Terrorists - Not so Evil?
 

I realize that is is likely going to be a controversial thread, but I would like to hear other peoples thoughts and opinions on this subject.

First of all, the Terrorists certainly are terrible, killing thousands of American civilians in the 9/11 attack, as well as other attacks throughout the world.

However, thinking about it, they could have done much, much more damage with any/all of their other attacks. Specifically with 9/11 - They attacked the World Trade centers at a time that there weren't nearly as many people there as there typically are during peak times of the day. The civilian loss of life was tragic, but certainly could have been much worse. Certainly, they could have crashed the planes into nuclear plants causing a catostrophic explosion/fallout, or a chemical plant, ect.

I understand the reason they attacked the WTC was because it is a symbol that represents America, but if they were simply trying to kill as many Americans as possible there are likely many targets that would have had a higher death toll.

Another situation that I would like to bring up are chemical plants. According to the U.S. EPA, 123 chemical facilities in the United States each threaten a million or more nearby residents. More than 700 plants could put at least 100,000 people at risk, and more than 3,000 facilities have at least 10,000 people nearby
(link) If a single terrorist were hell bent on causing the maximum loss of life possible, they could easily enter one of these facilities and set off a relatively small explosive device, (potentially even just shooting a tank with a high powered hunting rifle) and cause a terrible chain of events that could affect million(s) of people.

The security at these plants is a joke - 60 minutes walked into one with a camera crew through one of the dozens of unlocked gates and walked around for near 15 minutes before deciding to leave. They weren't stopped until they had left the property. If an entire camera crew, reporter, and correspondant can go that long undetected, I would imagine that one stealthy terrorist would have plenty of time to do whatever it is he needs to do.
Link to CBS Story


I guess the point I am trying to make is this: Although the terrorists are obviously evil, vile people - they seem to still have some regard to civilian life.

I'll leave you with this quote -

"in California, the chemicals at one site have the potential to kill, injure or displace more than eight million people."

Evil? It still depends on what you mean of course, since everyone defines evil differently

i don't call them necessarily evil - more like misguided killers who have plotted to make a statement through the deaths of others

Though I think they wouldn't have cared how many people died in the WTC, I do think that one should examine as to how many do get killed versus how many is plotted

Because, we simply don't see mass killings daily of Americans and car bombings and bus bombings and what not (thankfully)

And honestly, how do you make a statement (goal of the terrorists) if all of your opponents are dead? You have to leave some alive to get the point across

its too bad its such a waste of human life - they're passionate people enough to sacrifice their own life, though its to the wrong wrong wrong cause

If only more people in this world have the passionate to do good with that same level of passion

In order to have a clear idea of who the enemy is one has to have a clear idea of who the enemy isn't. If one does not know who the enemy is at this point, I think it becomes more clear every day. Perhaps soon most people posting here will have a clearer idea of who the enemy is. Perhaps not.

if you aim at a building that can hold 20,000 people and you "only" get a few thousand, is that humanity or incompetence?

We're lucky that the terrorists are so fucking bad at what they do, because if they were good at it, we'd be SCREWED.

Ah, that's my point though. Judging by the fact that they haven't done anything simply to maximize the loss of life, I don't believe that they are "just bad at it" - I think that they are more concerned with other things than just killing the most Americans possible.

Hmm, the terrorist battlecry "Death to America!" comes to mind...

the category terrorist is a problem--it entails a view that refuses to think about possible motives, that actions could be understood as political--regardless of how appalling one might find them--once you remove the possibility that these are political acts, then it becomes easy to fill in the blanks with terms like evil.

there are good books out there on this term, its uses, its functions.

it would be better to think about what kind of conditions exist for people that would drive them to such nihilist acts as 911 and work to eliminate those conditions. but that requires differentiated thinking and analysis and does not permit of the good guys/white hats vs bad guys/black hats idiocy of bushworld. people who commit these actions are not merely driven into fits of intense snippiness because they are jealous of american consumer goods.

and these folk do not have a monopoly on screwing up. i would not take any solace in ineptness. but i would expect that until the americans can start thinking and acting in a different way about the world they are such a big part of creating, such actions will always be possible.

I disagree 5000%. Have you been following current events lately? They have sufficiently proven to me that, first of all, they care nothing about themselves (see: Death Cult of suicide bombers), and therefore even less about Western 'infidel' civilians.

What these Middle-Age religious fanatics want is nothing less than the complete annhililation of non-Muslim Western government and civilization (as well as any Muslim government that have relations with the West) and everything it has achieved over the centuries.

