I disagree with this statement. If the terrorists were going simply for civilian casualties, they certainly could have hit a variety of targets that would have had much more destruction, and probably competed the attack with far less planning than 9/11.

Yes Roachboy everything is the Rights problem.

The evil businesses and the evil republicans are to blame... please cut the bullshit.

8 years of a democratic president didnt stop these people from what they did. Being allowed pretty much free-passes for the bombings of the Marine barracks, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombings sure slowed them down. Oh wait... being soft lined against these guys really worked now didnt it?

Economics is absolutely not the reason. Terrorists arent springing up from Africa now are they? and they're 100x worse off. The terrorists are mostly middle-upper class, so poverty isnt to blame. I've done MUCH research on it, from my Arab classes talking to my professors and their suggestions (read Khuri, he's a great Saudi historian). Every single one DOES NOT point the finger to the US. The only thing they say that helped draw attention to us is our providing aid to Palestine. They all put the blame on the Arab governments themselves, not us (hey what an idea). These people that become terrorists are so angry at their own government for withholding rights and being oppressive they have no where to vent, so the radicals come in and control this anger and point it to the west giving us the blame.

Hey what a novel idea! instead of blindly pointing the blame around... REASEARCH IT other than simple google which gives you ultra-right/left pages.

Funny that you don't take offense at the hubris exhibited throughout this thread by those claiming to know that the terrorists' goals were not to kill as many as possible and to know that killing more was well within their means. I guess it's only arrogance if it doesn't agree with your opinion.

Solid, but everything isn't written in your history books. For instance mad at their own governments or the lil puppets the US puts in place?

Please enlighten us as to how they could/would have achieved it? Terrorists need both symbolism, destruction, and death.

Hey thanks all for deteriorating this thread again =/

When left with nothing else, start bashing the other side and/or person!

Yes. This one has veered all over the place and edges close to the line of civility and mutual respect we know is best.

Rein it in a bit. Take a step back.

I personally think it is the tone of 'Onetime2'

Let's not make it worse.

Agreed. I am saying that the attack on the WTC was more for symbolism, if they simply wanted to cause death and destruction, (sticking with my earlier example) they could simply walk into a chemical plant, take a high powered rifle, and shoot one of the tanks. Or, they could take a truck with explosive and drive it in... or place a small charge on the tank...

I believe that although many civilian lives were lost, they aren't just doing their darndest to kill as many people as they can (like the media portrays) but specifically attacking symbolistic targets - with the intent to get their message across, not just necessarily kill Americans.

Yep that's it.

And then what? Say all vestiges of the western world are removed from the arab world. Are you implying that they just want to be left alone and live in peace? I don't buy it. The world is about Power, who has it and who doesn't, and how they interrelate based on the fact. Period. I say, that if they ever get a foothold god forbid, that they won't for a minute hesitate to spread their own medieval vision of How Things Should Be, globally. I say, stop the barbarians at the gates now, and do not under any circumstances give them free rein over the rest of the civilized world. They can join the rest of us after they have proven themselves peace-seeking, civil and cooperative. We see how they run things over there already, and its out of step with the modern world. THEY are the ones who need reform, they are the ones on the wrong side of history, and they are the ones who are going to continue to seethe and suffer and terrorize until they themselves decide to change.

Why are all the nations in the middle east either outdated Patriarchal dictatorships, or run by Secular tyrants, or run by religious Fundamentalists (except Democratic Israel, which continues to be productive and prosperous despite being surrounded by mortal enemies)? Why did the Communist Soviet Union die? Why are people drawn to the Democratic USA from around the world? GIVEN A CHOICE, people choose freedom over slavery.

There are far too many fail safes in modern chemical plants for that to happen.

Terrorists like the symbolism because it portrays the image of fighting a noble fight. To spread terror they need to kill. The more they can kill the more terror created.

Let's look at some other examples. Richard Reid and his shoe bomb episode, killed no one so no real terror created. Had he succeeded, no doubt air travel would have plummeted even further.

Let's look at the Washington DC sniper. The first attack or two, scary yes but not exactly terror inducing. Attacks 3, 4, etc, etc, etc, the terror builds as the body count increases.

Let's look at the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland. Pretty high death toll but it didn't cause much terror and didn't really impact air travel or the economy. Plane bombings were expected and the death toll wasn't beyond what we hear about in any "normal" air crash.

The first WTC attack. Inconvenienced a lot of people as many television stations were knocked out and there was a fair amount of damage but no significant death toll. No real terror and only a moderate amount of outrage.

The attacks of 9/11 combined several things to induce terror. One, they were widespread with multiple targets. Two, they were successful. Three, they killed thousands of people. Four, they used a seemingly harmless and very common means (air transport) to inflict the damage. Had they not killed thousands would the terror have been the same? I doubt it.

