Understanding terrorism

[jaguar]

just because they're all probably islamic extremists doesn't mean they're all working towards the same goal or even the same direction. The egyptians might be trying the that old idea that if you cause the government to crack down hard enough, the people rise up or just hoping to kill israeli tourists, the british ones were probably just angry, the Iraqi ones want different things depending on which of the 100 odd groups you want to mention, the Indonesian ones seem to want a pan islamic state, or indpendence, or the government to fuck off or something, the Thai ones want independence from Thailand and the government to stop killing them, the Pakistani ones want the taliban back and to generally break out the oldschool fire and brimstone stuff on infidels, the indian ones want to kill hindus over disputed religious sites and shit, that's just off the top of my head.

[richlevy]

BTW, let's not forget the IRA, Basque, and miscellaneous Marxist and seperatist terror groups.

London in the 1980's endured a wave of IRA bombings. The main difference is that, while fanatical, the IRA did not recruit suicide bombers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by jaguar

... many muslims today are very tempted by the sexual freedoms and other freedoms of and living in the west. His example was a turkish student that studied over here and slept with is girlfriend but then got mummy to find him a nice turkish virgin to marry when he went home. ... The unhappy one is when the desire leads to self-loathing and guilt, and a spell in an old-school pakistani madrasa doesn't hurt here. The person ends up wanting to punish the society they percieve as having led them astray as well as destroy themselves.

This is similar to a 'progression' described by The Economist. Having gone through 'unholy' freedoms and then suddenly reversed - becoming an excessively devote muslim - the man is then ready for the next step. Seeking a destructive mission in life. Only but a few find a godfather type that would make them truly dangerous. But the story is classic of a minority - the lost soul looking for himself in religion.

Again, what makes this so difficult for law enforcement is that terrrorist groups do not do the recruiting. Future terrorists recruit themselves having discovered that religion must be imposed on the infidels. These people who could not handle life suddenly know what is better for everyone else. Religion doing even what the Catholic Church did - promote hate.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

But you didn't answer the question. Why do YOU hate people? Not why do you hate religion. It's easy to hate religion. It's easy to generalize--you spank cellarites and say they are generalizing the beliefs of the muslims but then you go and generalize Catholics, right-wingers, etc. You do the very thing you say you despise.

Where do I ever post a single hatred of people? For that matter, where do I post a hate for religion? I post criticism of religion that is not blunt enough. Religion that becomes more than a relationship between a man and his god is satanism - turning to the dark side - classic vampire propaganda - etc. But there is no hate there. Stated is what is best for religion. To come to grips with why they are the source of problems - be it stifling of stem cell research, the reason for suicide bombs on commuter trains, or the Spanish Inquisition. These are examples of religion gone bad.

I answered your question. A strong rebuking of those who post insults and never post supporting facts - in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh - is what I believe you have mistaken for hate. People are great - especially when not brainwashed using Rush Limbaugh logic: people who just know and need not know why they know.

Religion that goes beyond its boundaries - a relationship between a man and his god - also turns good people bad. It is not a hatred of people. It is a spanking of the institutions that want to turn good people against one another - for self serving agendas.

So where specifically is this example of 'people hate'? I don't see it. I did anwer your question. I defined, for example, why good people turn bad. Religion with a political agenda being a perfect example. An understanding who and what terrorists really are is also important. Others such as George Jr would promote hate rather than understand that he promotes hate with the Pearl Harboring of Iraq. That he - like religion - knows what is better for those people? What George Jr advocates is hatred of people - imposing George Jr's beliefs on a region as if only George Jr knows what is good for them. Sounds much like another failed institution - Imperialism.

Hatred of muslims principles is not a solution, as the George Jr administration implies. After all, they are infidels and therefore can be tortured? They don't even deserve fundamental human rights because they are in Guantanamo? That is bull. But that is an example of the hatred promoted by George Jr and his fundamentalist friends who find Guantanamo to be a good thing. Where does accurate ciriticism of myopic American government extremists, or of religious extremists constitute a hatred of people? That's like saying I hate people because I speak out against Nazism.

Meanwhile, do you see me protecting pedophiles. Banning "Voices of the Faithful" only because they are demanding reform? Do you see me imposing my religious beliefs on others? Where have I generalized all muslims? I defined some types of muslims and a religion that has remained in denial as to what they were creating. These different types of muslim that George Jr always calls Al Qaeda. I have defined both terrorist or insurgent that meet different criteria. A common factor (and not in every case) is some silly belief that religion - a spirital concept - should dominate and be imposed upon a pragmatic world. Just as a Catholic Church taught me to hate Jews because of what happened to Jesus. For being so critical of the Catholic Church, now I must hate people?