I'm sure they are taking into consideration all the types of attacks you have mentioned above, and more, right this minute. God help the West the day these fanatics acquire a truly powerful weapon.

very well said roachboy!

Not so evil? Shakran got this right. They have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE.

They did not make a concious decision to attack the WTC towers during off-peak hours, if that was the case wouldnt they have done it at 2am when only janitors are there?

They didnt attack the USS Cole with only 50 lbs of explosives because they knew it wouldnt sink the ship, but only wanted to prove a point.

They only attacked the US Marine barraks with a truckload of bombs while the Marines were sleeping, they wanted to save the other half of the building.

Please, they A) have a problem getting enough supplies and getting those supplies to the target, and B) arent all that smart.

Lets face it, if you put down the hard numbers they lose about 1.5-2 people for every one killed, any semi-intelligent person can tell you thats no way to win a war (unless you're Russia). They dont go out of their way to save lives, if they did that they wouldnt attack civilian targets now would they? Giving them some sort of humanity greater than the average cerial killer is just retarded.

That's ludicrous. How is the category 'Terrorist' hard to quantify?

If you help an old lady across the street, are you a terrorist? If you step on an ant are you a terrorist? If you smoke pot are you a terrorist? If you fart in church are you a terrorist? If you shoplift are you a terrorist? If you become a doctor and devote yourself to healing people, are you a terrorist? If you kill a dog are you a terrorist? If you chop someone's dome off on video for political gain are you a terrorist? If you strap plastic explosives on your body and detonate it in on a crowded bus are you a terrorist? If you fly 2 jumbo jets into skyscrapers and kill 3,000 people are you a terrorist?

In the history of humanity, there has been established decent, civil, moral, legal, intelligent, CONSTRUCTIVE ways to voice your discontent without resorting to mindless violence. These modern-day fanatics just don't have the intelligence to solve their problems peacefully, or the balls to stand face to face with real fighting men.

Please tell me more about how terrorists are just poor, misunderstood victims with no other recourse.

Question: If terrorists really wanted to exact as many deaths as possible and to create panic in our streets, they could simply take tanker trucks and dump boricv acid or another poison in pretty much every river and lake in the US. There are lots of places that are basically overgrown fields near the Ohio, Mississippi and other rivers, as well as the Great Lakes. Dump a tanker of poison into Lake Erie half of Ohio would be in trouble (as it supplies a lot of our streams and aquafers which in turn cities use for water). Also in doing this it would take awhile to get caught, find a deserted road that leads to the bank or shore and dump away.

Another way would be to start putting anthrax or some other skin absorbant powder that causes eventual illness and death. A couple hundred $20 bills saturated and passed out at truck stops and malls and you'd have a lot of deaths.

I'm sure terrorists have thought about this (I mean if I can think of sick shit like this anyone can, especially those whose lives are dedicated to sick shit) but not having done it shows me, they kill for show and a purpose and are not into "death tolls" but the statement the act makes.

They are not poor misunderstood victims without recourse, nor are they killing just to kill though. I think we need to work on the Middle East and find out why they truly do what they do (it's not the Koran or any religious thing or ALL muslims would be doing this not just a very small but extreme minority).

Once we understand who the enemies truly are and the reason for what they do, only then will we have the true defense in fighting them, for example: we find out how they truly recruit and use resources that take away the "rewards" they see in joining. No war or sanctions against a country is going to stop them. If anything, yes we may destroy anti-friendly governments but we alienate the ones who were innocent and scare other countries peoples into taking arms.

As much as I'd like to believe that myself, I find that to be a pretty ridiculous thing to say.

What he is saying is that the way you define terrorist isn't simple black and white - and I agree, you can't say a person is "evil or good" without realizing that is your view, not necessarily everyone's.

Aside from that though, saying they don't have balls to fight like men? Yeah, I'd really like to stand out there in front of the #1 military in teh world and get my ass shot off. If i want to inflict damage, I'd find the best way to do it be it car bombs or suicide bombs. I hate to say it, but it takes balls to kill one's own self for my beliefs.

Beheading someone is cowardly though I'll defenitely agree. But suicide bombing? If only people had enough passion as they do for constructive reasons and for the good of humans. But alas, their passion is in the wrong area.

And I'd say they're pretty intelligent - heck, most of the terrorists of 9/11 were of the upper class elite from say Saudi Arabia.

