressively" below.)

and then you have the case of george w bush on top of it all, where they're not just saying "let's counter it" - they take it as far as setting out to stop it through war.

this is from the 96 report though:
"The counterterrorist policy of the United States stresses three general rules:
* First, make no deals with terrorists and do not submit to blackmail.
* Second, treat terrorists as criminals, pursue them aggressively, and apply the rule of law.
* Third, apply maximum pressure on states that sponsor and support terrorists by imposing economic, diplomatic, and political sanctions and by urging other states to do likewise."
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1996Report/1996index.html

take a look at the last rule, "maximum pressure on states that sponsor and support terrorists". when and to whom to apply "maximum pressure" is something that without too much trickery can be stretched and tweaked to suit any given situation. just like we know from history: what may be a terrorist in one scenario can easily have been a friend in another.

i'm afraid it's the use of policies like the third rule that has caused an increase in terrorism against USA.
ironically it comes from the office of counterterrorism.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

does not work retroactively. The IRA blew up stuff all over the UK with funding coming out of the US.

The UK government is killing Iraqi 'terrorists', but letting Irish people who blew up out country out of Jail. Rule of Law my arse. Some of these people barely served time, for murder.

if so .... how come the number of total terrorist actions have decreased since bush has taken office, to the lowest level in almost 20 years? Because most people on this board would state that the bush administration has done a terrible job with foreign policy. So if terrorism is directly linked to foreign policy, then how come we arent having more terrorist incidents?? Another plausible explanation is that maybe the long term effects within Bush's foreign policy initiatives have not yet caught up with us? What do yall think?

.....

you best believe the Roman Empire had to deal with terrorism.

PETA, environmentalists, etc. Also you got wackos bombing laboratories that test on animals, you got wackos bombing abortion clinics. Then you got the Pleasure Police running around screaming that seven million people die every year due to secondhand smoke (please). All of that is terrorism, domestic terrorism, and in my opinion it's more dangerous to our culture than anything the middle east can do.

GOD HELP THE MIAMI DOLPHINS

The Fellowship of the Fins:
absence, Al_Tru_Ist, BreezeBoogie, dank_reggae, Drewmathic, Ir_Cuba, LML, MIAthinker, Robert, Roofdogg10, Sandbox194, wonderl33t, xenophobia

it's not like some guy just thinks "my children are hungry, my wife is sick, and the Enemy is invading my country. I've got it, I'll become a suicide bomber." It's not like suicide bombing is a result of poverty or having no other option.

It's the result of brainwashing.

or an iraqi who opposes the invation of his country? there is a difference there: the iraqi man does what people in that situation have done throughout history.

not all terrorism is suicide bombing either.

but you mentioned brainwashing... isn't the US military like any military one of the largest brainwashing camps in function? how soldiers are drilled for hostile situations, how some soldiers listen to "burn motherfucker burn" while killing, how they have an extremly narrow-minded image of the enemy.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

>or an iraqi who opposes the invation of his country? there
>is a difference there: the iraqi man does what people in
>that situation have done throughout history.
>

The Iraqi attacks are from "extremists," not the average citizen. Suicide bombing is NOT a natural response to anything. It is the product of brainwashing.

The US Military? Well the US military is much better equipped than anyone else and they don't ask the soldiers to go into certain death. It's just standard warfare

but suicide bombing? come on, THINK of the brainwashing you'd need to do to get someone to suicide bomb

>The Iraqi attacks are from "extremists," not the average >citizen.

How do you know?

>The US Military? Well the US military is much better equipped >than anyone else and they don't ask the soldiers to go into >certain death. It's just standard warfare

They are better equipped, so they dont need to do suicide bombings to make their point. They have massive firepower instead. In itself, at least a suicide bomber has more bravery than a helicopter pilot killing his enemies from afar. I dont have a problem with the methods of suicide bombers, just their targets.

>but suicide bombing? come on, THINK of the brainwashing you'd >need to do to get someone to suicide bomb

Think of the brainwashing it would take to open fire on a crowd of civilians just to destroy a tank. When they were training soldiers for this war, they used dummies with towels on their heads, in an effort to mimick arabs.

>Think of the brainwashing it would take to open fire on a
>crowd of civilians just to destroy a tank. When they were
>training soldiers for this war, they used dummies with
>towels on their heads, in an effort to mimick arabs.
>

thats what im talking about

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

they weren't kidnapped, were they ?

japanese kamikaze pilots weren't motivated by poverty and despair

they were motivated by political group pressure and belief in gaining some reward

it's the same thing

one of the camps had children training. there's clearly indoctrination going on

the Palestinians happen to be poor, but that is not the cause of suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is a weapon used by one side in a war... it's like if the Palestinians were using nuclear weapons, and people started saying "as long as people are poor and in despair they will use nuclear weapons." Seems silly to think of it as an organic product of the situation

I say that yeah there's the notion of reward in their culture..
BUT.

Despair, hopelessness are also a motivation.
And pure anger too.


Plus. They're fighting an enemy who's better equiped so they know they can't win in a "regular war".