Why do they want to gain nuclear, chemical, or biologic weapons (assuming the stories are true)? Is it simply for symbolism or is it to kill lots of people?

Uh, wake up call here.

Most of the world is still under tyrants or democracies that are really run by strong men.

Yes indeed look in your own backyard - Latin America is even like that.

In fact, traditionally, society has been run by strong men and the elite. Heck, even capitalism is a similar system where the ones who get ahead are at the top.

And hello, since when did the Middle East suddenly go for world domination? Last few wars of world domination have been in Europe.

If you mean economic domination by oil, fine.

But by power and military means? Yeah, I really see a fleet of ships (if they even have one) sailing and landing on the coast of America.

Please, this sounds more like paranoia - barbarian at the gates?

Last I saw, there were none banging on the gates of America. Medieval world? Sheesh.

I don't think we're in the same worlds here - heck Iraq was the most western of the nations in the Middle East. And we went after them.

You might be an American but that doesn't mean the rest of the world is American or believes in the American ideal of democracy. Nations like Russia are STRUGGLING in democracy because they have lived under tyrants for over millenia!

China is the same. They head towards democracy but they still have strong men ruling the place because that has been their tradition.

Do humans seek to be free? Yes. But freedom does not mean you don't live under tyrans. And tyrants dont mean their totalitarian. Totalitarian is trying to control every aspect of life. Tyrants may or may not. Do I wish everyone nation could be a democracy? Yes.

But realisitcally, it's not going to happen.

Fair point, if stated in a needlessly confrontational way. I only took issue with yours because the people who said the terrorists' goals were not to kill as many people as possible didn't call the people who disagreed with them ignorant of the real world. However, I reissue my complaint to everyone who claims to know what the terrorists want -- to suppose that they think as a unit is pretty ridiculous to begin with. People in a a political party don't all think exactly the same way about something.

Please take a moment to read This Story - I would be surprised if you still found your comment to be true. It is the same story from my original post, but it is an excellent example as to the "security" & "fail safes" in modern chemical plants.

As far as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - Both Biological and Chemical weapons are more useful in inducing panic and causing terror than actually killing people in mass quantities. Nuclear weapons, however, are a different story.
(taken from This Thread 2nd Post, by MrSelfDestruct)

Onetime2 - I am not claiming to know what the terrorists goals are or aren't, I simply started this thread to begin a discussion about it. If I was 100% sure that I was wrong or right, I certainly wouldn't need to re-affirm my correctness, and even if I did, I certainly wouldn't put it in the Politics Forum...

I am believe however, that the terrorists, or anyone for that matter, could certainly kill many more people if that was their sole purpose was to kill as many civilians as possible.

not interested in personal flames in the place of actual argument. if you have something to say about the argument that i am advancing, then take it on.

the fact is that the americans are a symbol for globalizing capitalism. the americans are seen--more often than not rightly--to be propping up oppressive regimes around the world--the saudis among them. i''l go back to this below....

second, the fact is that there is nothing in my argument that would lead anyone who actually read it to reduce what i am saying to simple economic conditions. revolutionary/radical movements rarely form within conditions of absolute poverty--maintaining poverty is therefore a political choice made by any number of regimes, including the american. they **do**emerge in places of extreme political repression--this **does not** correlate directly to economic oppression--unless you really believe the right crap about economic and political freedoms being identical. an oppositional movement requires certain logistical conditions to be in place, to maintain itself, to articulate its line, to spread that line. they also require a sense of coherence amongst the people they address--you cannot have people who are totally atomized, totally abject---you need a sense of political outrage, of the arbitrariness of the situation endured, etc.

the fact that the regime associated with globalising capitalism creates/supports/maintains conditions of extreme political repression around the world is only partially a function of the actions undertaken by the economic entities that operate within it--it is the entire system--the state(s), the economic order and particularly the ideological regimes that shape how actors within each part of the apparatus think and act--that is responsible for creating and maintaing repressive conditions.

on "the rights problem"----formal rights mean almost nothing. if you want to reduce the problems associated with "terrorism" then it makes sense to reduce the distance that seperates claims about freedom from the grinding realities of degradation that bely those notions. you would think that maybe---maybe--the contradiction between claims made by ideologues of the existing order on the order of "dont worry, be happy, this is the best of all possible worlds" juxtaposed with realities that contradict everything said might in itself be enough to politicize people. you might even think that the existing system itself creates its enemies. you would be right in that.