Their means may not be "smart" to make a good response, but to say they didn't plan something that was surreal and almost something out of sci-fi - that'd be an understatement. What they did was a brilliant move no one would have expected. Problem is, they fucked with the wrong country.

Is it a full moon tonight?
I understand what he's saying and I think terrorism IS black and white.
OK, lets take the Liberal Left's scenario and say that this is all about oil, that we invaded to get ahold of their oil reserves. I have no problem with that. All Hussein did with it was buy weapons and build palaces for himself while his people suffered in abject poverty and his country's infrastructure was neglected and in ruin. In the meantime, the rest of the civlized world need what god so problematically placed underneath this group of medieval, backward, tyrannically governed, intellectuallly stunted and ridiculously unorganized human beings. (The Middle East)
Yes, alas it is. And I hope they regret what they did when they don't get their damn 72 virgins in Paradise, and their families run out of the martyr-money given them by the cowards who wouldn't do it themselves. And where are all the middle-eastern afterlife-channellers chanelling all the angry and resentful 'martyrs' who were duped into blowing themselves to bits for nothing??
Since when does being from the 'upper-class elite' from anywhere in the world inherently bestow one with intelligence? Ted Bundy was a mass-murderer, and his family was rich. The Menendez Brothers chopped their billionaire dad to pieces with an axe. Adolph Hitler was an upper-class elite. Don't get me started with the Kennedys.
By the way, the fact of the matter was that it was well-known in the intelligence community that terrorists wanted to apprehend an airplane to use as a guided missile. What wasn't known was the time and place.

pan6467, it's not that freaking simple.

Look, you said dump anthrax into a resivoir. Guess what, almost all that water isnt drank, it goes into fields, onto lawns, and down your toilet. 20 grams of anthrax were in those letters sent out, and guess what, (dont have specific figures) but almost everyone lived with no ill effects. Do you have any concept on how much would be required on the estimate that 1/10th of the water actually enters our system before it becomes neutralized by nature? Those envelopes were hermetically sealed with wax on the outside, you're talking about a natural resivoir with lots of neutralizing plants and bacteria.

Now for your example of borax... again wont make a dent. Even if it did it's REALLY easy to dump a couple tons of limestone to neutralize it.

Ok, so if you hated all cops but couldnt muster the balls to go out and shoot one... you'd kill dozens of innocents you find instead? Please dont make excuses for these cowards, it doesnt take bravery to go out on a suicide run, it takes desperation and another coward to convince you that what you're doing is right.

I give more credit to those who blew up the USS Cole than these cowards. At least they went after a target that could defend itself. This was more like walking up and punching a pregnant lady who was carrying in groceries.

Agreed Seaver, I was just stating there are ways to truly kill thousands upon thousands. I'm just not devious to come up with something that big, like I said tho, terrorists make it their life to spread fear and I'm sure they have had ideas. Point is noone's done it yet.

I truly don't think their motive as yet is to kill many but to create enough problems that it affects our economy and spreads fear throughout.

People assume that the goal of 9/11 was to kill as many people as possible. That may have been part of the goal, but the main goal probably was exposure. What better way to show that you're the coolest uber-terrorist than destroying THE symbol of American corporate power in THE city everyone knows. Oh, and to be even more Uber, you destroy the military command centre and the political leadership too (or at least attempt to do that).

You seem to say that terrorist have regard for humanity *because* they choose not to kill as many as possible. I'd say that's just wishful thinking. While killing people may not be their main goal, the fact that they have no problem with killing people at all makes them inhuman and evil. It's not like they'd be less evil if they kill "only" 3,000 people instead of 10,000. Using that logic, Saddam wouldn't have been evil, because there were still Iraqis left alive; the same goes for Hitler - there were Jews left alive, there were still Russians left, etc.

That they didn't kill 10,000 people in those attacks is just pure luck/incompetence. You see, they didn't have the luxury of picking an exact time to crash. They had hijacked those planes at a certain pre-arranged time, then had to fly to New York, and then they had to try to fly these planes into two large buildings. Assuming that they can then choose the right moment to kill as many people as possible is just silly. They had enough trouble getting near the right buildings themselves, and every moment that they waited, their plans could have been ruined by anrgy passengers or angry fighter pilots...

I honestly think they don't care whether people were in those towers or not because you're right, it was meant as a symbol to get exposure.

I hope you don't mean this or you mean a certain specific group of terrorists because I'd be pretty damn offended to be called a backward and intellectually stuned human being.