I have no idea what you are asking because I did answer your question AND because you don't provide specific examples. What (as best I can tell) is called a hatred of people is, instead, a pointed criticism of the institutions (and president) who would promote hate among people. If Christian fundamentalist were so loving, then there would be massive demonstrations by Christian fundamentalists against Guantanamo and those who created Abu Ghraid. Instead these 'so called' righteous people find Guantanamo to be a good thing. Is that a hatred of Christian fundamantalists. No. It is a damning example of why they have let themselves be decieved. Why their need to imposed their religious beliefs on this nation are also dangerous. They would even tacitally support torture because those in Guantanamo must be terrorists? It goes right back to the original question of what really is a terrorist. Clearly not Al Qaeda as promoted by our government.

So how does that criticism of our president and government constitute a hatred of people? It does get Lookout123 to only post insults in reply. Why does Lookout123 then not get accused of hating people since he will post something that is nothing but one big personal insult - AND not even justify his insults?

[jaguar]

richlevy - and the IRA had demands and usually telephoned first.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I wouldn't -- and don't -- quibble about what the Gitmo guys are getting or not getting, be it the third degree twice before supper or steamed chicken for it. Whether they are in the precise letter of the law prisoners of war or not, they are getting POW treatment, and that is enough. There is no point in calling for any other sort of treatment except in the furtherance of an ulterior motive to lose America the war.

As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.

[jaguar]

when you manage the considerable task of extracting your cranium from your anus, please aim for the door you malignant moron.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by richlevy

London in the 1980's endured a wave of IRA bombings. The main difference is that, while fanatical, the IRA did not recruit suicide bombers.

Wasn't one of the hallmarks of an IRA bombing that they gave notice that it would occur ... minimum casualties, maximum political statement?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.

You're not married or seeing anyone, are you?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.

I assume that you are putting your money where your ass is and will (hopefully) be leaving soon for your third tour in the war we are winning in Iraq?

[Undertoad]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

Background of one of the 7/7 bombers.

ON his last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the July 7 London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, spoke of wanting to die in a terrorist attack to avenge the way Muslims were treated.

While his family in Britain had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a "holy warrior".

At his father's home village, about 50km from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.

His worst venom went to Gitmo... actually, the Newsweek "un-story":

Mr Saleem said Tanweer had spent only a short time at the village before going with Khan to a madrassa, an Islamic school.

"Whenever he would listen about sufferings of Muslims he would become very emotional and sentimental," Mr Saleem said.

"He was a good Muslim ... he also wished to take part in jihad and lay down his life."

He said Tanweer had never mentioned links with any militant group.

"He knew that excesses are being done to Muslims. Incidents like desecration of the Koran have always been in his mind," Mr Saleem said, referring to US guards at Guantanamo allegedly throwing a copy of Islam's holy book in a toilet.

[Trilby]

I want to reply to tw's latest post, but I simply do not know where to begin. I keep typing sentences and then deleting them. tw-I was brought up Catholic and I wasn't taught to hate the Jews nor was I molested. Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization. You constantly pick and dwell on the negative of certain societies and ignore the negatives of others. You pick and choose your examples and declare them representative of the whole. For you the world seems to be split: good or bad, nothing in between. You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot. Christians, like muslims, are individuals. If you want me to consider individual muslims, you must consider individual right-wing christians. You appear to fuck your own cause by being the very thing you point your finger at in disgust. You've an agenda, like the right-wing christians, like the muslims, like the terrorists, like everyone. You'll not convince me of your brotherly love--you clearly have a "side" to win. You want me to feel sympathy and understanding for people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up children? While I would agree that people who resort to such things must be very desperate or very gullible, I don't wish to attempt to excuse those people. You want to blow me up for policies my government--whom I did not choose--enforces? Why don't they try blowing up the people who REALLY make the decisions? Because they are cowards. COWARDS!

[wolf]

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Brianna

......nor was I molested.

Yes you were, granted not by a priest but another person of power, authority, in an organization structured to teach you. And he did it so slickly you thought it was your ballgame. That's the danger.

Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization.

Agreed.
Birds of a feather and all that, means people with similar feelings will drift together. That's fine, to seek out a group that agrees with your views. It's when people don't think and simply accept the views that are being promoted by the group that happenstance puts them in. Children are particularly susceptible when parents tell they aren't allowed to question, as is often the case with religion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot.

It explains why you don't understand what I have posted. I don't champion anyone - not even Muslims. To put it in terms of what you are looking for - I hate everyone with equal opportunity. One problem. I will post incendiary words so that when you see an emotional opinion, then you are only lying to yourself. There is no 'muslim world' as you have described. At least not in anything I have posted. There are 3 or 3 million factions. I champion none of them. Instead I ask some damning questions and state some contrarian facts - and for you - not so nicely so that you will ignore any emotion you might perceive. The only thing you should read are the facts. Any emotion you perceive is your own bias - which I encourage by sometimes selecting incendiary words. Stick to the facts. Emotions, if implied, are included so that your will make mistakes - and then have to accept you read looking for an emotional bias.