as for the matter of the palestinians--how much more degrading a situation can you imagine than having spent several generations interred in camps? the set of associations that would lead actors to go from thinking about american complicity in maintaining those conditions to action--even though the americans are obviously not exclusively responsible for them--is not rocket science to figure out. how this set of associations could become a kind of lingua france for framing other types of opposition is again not rocket science.

how things are seen is almost inevitably the function of the frame of reference you use to process information--there is no objective picture--having taken a middle eastern history 101 class does not give you any necessary direct line to how variables are put together by people.

advocating exclusively a "hard line" against the phantoms you call "terrorists"--the mirror image of the conditions the political line you argue for---the expression of the consequences of that line--- might make you feel better, but does really nothing but insure that the problems you complain about wil not but continue, will multiply, will in short get worse.

but it does make you feel better. the retreat into fatuousness often is therapeutic. it is a complicated world. better to watch tv.

take on the argument, then--that is fine---but changing the subject and then shifting into patronizing mode is less than impressive as a tactic.

1) It was no history 101 class, Arab history is my major. I'm sorry if you blind yourself to the possible true causes to what is happening without actually researching and talking to leading Arab professors, but that is what you are doing. How many times have you actually TALKED to an Arab, let alone asked a leading member his thoughts and opinions with an open mind? My bet is on never.

2) Your point about America supporting the Saudi government is almost valid. But the problem is you point to no actual solution other than to point fingers at the "right", a term you used many many times. So you want us to invade Saudi Arabia and create a democracy now? Like it or not the Saudi government is fourth in stability in the region, lead only by Egypt, Kuwait, and Israel. Being holy land there is absolutely no way to intervene in Arabia, be it economically, politically, or militarially.

3) I'm no Israel supporter myself, but your point on the Palestinians is invalid. Their leader is a terrorist, and has been for decades. He has refused decade after decade to compromise (both sides have fair enough), yet he still to this day while promising to end terrorist attacks pays money to the fallen "myrtrs." To blame anyone but themselves is plain gullability. The Palestinians are as mad with their own Arab countries as they are Israel... something often overlooked by pseudo-intellectuals. From the various Arab-Israeli wars to the Lebanese Civil war they were continually backstabbed by their own neighbors. But wait, we're the only evil ones there huh?

'

History has proven that taking a soft line only makes the terrorists more daring. Clinton took a soft stance... guess during who's administration the WTC bombings were planned? I'll give you a hint it took years of planning and time to plant the sleeper cells inside the US.

Will the new hard lined stance lead to more terrorists? Yes.
Will the new policy of going after the countries and personel that support the training of these individuals lessen the threat these new terrorists pose? absolutely

Sorry if you dont realize this but we're in a war. They've been in a declared war with us since the '60s, we've just been ignoring them. Now that we woke up we cut their supplies, cut their ability to train, cut their ability to communicate effectively. So now the best they can muster for the time being is car bombs.

The only reason I turned into a "patronizing" mode is because it is clear that you never took any research into the middle east other than what you saw on TV and what you read on moveon.org or some other left-leaning apeasment site.

seaver--gee, pretty arrogant for an undergraduate, arent you?

your ridiculous assertions about my lack of communication with "an arab" as a absurd as your politics. you do not know me, you know nothing about who i talk with, who i live with. and of course each "an arab" that i would talk with--it seems from what you write--- would share your politics? because they are all the same? pretty condescending of you, dont you think? all equal as "exotic others" for you? you make me laugh.....

your whole argument is pretty sophomoric frankly. you do not have a monopoly on the facts of the situation---most of your arguments are simply false--and then you compound it by resorting to a series of arbitrary assertions about what you fantasize my research has consisted in.

your arguments sit on a whole series of conservative political assumptions that you seem totally incapable of articulating--like most you simply assume that you have a lock on "reality" because your politics claim that they are connected to it--and as soon as you throw in "history has shown x" i realize that there i no point in talking to you. so i am going to return to watching the penalty kick segment of the england portugal match. at least there, the outcomes are not entirely predictable.

I've read your article and your example is unrealistic. Notice I said failsafes not security. Go ahead and shoot one of the tanks and see if it causes the damage you suspect. It won't. Sudden losses of pressure trigger emergency transfer of chemicals, alarms, emergency response teams, etc. Additionally the risk of success for an attack like this is small. Terrorists need the attacks to be successful and need to maximize the chances for success.

Many in this thread claim the terrorists chose not to inflict as much death as possible by design. Please feel free to offer any substantiating evidence beyond "well they could have done this". Terrorist propaganda, actions, instruction and training manuals, and uncovered plots point to the exact opposite conclusion. When Bin Laden gave approval to Mohamed Atta to go ahead with the 9/11 attacks can anyone tell me why he cut Atta's plan from the original 10 planes? It certainly wasn't out of the goodness of his heart or because he felt 3000+ people would be sufficient.