No, I wouldn't be offended - i'd be fucking pissed off and say back at ya for saying that. (And indeed, in that way, things would apply too)

It doesn't help your argument to label people.

And I don't put things in good or evil view nor do i quanitfy things as good or evil either (as Dragonlich pointed out with kiling 3000 vs. 10,000).

Why? Because unless you're a psycho out to kill people for fun and pleasure, you probably have a reason be it symbolic or not.

If your reason is wrong or right, I can say from my own view. But it doesn't make a person evil or good. I don't paint people that way. I only agree or disagree. Because in the end of all things, it doesn't tell you if you are right. It only tells you who is left and is remaining.

And yes it is largely a part of my own nature growing up. I don't like to blame things on being good or bad or whatever. I like to find things practical and the reasons behind them (Well i guess being an engineer is a big factor). So that would be a big reason why.

I want to post something, but it's late, I'm tired, and I can't believe I'm reading this tripe. Zeld, I think you have a real bad case of detachment going on here. Maybe it would appear evil to you if you were there when the towers came down, or saw people leaping to certain death with your own damn eyes, or if someone you loved was killed that day. Obviously, that isn't the case. You want to know what evil is? Evil is something that, being a human concept, disrupts the lives of other humans that didn't deserve it. Ok, that's enough ranting for now, you seriously make my head hurt with that nonsense you wrote. You aren't a fucking robot man, don't try thinking like one, please.

I wish I could say I'm amazed by the ridiculous justifications for terrorism that I read here but I'm not. Yeah it's the conditions they grew up in that drove them to it. Yeah they're really not so bad if only we would try to understand them. They really aren't trying to kill lots of people they're actually doing it as humanely as possible.

I suggest those with these beliefs go start an outreach center in Baghdad or Kabul I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms right up to the point where you're beheaded.

I'm not going to get into the 9/11 thing cos i still remember seeing pictures on TV and it's still fucking shocking to think back to.

i expect some terrorist are evil, and some are simply deluded or brainwashed. that's usually how things are.

would anyone like to comment on the IRA, who are more in the "freedom fighter" area than Al Qaeda - however, they are (were) still terrorists. I can understand that they might want the British army out of Ireland, but I can't understand them killing non-combatants. So I can understand motive but not the means used. Terrorism is about the means to the end, not the end in itself.

Actually I would think the opposite. It's about the end being justified by any and all means.

I am in full agreement that the IRA were/are terrorists and that targeting civilians is unacceptable and if you need to classify it, evil certainly fits the bill.

This is a hard topic to add to but here is one ingredient...
Time and time again people speak with such conviction about the Terrorist attack but ask yourselves...are you sure about and comfortable with your undertsanding of who these terrorists really are? How many people read about war and the prompts which caused these wars? Most have never been comprehensively explained and the ones which were started over incidents were never explained with proof and verifications of the perps in these incidents. This war now is no different because there is no clear enemy but there are CLEARLY people getting RICH. These people are the enemies of humanity...the INT'L BANKERS who orchestrate these wars. The RICH who take advantage of lemmings (that is the populations of the world) and their beliefs they are so hell bent on dying for.

I Challenge you people to wake up, shed your beliefs and analyze the world today for yourself because we are truly headed for despair if you allow your beliefs to be controlled by the RICH with this MOB MENTALITY the common people today exhibit.

I think targeting civilians is best described as ruthless. It can be an effective method to weaken an enemy's spirits, but we have decided it's beyond the pale to actually attack civies directly. Killing them accidentally is a shame, but we'll do it with a shrug that says "Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs." This doesn't in any way justify terrorism. But all wars are crimes.

More justification trying to equate the evil businessmen with terrorists. Making money on the manufacture of weapons and supplies for war is not the same as purposely murdering innocent civilians.

