zen_tom

Looking at the invective in some of the postings made me suddenly realise that perhaps I have had an entirely different view on the amount of threat these so called "terrorists" actually pose.

So my question to you is, how dangerous are the "terrorists"?

If you're unsure about the question, try answering by thinking about how much you *personally* are threatened by terrorists.

zen_tom

Obviously, this is a Western-biased poll - but I think that's reasonable considering the majority of voices I see engaged in this discussion.

samcol

Well terrorism isn't as dangerous as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, traffic accidents and the list goes on. We sure have spent a ton of money on terrorism, and for what? Terrorism is on the bottom of my list as far as thing to fear goes.

Willravel

My life has never been threatened by terrorism. No one I know has ever had their life threatened by terrorism. Not one of my friends friends have ever been threatened by terrorists. I see this as some saw Communism decades ago; 'terrorism' is a word that represents irrational fear.

Daniel_

interesting point.

I lived in London during the eight f the IRA bombings of the early 1990s, and I whilst I heard abut several events, and saw the aftermath of a few, I never felt in danger, and I never had my life affected by more than delays.

Even in the WTC attacks the chances of actually being injured were minuscule. Of the millions of people in NYC tat day only ~3,000 were killed.

It's unutterably crap, but there are 45,000 US residents killed every year in road accidents - and there's not billions spent in the "war against crap driving".

Terrorists DO want to destroy the Western way of life, but it's highly unlikely that any form of direct action by a minority will ever do more than cause backlashes and knee-jerks.

Organisations that have changed parts of the world tend to have MASS SUPPORT. Gandhi did it by marching with millions.

Mao did it by subverting the army's members.

Terrorists have never done it simply by bombing.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

stevo

Right, with mass support. Even if most of the mideast people don't agree with their tactics, I have yet to see someone out of the middle east speak out against the terrorists message. With mass support, with out a doubt they threaten us.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Willravel

There is a wide line between silence from fear and support. The lack of outrage in the Middle East you speak of is that of fear. Those found to stand against radicals are putting themselves into serious mortal risk. Because they wish to live in peace, they do what many do; they remain silent objectors. Don't mistake apathy and silence for support. Half of Americans don't speak out against the president, but that does not necessarily mean they support his tactics.

Mantus

Terrorism, while an issue causes damage not by it's actions but by our reactions. The actions of our govenment and the actions of the oposition to our govenment have cause many, times more damage to this country then any terrorist act.

Perhaps we don't listen to the right people. Yet generally people of other countries don't give much thought to the misfortunes of others. For example we in America really have no problem with civilian casualties in Iraq. Even when we knew they would happen. "It's the price of freedom" we say. I am sure the rest of the world sees our misfortunes as the price of wealth and capitalism.

cyrnel

Should economic health be considered one of the possible dangers, or are we talking purely physical harm to individuals?

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

stevo

I would say we in America didn't give much thought to the misfortunes of others while they were oppressed under saddam hussein. We DO care, that is why we are there. To give them the opportunity to govern themselves, and correct sins of the past.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

zen_tom

cyrnel, I'm talking about either there being a threat to our way of life (like there may have been during WWII in Europe, invasion, a new system of government etc), or a threat to yourself, friends and family. Since either of those things might be linked to economic health, then I'd say yes, you could ask yourself "Do the terrorists pose a dangerous economic threat to me, or my country."

Redlemon

I'm guessing "quite dangerous" is less dangerous than "dangerous", based on the order of the options? Anyway, I put them slightly above "not very"; I don't think they are going away, but I don't consider them to be a real risk to me.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Willravel

That's just begging for a long, probably partison argument. All I will suggest is that it is possible that our reason for beeing in Iraq has nothing to do with careing for or helping those who were and still are oppressed.

zen_tom

Redlemon, yes "quite dangerous" as in, "marginally dangerous", or "partly dangerous".

cyrnel

Is it not possible supporters of the original action had a variety of pet reasons? I'll also avoid a hijack, but we should all do our best to avoid partisan talking points which get us nowhere but ears deep in sand. (Unintentional, but I'm leaving it. )

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

StanT

I agree, it isn't the terrorism itself that threatens us, but the reaction to it.

The ongoing military operations in both Iraq & Afganistan and the economic load that accompanies them affects us more than the terrorist acts that were used to justify them.

Redlemon

Ah, must be a regional distinction then. USA usage would be closer to "considerably", as in "quite a bit of work to do".

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Yakk

Do Arabs disagree with the terrorist message?

Which message are we talking about? "Get the fuck out of my country?"

"The west is evil, sex-mad, and generally naughty people?"

"Die, infidel pig?"

"In death, we find paradise! Join us my brothers!"