Most Muslims are not fanatical nor are they that religious. They are not disenfranchised. Furthermore I never once cited all Muslims in any paragraph. If at any time you did not repeatedly see discussions of unique subsets, then you have read out of context. I was discussing a few Muslims, Catholics, or Jews, or the institutions that tell them what they should do. If you think for a minute that I have posted with a broad brush, then you did not read those 300+ words as many times as I did when I wrote them. In fact another who made the 'broad brush' statement should have cited the specific paragraphs rather than just make 'broad brush' accusations.

Just tonight, I sat for a beer with another stranger who told me these 'people' all have suicidal hate in their hearts. He was advocating the president's agenda and said it was what George Jr both says and knows. That is the problem. I asked him if he had heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course not. He just knew the president was right. I asked him if he understood that Bin Laden and Saddam were arch enemies. Of course they were not. They were both Muslims and therefore are united in their hate of Americans. I ask him how it was that Americans once could walk among all these people, even when they were fighting each other, and be greeted as a friend. I asked him why both bin Laden and Saddam were both allies of the US. This only confused him. What was I looking at? One who promotes "the cult of death that has gripped" too many American political mindsets. Classic of 'us always good verses them always bad' thinking that this White House promotes to justify an illegal 'Mission Accomplished' war.

Kennedy kept asking (and therefore we are all alive) questions such as, "But what does he see? What has he been told? Why would he think that?" Is that not what I have been posting repeatedly? Yes. I keep asking you to widen your horizons - especially learn how often this president lies by telling half truths about Al Qaeda. There is no solution to the quagmire of Iraq without answers first to those and other questions.

Most (I believe) here did not know of the Muslim Brotherhood OR of how and why terrorist are recruited. Outside of the propaganda from 'the powers that be', there is little fact that Al Qaeda performs all these terrorist acts. And yet to stop "them", we must first acknowledge who they are, why they act, what they know, and why we have suddenly made fanatical enemies of people who were once friends. These questions expose White House propaganda. Questions that can only be answered from THEIR perspective.

Good people ask these questions - and bluntly without any attempt to be 'politically correct'. Good people become even better when provided the full story and when forced to consider contrarian perspectives. That means text that, if read for emotional perspective, will never be understood. You have looked for an emotional bias. That means you are trying to find political correctness in what I post rather than reading using a yellow highlighter; ignoring anything that may indicate an emotion.

The ultimate question is how do we get out of this quagmire called Iraq? It starts by understanding why we are there. Why are they attacking us? Why are 'they' so many different people? Why are 'the enemies' increasing in numbers? Why are we making Americans less popular throughout the world? These are questions that good people ask and seek answers to. Those who hate people would attack the messenger - person who asks these questions. People who hate never ask for nor want contrarian perspectives; nor try to learn THEIR perspective (as the stranger in a bar who better meets your definition of hating people). Those who love people would routinely ask why so many people who would have rather been American friends no longer are. And ask that question with 'in your face' incorrectness.

These are the lessons of Vietnam when America attacked a nation who even asked to be a protectorate of the US. During Vietnam we (and I) did not ask these questions. Therefore America became a nation of not so nice people. Good people always ask the questions I have been asking. Questions such as why does America now love and approve of torture - as long it is not an American. Good people even seek, ask, or find truth in the statement "We have met the enemy and he is us". Until that statement can be debunked, good people must question themselves or their leaders. Those who seek emotional understanding would then accuse the good people of 'hating people'; for always looking for the bad things in life. Those who hate people always want to see only the good side; never ask politically incorrect questions; even fear blunt words such as penis.

Is there anything in this post that even implies an emotional bias or opinion on my part? If you think so, well, I may routinely use incendiary words just so that your emotions lie to you. And I don't care. Adults should never look for any emotion in posts. I am asking difficult questions - and will use incendiary words as you might use "thank you". IOW I am not politically correct. If you find any emotional bias in my post, it was put their so that you would lie to your self. I am asking damning questions that only "good" people would ask. People who don't hide their head like an ostrich.

Ask yourself, “Does he dislike Brianna?” The minute you find a single word to justify such an opinion, then you are lying to yourself. The only answer? You don’t know because he did not say so in a logical manner – complete with reasons why. Anything less would be looking for emotion where words are chosen to confuse the emotions – so don’t use emotional considerations to try and understand.

The only way you can make a claim that I hate people - quote specific paragraphs as examples. Trying to read into my biases? Not possible because of the perspective I use to write - to intentionally confuse your emotions. Meanwhile show by example how I lump every Christian with right wing freaks. Post those paragraphs as examples. Otherwise that would be a bias on your part. If I did not specifically state it, then you don't know of my thoughts.