I think we're agreeing on that point - the end may be acceptable, but the means are unacceptable - yes? I'm glad you think that about the IRA too, because now I don't have to disagree with you :)

well no, I'm not sure anyone has a really good idea of what's going on... I certainly don't claim to. We know it's widespread (Saudi, Afghanistan, Pakistan) it's linked with a peverted form of Islam (because Islam forbids murder, if taught correctly), it's anti-western and specifially anti-American (America supporting Israel no matter what they do doesn't really help here) and some of the terrorists seemed to be perfectly normal people before they got indoctrinated. That's pretty much all I'm sure of.

selling guns and bombs isn't as bad as murdering innocent civilians, however it's not as good as helping old ladies across the road

I think we're probably in agreement but it's a tad confusing. To the terrorists the end justifies the means and to the non terrorists there is no justification for terrorist means. Does that equate to what you're saying? If so, we are absolutely in agreement.

yep :) we agree

going back to what Kadath said, I'm not sure that targetting civvies is a good method. Examples, allied bombing of Germany in WWII, V1 and V2 attacks on London, 9/11. Most of these did not have significant weakening effects, I would argue. Especially. 9/11 which had totally the opposite effect.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Don't forget that there are two sides to every coin, and on the other side of this coin is a group of people who believe that what Al-Qaeda is doing is right and justified.

Terrorism doesn't have a universally accepted definition. One that I typically enjoy using is the act of an independent group (not a nation) causing fear through violence. The Klu Klux Klan would be considered a terrorist group by my example. When a state gets involved then it's no longer terrorism: it's war.

Do I believe terrorists are evil? No, they're human beings just like you and me. Putting things into a moral perspective makes it hard to make rational judgements, and limits your thinking. Do we need to seek out and kill terrorists? Of course, but not because some might think they're evil. We need to eliminate this threat because they're acting against us; had they attacked another nation the US would not be nearly as involved.

As an American, thinking back to 9/11, I can say without a doubt that terrorists are evil. On a less emotional, less patriotic level, I understand that they are freedom fighters, likely even heros to many. I also understand that U.S. Propaganda has skewed my view quite a bit regarding these terrorists. I doubt I will never actually know what they are fighting for, nor what can be done (as opposed to war) to come to some type of treaty or understanding.

I am not, in any way, trying to make the fact that they murdered 3000+ Americans any less tragic. Nor do I sympathize with the terrorists. I am simply under the impression, in direct contrast to American Mass Media, that the terrorists aren't killing as many American Citizens as they possibly can, they do so for a purpose, and potentially even try to minimize the loss of life - compared to what they could have been doing.

For those of you that said that it would be difficult to kill Americans on a large scale, I'll again refer to the chemical plants.
Taken from one of the links above -
"The accident in Bhopal in 1984 killed 3,800 people - more than those who died at the World Trade Center. Another 200,000 people suffered debilitating injuries, many permanent, when a cloud of methyl isocyanate was released from a Union Carbide pesticide plant."

For those that stated that the terrorists are incompetant, I think you are making one of the biggest mistakes you can in war - Underestimating the enemy. So far, the terrorists have exhibited nothing but ruthless cunning, attacking in unexpected, off the wall manner. The beheadings are horrible, but they certainly are making an impact with the people of world, specifically the countries that the victim hails from.

Also, although suicide bombings have been done before, I believe that this is the first time that they have been used in such a large scale. (with the exception of WWII) I don't believe that killing myself for my beliefs is cowardice, as previously mentioned, it is a courageous act that shows how strongly these people believe in.... whatever they believe in. IMHO, it is the equivalent of a soldier dying for his country - but the terrorists don't have a country.

they wouldn't tolerate the poor safety systems OR the proximity to that many people in America, I hope.

I buy the freedom fighter/terrorist point in most cases, though it is difficult to swallow in this particular case. I suppose the Palestinians in Israel are one of the things they could be "freedom fighting" for ...

thinking over my first cigarette of the day.....delayed is partially right---there is no obvious definition of terrorism: it floats around, its use is a matter of convenience for the state.
once the label is applied, there are effects: --that there can be no political dimension to an action, for example--this in turn has effects--the idiotic notion that 911 was only about killing as many people as possible when it is obvious---obvious--that the targets were symbolic--the trade centre of american economic hegemony; the pentagon as american military hegemony---the field in pa, well....----the discourse of terrorism in bushworld has been very much about trying to erase any symbolic dimension to the actions in order to make it all the easier to slide straight into the world-as-western-film mode that it has exploited without hesitation since. much of the reaction to this thread that is hostile to questions about the notion of terrorism seem to me to bump into the limits of the discourse of bushworld and turn in the small circles that it makes available for thinking.