Just like Russian against the Nazis in WW2, they fought with what they had..

Like Tony Blair's wife said on the news "I suppose as long as there is poverty and starvation in the world, people will blow themselves up". it seems like big misconception to me. It's a particular weapon that probably CAN be stopped, by destroying the system that makes them. What I'm saying is... TERRORISM is a relatively organic product of the situation, but not suicide bombing.

>I say that yeah there's the notion of reward in their
>culture..
>BUT.
>
>Despair, hopelessness are also a motivation.
>And pure anger too.

No doubt the militants will capitalize on whatever feelings the local population have. But people talk as if that is that is the SOLE motivation, it might be because

hopeless, despairing people commit suicide
so they assume it must be hopeless, despairing people who commit suicide bombing

but lots of reports I've read suggest the suicide bombers had families to live for.

Maybe you've got a point though with the "black widow" bombers

>
>
>Plus. They're fighting an enemy who's better equiped so they
>know they can't win in a "regular war".
>

That's what I'm saying... it's a tool of warfare, like Kamikaze.

>Just like Russian against the Nazis in WW2, they fought with
>what they had..

but still no one "has to" blow themselves up. The Russian fighting was desperate but it wasn't deliberately suicidal

>It's a particular weapon that probably CAN be stopped, by
>destroying the system that makes them. What I'm saying is...
>TERRORISM is a relatively organic product of the situation,
>but not suicide bombing.

Well...
Probably.

> hopeless, despairing people commit suicide
>so they assume it must be hopeless, despairing people who
>commit suicide bombing
>but lots of reports I've read suggest the suicide bombers
>had families to live for.

yeah many had families to live for.

Sometimes they have family members who died or directly suffered from oppression. So it's revenge. Remember most of them are what ? 20 years old ?

And then. Let's not forget that the family of a Kamikaze is often token care of..


>but still no one "has to" blow themselves up. The Russian
>fighting was desperate but it wasn't deliberately suicidal

Oh yeah ?
Then no you're wrong.

- There were the assaults in which 1 out of 2 men had a weapon. The other one just run towards is death.
- WW1: for 6 months. Every morning, Russian Troops assaulted the Prussians AT THE SAME EXACT HOUR.
300 guys deep. Never any survivor.
The ones that decided to go back to the Russian camp were executed. How is that NOT SUICIDE ???
- and yes there was random bombing in occupied parts of USSR
- and yes some people did things as crazy as attacking a SS Colonel with a sword. the goal was to kill him EVEN if they knew they had to die.



Like I say.

They fight with what they have.

>Oh yeah ?
>Then no you're wrong.
>
>- There were the assaults in which 1 out of 2 men had a
>weapon. The other one just run towards is death.

I know... I was thinking of an interview I saw that said "we had to fight like mad men" but that's different from meticulously planning a suicide attack.

>- WW1: for 6 months. Every morning, Russian Troops assaulted
>the Prussians AT THE SAME EXACT HOUR.
>300 guys deep. Never any survivor.
>The ones that decided to go back to the Russian camp were
>executed. How is that NOT SUICIDE ???

But how different is that from what the British and French were doing? They were even worse equiped but the goal was still to overwhelm the enemy even though they knew there'd be massive losses. Right?

>- and yes there was random bombing in occupied parts of USSR

what do you mean?

>- and yes some people did things as crazy as attacking a SS
>Colonel with a sword. the goal was to kill him EVEN if they
>knew they had to die.
>

Hmm.... but there's still a key difference: those are attacks on military targets.

in the last 100 years or so, we went from:

90% of tha war victims are from the military and 10% are civilians
to
10% military, 90% civilian.

I blame the progress of transportation.

japanese kamikaze pilots weren't motivated by poverty and despair
they were motivated by political group pressure and belief in gaining some reward

it's the same thing

they do it because they are pissed off. They use that method because they are poor, and it is the most effective means open to them.

> there's clearly indoctrination going on

Hello?? The pledge of allegiance. The sway in public opinion over Iraq as soon as the soldiers went over? The belief that America is the best and is right? This isnt indoctrination??

>it's like if the Palestinians were using nuclear weapons, and >people started saying "as long as people are poor and in >despair they will use nuclear weapons." Seems silly to think of >it as an organic product of the situation

No, because if they had nukes, they would be rich.

>they do it because they are pissed off.\

NO. It is not normal for a member of a family to up and strap explosives to themself and suicide bomb a civillian shopping mall. They do it because there's an organized militant program indoctrinating them then ordering the attack.

They use that method
>because they are poor, and it is the most effective means
>open to them.
>

so what about all the other wars where they don't do suicide bombing on civillian targets?


>> there's clearly indoctrination going on
>
>Hello?? The pledge of allegiance. The sway in public opinion
>over Iraq as soon as the soldiers went over? The belief that
>America is the best and is right? This isnt indoctrination??
>

*sigh* You know not everything revolves around America being hypocritical

The US Army isn't going to brainwash anyone into carrying out a suicide bombing. Wouldn't you say there's rather a lot of difference between the "our side good, their side bad" mentality and the "kill Jews become martyr" indoctrination?