Sorry if my opinion offends but there is no evidence in terrorist deed or word to indicate that they try to minimize death.

Look roachboy I did not take one class, and talk to a few professors searching for a justification for my views.

It is my major, I'm not a sophomore as you suggested but an upper classman.

I would like you to name one argument that is false, then prove it so. That the terrorists dont come from poverty but from upper-middle class families? That is a fact, kinda hard to state that poverty is the reason for terrorism.

That the Palestinians are as angry at their own neighbors as they are the Israelies? Sorry but it's true, research the history of the area, and talk to people who have lived through it like I have.

Could you name one argument that is "simply false" as you put it? Please do.

I used history to prove my point. If you wish to refute it show proof that I was wrong, dont just cover your ears because you dont like what I'm saying.

Go after me all you want, but that doesnt change the fact that I take the time to cover my sources (Khuri), and back up my argument with historical facts.

ok, seaver--since england just lost and i am in a good mood...let's think about this for a minute.
first, if you actually read my posts, i argued that **your** reduction of things to economic causes was simplistic. i argued the contrary--then i elaborated on the point in the subsequent post. which means that you simply repeating the point i made twice in previous posts, and acting as though there is something of a refutation in repeating the argument you are opposing. if that is understood as operative in some debating game, then i do not know about it. maybe you can fill me in on where it gets played.

second, your point about the palestinians is also implicit in the post you react to. i said that the americans were not the only party to blame for their situation--if you want to play, try to read what i actually say more carefully, will you? in both cases, you are acting as though your mighty undergraduate training puts you in a position to argue with me by simply repeating my points--because you do not read carefully. if you are going to be a historian, you have to read carefully. otherwise, you will be laughed out of the business. i know, because my day gig is as a historian.

there is no such thing as "using history" as such--you probably should have encountered this complicating factor by now, if you are "an upperclassman"--but maybe you didnt--in which case, let me tell you--your view of history, like any other, mine included, is thoroughly saturated with politics--what you see as a variable, what you understand as the rules for linking those variables, the kind of information you produce through the process of building an argument--every step of it is shot through and through with your political views. this does not mean that you can say just anything--there are standards for proof at the level of data--you know, citations--but that standard does not mean that the arguments themselves are not a deploying of your politics. period.

since we seem to have no disagreement about the factoid level of things--given that you simply repeated what i had said earlier--then the problem is political--how you would approach what we are "discussing" as an analytic problem--and in that, i do not think you have a leg to stand on. we could talk about that if you like (as i said, england is out of the euro 2004 tournament, so things look bright, curiously...).....

it would be nice to return this to a level of debate-as-chessgame...

btw, i think you should apologize for your absurd "have you ever talked to an arab?" point. it was ridiculous in itself, and offensive to me personally to boot.

This seems a bit of "guilty until proven innocent." The US army kills civilians, albeit by accident -- so we only provide evidence by word, not deed.

Note that I don't think that we are "as bad" as the terrorists -- but I don't think we can claim the moral high ground.

i just watched a short film online that really showed what the terrorists are. They are like (notice i didn't call them) nazis, in that they have a central, all consuming, irrational hatred for another group of people, and are bent on their distruction, and they fanatically pass this on to their children, to construct an entire society based on institutional hate.

Link?

Also, you still invoke Godwin's Law.

I don't think anyone here is capable of understanding the irrational thinking behind a terrorist's motives. We live in a world where only the sanity of men keeps us safe.

It's absolutely fascinating to watch how some people will happily babble away to Kingdom Come, without saying one coherent thing.

I'm seeing one calm, rational, historical explanation of the situation, which is met with a torrent of overbearing, sarcastic, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

Understanding what terrorism is and isn't seems to me a simple thing.

This talk about how one should be paying attention to all the underlying reasons and/or justifications for terrorism is intellectually dishonest. There are legitimate ways to air your grievances, to solve political problems, that don't include massacring civilians, or financially supporting those who massacre civilians, or otherwise sponsoring such groups.

I don't get this.

Calling other people's ideas bullshit is not exactly a productive way either.

It's called a forum for debate, and if you don't want to debate and want to discredit other people, then you're probably in the wrong area man.

There are indeed other ways to air out your grievances but one of them certainly isn't what you just demonstrated here.

Other people have ideas too, and you're not the only one who can be right.

Just more condescending sarcasm...it seems to be the only course of argument for the pro-terrorist gang here.

NOOO, don't try and blind me with the facts god forbid, just put yourself above it all and preach to the blind and godless, eh?

Shrug I'll let mods handle that.

This is going nowhere.