1. pursuing the element raised above about civlian targets: if you have a problem with civilian casualties, then why has the doctrine of total war been ok for states in this century? why would you not imagine that "terrorism" is the same doctrine turned back on itself?
in a war, for the americans, why is it even imaginable to refer to civilian casualities as "collateral damage", to talk them away? beccause "we didnt mean to kill civilians"? but the doctrine of total war erases the distinction combatant/civilian, and shifts the goal of war to a "breaking of the will"....

what is the difference between civilian targets and collateral damage? a legal declaration by a state? which means what? seriously....you would argue maybe that the ability to declare war is an extension of the states monopoly on legitimate violence...but that position presupposes that the state is necessarily seen as legitimate itself? which relies on consent, yes? and what of groups that do not consent? same doctrine---coming out of clausewitz--is being applied by different entities--one is terror, one is war--huh?

2. i find it fascinating that the right cannot deal with the idea that people who find themselves without legal recourse, in materially degrading situations, might construct for themselves a radical **political** opposition to the existing order and would choose to act outside the limits of that order.
maybe it follows from the inability of the right to imagine that there are systematic problems with the economic system they for which they unthinkingly cheerlead--for the americans, things appear easy because some of the worst consequences of that order have been shipped far away, and so it is easier to pretend that all is well in general. [[this is not to speak of the consequences of american foreign policy as a separate entity over the past 60 years]]

or maybe it follows from the right's own view of the state, which is about reducing its purview, andm thereby about reducing the possibilities of mediation in conflict situations by law as medium for negociation rather than as simple instrument of repression. this view presupposes a wholesale misunderstanding of the role of the state in navigating structural conflicts generated by capitalism over the past 150 years. the rights own view of the state will increase the likelihood of more such actions because it rests on an reduction of the possibility for dissident groups to act upon the state--it reduces the ability of the state to maintain its legitimacy by integrating elements of conflict into the status quo--and thereby increases the likelihood of conflict....add to this the paranoid suspicion of international law, and you have a poilitics that generates the conditions of radical opposition and works to shut down the ability of the dominant order to react, and then responds to this by trying to frame any such dissent as "terrorism"--it is incoherent, it is dangerous, it is self-defeating.

the right's view of the situation simply echoes the problems with the notion of terrorism--they hide from thinking about the system they work in by shifting to the language of will, or morality, and try to pretend that the conditions that create the possibility of radical political opposition can be dismissed by sneering reference to "poor victims"--which simply shows that they will not engage in thinking seriously.

Quoting myself from my original post -

Also, in the first post there is a link to a 60 minutes story that show how accessible these plants are - 5 people walked around a chemical plant after walking in through a wide open gate and only got stopped after leaving the property. Another quote from the CBS story

Sabatoge, it seems, would be incredibly easy to accomplish with security systems like these in place...

I think this was a great conclusion!
Bravo

I think DelayedReaction summed it up for me better than I probably could

And whocarz:

It might be detachment but thats how it is. I don't label people on one side or another. Much like I don't label a person of another belief suddenly an enemy or a "non-person" compared to my side.

It just doesn't work that way and I think each situation has to be taken one at a time. Its too easy to generalize and paint the brush on every group of people.

Terrorism is such a broad term as are terrorists. To many the KKK could be lumped right up there with the Radical Islamist terrorists. Others define it strictly as the ones flying the planes.

Time to chime in.

I believe that above all, what Al Qaeda wants is for any and all vestiges of the western world to be removed from the Arab world. They feel that their political leaders are too corrupt and too misguided to make any demands in this manner, and so are attempting their own sort of revolution. I think that all acts of terrorism are their means of trying to scare us away. They hate the Christians and the hate the Jews, and a perfect world for them is a pure Arab nation with zero outside influence.

So no, killing Americans is not their sole goal. But it's a means towards an end. Targeting our commerce, military and civilians is their way of getting us out of their lives. With no political leverage to achieve these goals, they have to be devious.

Don't take my views as any sort of sympathy for terrorists. I just don't think people here understand the goal.

I think most people here fully understand the goal. The goal is to create terror among the populace in order to exert political pressure which they otherwise do not have. The greater the terror the greater the pressure. Terror is not generated by destroying symbols it's generated by destroying people. How much terror was generated when the WTC was attacked the first time when only one person died? How much was created on 9/11? More innocent death and destruction equals more terror.

Anyone who even remotely believes the terrorists would prefer fewer rather than greater numbers of deaths has no concept of the real world.

"...has no concept of the real world."

That's the problem - bigtime.

The US should declare these escapades as the means to our ends, maintaininig the American way of life instead of leading people to believe that we are under attack.

I take issue not with your opinion but your arrogant stance. To think you know the mind of a terrorist is hubris of the worst stripe. Then again, perhaps I am wrong, and you have extensive experience with and study of terrorists?

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.