>>it's like if the Palestinians were using nuclear weapons, and >people started saying "as long as people are poor and in >despair they will use nuclear weapons." Seems silly to think of >it as an organic product of the situation
>
>No, because if they had nukes, they would be rich.

like the Russians and the Chinese

>NO. It is not normal for a member of a family to up and strap >explosives to themself and suicide bomb a civillian shopping >mall. They do it because there's an organized militant program >indoctrinating them then ordering the attack.

Ok, first of by normal, do you mean conforming to your moral/cultural ideals? In which case no, its not normal. I agree that there are people encouraging them to do stuff. But they dont need indoctrinating, they already think those things.

>so what about all the other wars where they don't do suicide >bombing on civillian targets?

The wars where they have armies?? The well, then it is about who has the bigger army usually. Guerilla tactics are the tactics that work. And generally when terrorists start attacking civilians, sooner or later they get their way to an extent. See S.Africa.

>*sigh* You know not everything revolves around America being >hypocritical

No, but its fun to always bring it up. Look for the forest in your own eye before taking the splinter out of your neighbours and all that.

>The US Army isn't going to brainwash anyone into carrying out a >suicide bombing. Wouldn't you say there's rather a lot of >difference between the "our side good, their side bad" >mentality and the "kill Jews become martyr" indoctrination?

Ok, for a start, if you can indoctrinate someone to drop a nuclear bomb, and not feel bad about it even fifty years later, that is some good brainwashing, no matter what the global situation was. And are you telling me there isnt a "kill towelheads solve terrorism" mentality in the US army? Like I said, I read some interviews with conscientious objectors, who said they first started having problems with what they were being asked to do in the combat training where they were made to stab dolls made up as arabs...

>>it's like if the Palestinians were using nuclear weapons, and >people started saying "as long as people are poor and in >despair they will use nuclear weapons." Seems silly to think of >it as an organic product of the situation
>
>No, because if they had nukes, they would be rich.

>like the Russians and the Chinese

Whats your point?

>>NO. It is not normal for a member of a family to up and strap >explosives to themself and suicide bomb a civillian shopping >mall. They do it because there's an organized militant program >indoctrinating them then ordering the attack.
>
>Ok, first of by normal, do you mean conforming to your
>moral/cultural ideals? In which case no, its not normal. I
>agree that there are people encouraging them to do stuff.
>But they dont need indoctrinating, they already think those
>things.

I'm talking about normal human existence. I'm alarmed that so few people seem to see the perversity of suicide bombings


>>The US Army isn't going to brainwash anyone into carrying out a >suicide bombing. Wouldn't you say there's rather a lot of >difference between the "our side good, their side bad" >mentality and the "kill Jews become martyr" indoctrination?
>
>Ok, for a start, if you can indoctrinate someone to drop a
>nuclear bomb, and not feel bad about it even fifty years
>later, that is some good brainwashing, no matter what the
>global situation was. And are you telling me there isnt a
>"kill towelheads solve terrorism" mentality in the US army?
>Like I said, I read some interviews with conscientious
>objectors, who said they first started having problems with
>what they were being asked to do in the combat training
>where they were made to stab dolls made up as arabs...
>

But even so, that sort of indoctrination TO THE INDIVIDUAL is nothing like convincing someone to do a suicide bombing.

>>>it's like if the Palestinians were using nuclear weapons, and >people started saying "as long as people are poor and in >despair they will use nuclear weapons." Seems silly to think of >it as an organic product of the situation
>>
>>No, because if they had nukes, they would be rich.
>
>>like the Russians and the Chinese
>
>Whats your point?

I don't think this point is really worth discussing

>I'm talking about normal human existence. I'm alarmed that so >few people seem to see the perversity of suicide bombings

I see the perversity. A lot of human existence is perverse. Like I said before, its not the act of suicide bombing that I find problematic, its the context. If these people were blowing up legitimate military or even some political targets, I wouldnt mind, its the fact they target civilians that bothers me.

>But even so, that sort of indoctrination TO THE INDIVIDUAL is >nothing like convincing someone to do a suicide bombing.

I straight disagree. Convincing a person to drop one bomb to kill 200,000 plus people, in the absolute certainty they are doing the right thing is the same indoctrination.

>mentality and the "kill Jews become martyr" indoctrination?

naw, it's not that simple. you could instead have said "kill the oppressor and murderer of my people". i think that is more where it's at.

somewhere else you said something about the perversion of suicide bombing.. and of course i see the perversion of it. but that is exactly my point. for the indoctrination (the activities/movements in palestinian society encouraging suicide bombings) to take place in a broken down, torn and oppressed nation, without a military, they must be desperate.

░▒▓█▌¹♥▐█▓▒░

War is nothing but a campaign / Freedom is nothing but a brand name
-Promoe

The Impossible attracts me, because everything possible has been done and the world didn’t change.
-Sun Ra

if white people stopped fucking with everyone... then...