There are lots of messages. And honestly, for all their evil acts, _some_ of the propoganda has a point, and I'd expect some people to agree with it. Some of it is just insane.

Look at Saudi Arabia: The US was proping up a tin-pot dictator (house of Saud) and occupying the holiest land of their religion.

Can you imagine the US response to a Soviet Russian Peacekeeping Force in Washington DC, supporting a corrupt "President for Life" which ruled over half the USA, while the south contained and full of starving people due to "economic sanctions"?

I'm sure you could get many people from the area to agree with one or another of those positions.

The US in the middle east has spent decades supporting tin-pot dictators and the like in order to fight a cold war against the soviets. This helped guarantee freedom, but not freedom for the people oppressed by the tin-pot dictators. You can understand why some people might dislike the USA.

Would those same people support blowing up a building in the USA? I'd suspect that might have alot to do with if anyone they personally know has been hurt by direct American, or indirectly supported American client-state, action.

As yet, "the terrorists" have shown nothing like the firepower needed to even make the west blink. Even a small number of small nuclear weapons (10 to 20 say) would hurt somewhat, but couldn't make the west bend knee. In order to such a movement to gain power, it needs large amounts of active popular support.

Which makes this war, like the last one the USA just won, a war of ideas. The State department, not the Pentagon, should be calling the shots.

On the other hand, given that the terrorists are not a serious military threat to the USA, and that wartime is a great way to increase the popularity of the party in power & excuse government assults on it's own citizens, how direct does the threat have to be for it to be considered 'the terrorists'?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mephisto2

You're kidding, right?

You have yet to see someone from the Middle East speak out against the terrorist message?

What rock have you been living under?



Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Bingo!!

Having said that, I'm a bit uneasy at Rice calling the shots, but the concept is sound; ie, that this is a socio-political problem and that it is on this front, rather than the military one, that the battle will be won.


Mr Mephisto

Rdr4evr

personally, "terrorists" aren't a threat to me nor anyone i know/love/care about. though since 9/11, "terrorism" must be and has been exploited as a global danger to provoke support and initiate unjust causes to rid the world of the supposed "danger" to benefit the criminals in power. remove the bombings and suicide missions in iraq, and "terrorism" has not greatly increased, if increased at all, since before 9/11. now we have the media and govt. reminding us of a non-existent threat to persuade the public to back their illegal cause. with constant dwelling of propagandist fear of the "terrorism" people have forced into their pathetic heads, it seems to have become some international epidemic that will cease all existence if not dealt with harshly. no, i'm not in the least bit concerned about "terrorism" as most people look at it, i'm more concerned about the terrorists we have presently running the show, and those who support them. the "terrorism" most see, i see as justice and vengeance.

alansmithee

I wish we had more of those "silent objectors" in the States.

And the previous election showed that over half of the voters at least did support the president.

I just can't buy the argument that standing by silently is some sort of quiet objection. It is at least passive support. And it's not just the average person, many gov'ts don't seem to condemn terrorist attacks.

ObieX

I feel there are a lot of companies/oganizations that are taking advantage of the attacks (read: oil companies). Oil companies have recently been taking advantage of every single thing possible to raise prices of oil, however. I mean, if a worker at an oil processing plant has the sniffles the price of oil jumps $2 a barrel. Its ridiculous, and becoming quite obvious.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

pan6467

I fear the partisan politics have allowed the terrorists to become stronger. That because of the hatred both sides have for each other and the way they refuse to find middle ground has hurt us in ways that we may never truly recover.

In trying to destroy each other we only help the terrorists.

One of these days it will be a nuke, a disease, a tragedy that makes 9/11 look like nothing and it will effectively disintegrate us to a point of no return.

I truly pray and want to believe we'll find a solution before it is too late... however, I don't see it. Both sides are truly unwilling to bend and in the process the terrorists have free reign.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

If there is a nuke attack of any kind, the only thing that will disintegrate is the lefts argument as people will get sick of 'what makes them hate us' and switch over to 'kill those fuckers, let god sort them out.'.

So while support for your world view will crumble in such an event (and because of this, there will be those who claim it was a set up by the evil neo-cons) the war on terror will be over, brutally and quickly.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

stevo

I don't see the terrorists as stronger by any means. I don't know what you measure their strength by, but when they go from kiling thousands at a time, to hundreds, to less than a hundred, well that looks weaker to me, not stronger.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Yakk

Ustwo, it is possible that in the event of a nuclear attack, the USA will go on a killing rampage, brandishing righteous anger, and slaughtering every possible zealot sympasizer of the islamofascist cause.

Don't get me wrong. USA has the power to do that. You have the power to drop a Nuke on Mecca, the Ships to rain lead down on every hovel within 50 km of the sea, and your Armor can burn the deserts with your vengence.

That is why the terrorists are a political, not a military, threat. Hell, with your boys in a foriegn country, the rebels are reduced to blowing up more locals than the occupiers. You have military superiority over your opponents.

But, in my opinion, that is a worst case scenario. Because the geopolitical consequences would be unpretty.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mantus

We are there for many reasons Stevo. My earlier point still stands.

The problem is that both views are correct. At our point in time we need to protect ourselves yet investing in a future of peace would be wise as all this defence spending isn't good for us. Anti-terrorism costs us billions of dollars and they don't even have to commit any acts of violence; all they have to do is exist.

I just can't understand this unconcervative thinking by the right. War is the most expencive solution in every way.

Ustwo

This does not include the impact to the national economy or lost wages.

That being said, why we would spend billions on the war on terror is fundamental to the nature of the conservative.

Perhaps ironicly this slogan came from a war in the same region.

There is nothing wrong with righting wrongs and understanding your enemy, but in this case to compromise is to be defeated.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

I guess those who believe the terrorists to be "weaker" or not possess nukes missed this then:


link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

And I guess wanting partisan politics to end and to have OUR government work to make this place a better and safer country for ALL Americans and not just the Neo-Cons is expecting too much.

I'm sure if one of these suitcase bombs go off, these Neo-Cons would rather blame the Left as they did Thurs. then the terrorists and believe that blaming the Left will make them look better politically, just as it did Thurs. after london's bombings.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mantus

Ustwo,

We have to aliminate the threat to us one way or another. Diplomacy and economics ends up being allot cheaper.

Tribute who is asking to pay tribute. I am having trouble understand where that came from. I would guess that you are twisting the concept of eliminating the cause of terrorism with helping extreamist cells. Further I don't think that any one but the passifists are asking for a comprimise with extreamists. Once again you are twisting the ideas pressented. The point is to think about aliviating the cause rather then spending all our energy on fighting symptoms. Since this is an idiological war as much as anything I believe that the true war against terrorism beggins with us the citizens. Screaming "kill 'em all, let God sort them out" doesn't really put us in a good light.

powerclown

Maybe the same one you are?

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently made this point, which I agree with:

"The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden."

Mantus

Powerclown, for starters:

http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0040201.htm

Thomas Friedman gave his professional opinion. The problem is, I don't have any concreate information with which to judge his claim. Poorly translated speaches by Islamic clerics arnt exactly headline news on CNN. I really have no idea of how the Islamic world responded to 9/11.

powerclown

I don't see any evidence to contradict him. And I'm not talking about watery, obligatory, non-committal soundbites here and there. I'm talking about a widespread, emphatic, concerted, deliberate campaign of condemnation and invalidation of islamic fundamentalist terrorism, BY MUSLIMS.

I think we'll all be acutely aware of when such a thing happens.

---

Friedman commenting on Ariel Sharon's response to Jewish extremists who are fighting to remain in Gaza. Sharon doesn't mince words.

"Mr. Sharon described the Jewish settler youths who wrote "Muhammad Is a Pig" as "extremist gangs who are trying to terrorize Israeli society and tear it to pieces through violence against Jews and Arabs, and [through] offending Muslims and violating their symbols by thuggery and disobedience."

It's time the Arab-Muslim world talked to its Islamo-fascists, suicide "martyrs" and hate-spewing preachers the same way."

roachboy

you have got to be joking, powerclown:
the established system within islam--and the cleric who represent it---clerics are the primary targets of the newer fundamentalist groups--and they have been from the start.
so of course they have been speaking out against these groups and against their tactics....they have been doing it all along. do you know any muslims? have you actually talked to them about this? i suspect not--if you had, i cannot imagien how you would be able to maintain the illusion that this is not as much a problem for most muslims as it is for you. well, maybe it is more a porblem for these folk--you do not have to face the implications of a bascially racist media coverage of islam that surfaced after 9/11...you were doubtless not afriad to go out for weeks after 9/11/2001 because you were afriad some racist fucktard would beat you up. but that was the reality for many many families that i know.

that the american press chooses to place so little emphasis on divisions within isalm over these groups is mostly a function of the limitations of the press itself--maybe covering this kind of thing would undercut the good old fashioned american racism that underpins at least some of the support for the "war on terror"--i dont know the reason, really.

but all you have to do is look.
do a little research--ANY sociologically oriented analysis of the roots of this "terrorism" thing would give you a huge amount of data on these divisions.
you only do not know because you have not looked.

as for thomas friedman--less said the better. i think the man is a fool.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

George Galloway couldn't have said it any better.
Are you aware that the British authorities today attributed the London Attacks on 4 islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers?

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

I have muslim neighbors. Our kids play together. They all blame the CIA for the "image problem".
It's pretty funny acutally. They're quite stubborn about it.
If you'd ask them, the CIA is responsible for the sun rising in the morning.

roachboy

powerclown: i was aware of that--and i was aware that they were british born folk, and that there was an article in the guardian this morning that described this as the security systems "worst scenario"....

on the other points, more later: am in between things.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Aladdin Sane

If you think the Jihadists will go away if we appease, ignore, or bribe them, you simply are not aware of the words they speak or the things they write. If you think we only make them more dangerous by fighting back, then go attend your peace rally and watch their numbers multiply. Time is on their side. If we do not fight them now, it will be more difficult later.

If you think the Jihadists' grievances are based on what we do, think again.
Christopher Hitchens, one clear-thinking lefty, describes their grievances against the West rather clearly:
"The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way."

Yes, we are in a real war. It is no more a "war on terror" than World War II was a war on Blitzkrieg. Just as "lightning warfare" was Hitler's method, Terror is the tool of the Islamist enemy. And make no mistake: The enemy is 14th Century Islam. Plain and simple. It's time to come to terms with our situation. Didn't we all think that the 21st century would be about flying cars and vacations on Mars? No wonder our present predicament is difficult to grasp. Who ever dreamed we would be in a religious war, not of our own making, with people who call themselves "holy warriors" and refer to us as "Crusaders." These people are sick fuks who purposely kill innocent people because they believe it will win them a place in Paradise. With 72 virgins. I mean, what the fuck? They believe that infidels do not have the right to, well, to live. They believe women should not be educated, but veiled. How can you negotiate with that!? It's not surprising that most of us haven't come to grips with the grimness of the situation. Especially not when we were supposed to be hanging out on Mars.

Now, after everything that has happened, from the 1992 WTC bombings, to the embassy bombings in Africa, to the USS Cole attack, to the 9-11 attacks, to the Madrid bombings, to the Bali nightclub slaughter, to the recent massacre in London, all of it is still not sufficient enough to grab and keep our attention.

Unfortunately, I suspect Americans will need to see a mushroom cloud over Cleveland before they will truly engage, before they finally understand that we are in a real war against a determined enemy.

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Ustwo

Saddly I have to agree with you, though I almost wonder if even that would cause a paradim shift in a true lefty.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

by this point, the question really should be changed away from does the right have anything like a sane view of "terrorism" (--which has been answered conclusively--no they do not--and with abundant evidence, even in this thread--read their posts----)
to:

what are the pleasures and benefits of uncontrolled paranoia for conservatives?

we know the political benefits of generating and maintaining an environment that encourages bouts of uncontrolled collective paranoia for the bush administration.

but the reasons that conservatives seem to so eager to join the paranoia show individually remains a mystery.

what pleasure is there to be had in fantasizing nuclear warfare scenarios involving major american cities?


based on no effort to gather and process data on who the various groups that might undertake attacks on the us are, what drives them, etc--on no historical understanding, on no socilogical understanding, our heroic conservatives nonetheless imagine that they are operating on the basis of a coherent category "terrorist" or "jihadist"--this category has the peculiar characteristic of being endlessly persecuting, something like the types of split superego you see talked about in psychoanalytic writings on schizophrenia. it is like an angry wasp that follows you around and that you fight, wooden sword in hand, by waving the sword around and bellowing slogans about smashing "terror"...

if you are concerned about the emergence of arbitrariness in an otherwise perfectly manicured bourgeois life, why are you not equally freaked out by moving objects in general, automobiles in particular, which are statistically a much more clear and present danger to you personally than the phantom "terrorism"...automobiles envy your organic status, your hair, your curvy lines....

well so it can't really be about fear of death, this undirected, unfocussed and permanent resoluteness....there has to be some positive charge to be had from simply moving into the space of unlimited paranoia....is it about attrtibuting to yourself a sense of importance by being able to imagine that your "way of life" and by extension yourself as an individual (individuals being interchangeable within the context of capitalist markets, all little rational actors doing rational things because cash is at stake o yes) are under threat directly by people far away?

i ask these questions because it is evident that the category "terror" is a priori worthless as a descriptive or analytic tool. no way to get from it to any idea of who might carry out and action or why--or even what might be done. "terror" is empty, does not refer to the world, but refers to the world as (thesedays) conservatives would prefer to see it--a place at once dangerous and hunky dory--the hunky doriness is always a function of market metaphors and its disruption always the result of some Evil Outside Force--so if we were going to try to understand the appeal of the category, and that appeal cannot be analaytic, and cannot be coherence, then it must be political--but we have covered that so many times---and within that, adopting this kind of total panic mode and then routing it through some johnwayne apocalyptic war fantasy must be good clean american fun.

so how and in what way is adopting this fantasy structure "terrorist" fun and exciting?
what is the affective payoff?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite