Jedi Council Forums - Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/4/02 3:32pm Subject: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion - Date Edited: 12/4/02 3:34pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Ender_Sai
	It seems to me there's a lot of sentiment about this particular subject - with 9/11 being the obvious, and most painful, focal point. However, as with many "painful" things, we tend to substitute rational analysis for an emotional viewpoint. Which, as has been seen on various threads here, tends to narrow our perspective. We simply demonise these people, and that's dangerous. As the character of spymaster Starik said, in the CIA-tome/novel the Company, "It is a great mistake to reduce your enemy to a demon. It leaves you at a distinct disadvantage when trying to outwit him." (page 575). The purpose of this thread is to both discuss, rationally, terrorism (both historical and contemporary) and to answer any queries on the matter. I will be glad to answer any and all questions you have, as well as comment on any observations you want to make. However, I must stress, this thread is a bashing-free zone. I don't care if you want to bash Dubya, Usama, if you want to say that terrorism is symbolic of Islam, take it someplace else. Furthermore, let's limit the "Terrorism is a threat to democracy yada yada yada" speech writing. This thread is a resource, primarily, then a discussion thread. We can have someone post "Usama is Satan" once, and then a few can agree, and it's stagnant and dead. My first question to people, then, is this: Do you see any distinct "evolutionary" patterns in terrorism, or do you think Usama bin Laden is merely the same type of terrorist seen in the 1960's and 1970's, albeit adjusted for modern weapons and communication? Also, here's a few links to get you started: RESOURCES: 1) CIA War on Terror Page 2) US State Dept. Office of Counter-Terrorism 3) Terrorism Answers E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 12/4/02 3:55pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion - Date Edited: 12/4/02 4:54pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DarthKarde
	My first question to people, then, is this: Do you see any distinct "evolutionary" patterns in terrorism, or do you think Usama bin Laden is merely the same type of terrorist seen in the 1960's and 1970's, albeit adjusted for modern weapons and communication? I don't see as their is much difference in the two. Two consistant stratergies of terrorism are to cause maximum fear by hitting high-profile targets and to rally support for your casue by hitting highly symbolic targets. Al-qaeda appear to have followed both of these stratergies. They have shown themselves to be highly adaptable and resourseful in how they carry out attacks and with regards to the structure of the network and how they have coped and seemingly thrived following the loss of their sanctuary in Afghanistan. I'm not sure which of your two descriptions this would qualify as, and as I said I don't see much distinction in the two. -----signature----- The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Uruk-hai Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/4/02 4:45pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	There's no way a world wide network of terrorists could have been so effective in the 60's or 70's. Improvements in communications - mobile phones, internet, email etc have made managing a large organisation easier for Osama. The act of terrorism itself hasn't changed, a bomb in a truck is a bomb in a truck, no matter what year you use it. -----signature----- Math is hard! Tho are etheth! Remember Bali 12th October 2002.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/4/02 5:37pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	Well, let's go with the definition of terrorism as provided by our friends at Langley: How do you define terrorism? The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d): —The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. —The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country. —The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. Source: CIA Terrorism FAQ's Civs don't need to be even harmed for terrorism to work, or to even be terrorism. If a militant Marxist group were to blow up a railway bridge in Italy (common practise in the 1970's) to terrorise the populace and, in their eyes, turn them on their government, that's stil terrorism. The reason I don't think it made the CIA's definition is because America has engaged in this kind of terrorism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning the USA. Nor the Allies during WWII, with the SOE and OSS, which did exactly that; "The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." A non-combatant target can mean either a) A civillian, or b) A non-military piece of infrastructure. When the CIA was blowing up freighters in Havana, or setting fire to the Cuban sugar crops (which, being their primary export, was their life), they did so to basically incite the population against Castro. Which means, for an audience (the people), the CIA engaged clandestine units to engage in the targeting of non-combatant units, in this case - infrastructure. (As in, aside from the geo-political conflict). I guess what I'm getting at is this: I believe terrorism has evolved. It has several key phases in it's evolution. But it's a radical theory, and radical theories tend to evolve when they are not constrained. In the 1960's and 1970's, when people took hostages they executed them when their demands were not met. If the RAF (Red Army Faction) siezed a bank, their demands would usually be "Release political prisoners or we execute hostages". If the demands weren't met, then they'd execute people. Nowadays, there is none of that, it's simply kill people to make a point. Il'lych Ramierez Sanchez, aka Carlos aka the Jackal, was the first of the sociopath terrorists to have a personality, as were Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhoff. Let me try and explain my "phase theory" PHASE 1 - Terrorism is the urban counterpart to guerilla war in a revolutionary context. It usually required urban units to terrorise the population by destroying infrastructure so they would turn on their regime, which was ineffectual in protecting them (or so the reasoning went.) Primary example of this: the Student Union front to Castro's May 17 movement. PHASE 2 - Terrorism becomes a totally clandestine political movement. It is totally a domestic affair. Terrorists such as the PLO or PFLP try to force change on the Israeli state by committing acts against Israel or Israeli targets. For all intents and purposes, this is a domestic affair. Even when they hijack planes, it is still a domestic issue as their demands are domestic in their scope. PHASE 3 - the Terror International. Prior to 1983, terrorism had been more or less political and indigenous. It was not an internationalist phenomenon. Kidnapping of English, French and American targets in Greece was related to anti-NATO radicals, etc etc. In 1983, you have an Iranian state security apparatus, the Pasdaran, (operating under the nom-de-guerre Islamic Jihad Organisation, or IJO) using Palestinian suicide bombers to attack an American target, for their support of Israel, in Lebanon. (Granted, we'd need to go into the three big events in 1979 - Egypt-Israel peace accord, Iranian revolution, USSR invading Afghanistan to make more sense of this, but that's what my thesis is for! ) This is when terrorism, as we know it now, went truly international, IMHO. Thoughts? E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
VadersLaMent Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 12/4/02 5:54pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	Those are four of the most interesting posts I have ever read here, and all in a row. The viruses that have cropped up on the cruise liners have not been connected to terrorism, but it did spawn a new phrase I just heard spoken on the O'reilly Factor: Bacterial Warfare. How hard is it to infect someone, or a group, with non professional lab grown biological material? I have read a story of a disgruntled worker at a Taco Bell that put feces in the meat mix and people infected contracted hepatitus(SP). When I was in the Navy there was no place on the ship more concerned about cleanliness than the kitchen. As one Chief put it, "All it takes is one pot of food not properly cooked and it will not seem like we have enough toilets on this ship. One bad pot of food and the ship's billion dollar warfare capabilties come to a grinding hault." And it does not even take poorly cooked food, if a cook is sick, the cook doesn't prepare food. Or else you get the same thing. How hard is it to deliver these types of things [i]on purpose[i]? -----signature----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic-Arthur C. Clarke Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God-Michael Shermer I'm a sexy shoeless GOD OF WAR! #347 on SLG's List Of Sexy Men
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/4/02 5:59pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	That's a good point. It's NOT hard to commit acts of terror on the logistical side - however, there has to be some trepidation when a person becomes that dehumanised. I guess, I'm no psychologist. But it also means that terrorism is never going to go away. It's a convenient avenue for people who feel disaffected and marginalised. So how do we combat it? E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TripleB Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/4/02 6:12pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	There is an age old proverbs that can be applied here....One Man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist....The Conventional Army loses if it does not win/A Guerilla Army wins by not losing.....History is written by the winners...... By that, we can make all sorts of parallels both in real life and in fiction. The AMerican Revolution and the REbel Alliance could be considered Terrorists Organization....except that both organizations won the conflicts they were in. -----signature----- 11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!! VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!! Ep1&2<most EU
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
VadersLaMent Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 12/4/02 6:14pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	It's good that you asked, "How to we combat it?" rather than, "How do we stop it?", because there will always be terrorism. And of course, other than a simple, "Keep our eyes open", there is no easy answer. There are people...or should I say "Experts"...who claim we are in greater danger now than before 9/11. Can this be true? I am assuming those who actually do work in anti-terrorism are paying much closer attention to things like radio chatter. How are we in more danger now? A comment was made by some former CIA man on one of the news chanels awhile back. He said something to the effect that an attack on American soil was nearly impossible a few decades ago: 1. As mentioned above, the ability to put together such an attack was limited. 2. America was this "Great Power", in the minds of other NON-Great Power enemies attacking American soil was out of the question. 3. The CIA knew everything. The CIA was a down and dirty take-no-prisoners-unless-we-can-interrogate-the-living-hell-out-of-them-for-info-and-no-one-gets-in-OUR-way type of organization. That third point, its not true anymore. Would we want it to be true again? -----signature----- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic-Arthur C. Clarke Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God-Michael Shermer I'm a sexy shoeless GOD OF WAR! #347 on SLG's List Of Sexy Men
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/4/02 6:32pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	TripleB, this is true. Remember, the SOE was set up by Churchill to engage in sabotage and terror, or as they called it, "Ungentlemanly warfare." Is terrorism something we can admit to practising, albeit a "Phase 1" style of terrorism? I'm guessing that the CIA guy you spoke of was Bob Baer? Anyways, he's right. Basically, with the superpowers being what they were (forces that ruled the world), the international system was more or less kept in balance. My theory is that whilst the USSR and USA could regulate each other - if one erred, the other would capitalise on it in the UN - the absense of a regulating force on the US leads them to do more "daring" things which provokes a reaction. And that reaction is often terrorism. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/4/02 6:42pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	3. The CIA knew everything. The CIA was a down and dirty take-no-prisoners-unless-we-can-interrogate-the-living-hell-out-of-them-for-info-and-no-one-gets-in-OUR-way type of organization. That third point, its not true anymore. Would we want it to be true again? Not really. Church/Pike guttings and onwards aside, the CIA has never really recruited assets in the Islamist terrorist networks. Bob Baer claims to have recruited someone in HAMAS, but that person was a "true believer" opposed to violence. Remember, these guys are bound by an oath they take ultra-seriously. To get an agent that's a member of a terrorist network is damn near impossible, even for MI6, who are the recognised masters of tradecraft. As for the CIA restored to it's glory days? I'd love to see it happen, but I don't think it's possible. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Uruk-hai Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/4/02 6:53pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	Calling the SOE during WW2 a terrorist organisation is revisionist and incorrect IMO. Sure they commited acts of sabotage and most probably assasination, but remember the context in which it was organised. WW2 was a period where the enemy had declared "Total War" which meant to them there were no such thing as civilians or non-combatants. The SOE operated under those conditions imposed by the enemy of Britain, it was fire with fire stuff. By your definition of terrorism, the bomber crews that levelled Dresden, blew up bridges, bombed dams etc were terrorists. It's all a matter of context. Terrorism has always had the surprise bomb element, but I do agree that these days the old hostage/demand style is virtually non existant. That much has also changed. -----signature----- Math is hard! Tho are etheth! Remember Bali 12th October 2002.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
TripleB Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 12/4/02 9:24pm Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	I believe the Japanese executed members of Colonel Doolittle's raid on Tokyo in 1942 as war criminals and terrorists that they managed to capture (and were probably tortured big time too). From the Japanese standpoint, they were terrorists who had bombed Tokyo and such. -----signature----- 11/07/2006 is going to be a bad day for the Dem's, a great one for the gop because my political realities always pan out & because I will have seen Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST 100 times by then!!! VIVA OBI-WAN McCARTNEY!!!! Ep1&2<most EU
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
imzadi Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 12/5/02 2:36am Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	'Non-combatant' can also include off-duty military personell. I think terrorism has changed somewhat. It is more international now and for less firm causes. Ie. the IRA attacked the Brittish and other localised opposing forces. Now, an entire, for lack of a better term, way of life is being targetted. Any westerner could be a target, not just people from a specific country. -----signature----- "Another happy landing." "I have failed you, Anakin, I have failed you." ~ Obi-Wan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Ender_Sai Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 12/5/02 2:41am Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	Not at all, Uruk. My definition expressly states "clandestine units" which is why the SOE and OSS engaged in terrorist activites. However, to say they are terrorists would be incorrect; they had a variety of mission profiles, not all of which could be called terrorist. What I'm saying is that terrorism, before 1972, wasn't even a "dirty" word - that is, something "they" do, and "we" don't. Ever wondered what SPECTRE in James Bond stood for? And what would you call the activies of the CIA in Cuba? Planning assassinations through the Cosa Nostra, setting fire to sugar cane to cripple the economy, blowing up freighters in the harbour at Havana? The purposes of those activites was to create fear, which would undermine Castro; fear perpetrated by clanestine agents striking non-combatant (or non-military) targets. My point is this; terrorism is like nationalism. People, even here, assume nationalism is a right wing theory but Castro calls the Cuban Revolution nationalist. Ahmed Ben Bella was a nationalist leader who was leftist. It's what's called an "essentially contested concept." Terrorism can't be defined in an all-inclusive manner. Every definition contains contrary facets. Thus, to simply base our definition off 9/11 and the al-Qaeda model of terrorism is wrong, and limiting. E_S -----signature----- In this truth he knew himself to be. From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 12/5/02 4:08am Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	Using the CIA's own definition of terrorism their actions in Cuba amounted to terrorism. From actions designed mainly to increase fear, to assassination plots to massive economic sabotage. -----signature----- The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jansons_Funny_Twin Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 12/5/02 8:04am Subject: RE: Terrorism - Q and A/Discussion
	My first question to people, then, is this: Do you see any distinct "evolutionary" patterns in terrorism, or do you think Usama bin Laden is merely the same type of terrorist seen in the 1960's and 1970's, albeit adjusted for modern weapons and communication? A little late thanks to the boards going down and a power outage here, but I want to answer this. I've noticed many changes in terrorism, both in the means and the goals. Back in the 1960s and 70s, a majority of the terrorist groups were leftist groups with ties to the old Soviet Union. Since the fall of the USSR, many of those groups have either disbanded or gone quiet, and are being replaced by groups with religious motivations. And that, I believe, is where the shift comes in. With the Leftists groups, they were fighting for an ideology, and trying to convince others to join them. If you're trying to influence a constituent group, you don't start blowing up thousands of people. But when you have politically motivated groups who feel that they are feel as if the only one they have to answer to is God, the one they think that they fighting for, there is very little restraint in how you conduct yourself. I think that it will become even more difficult to curb terrorism in the future. In the Kevin Smith movie Dogma, there is a scene where Chris Rock's character is talking about how we screwed up a good idea (Christianity) by structuring a belief system around it. He says that "It's easier to change an idea, changing a belief...that's more difficult." We need to go in, and take care of the root problems. To do this, we can provide ecconomic aid, etc. By doing thid, we can eliminate one major enabler of terrorism. In his book Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Mark Juergensmeyer puts forward his theory of marginality. This theory states that most terrorists join these terrorist groups because they come from low - middle income ares, young, away from the family yet not having a family of their own, etc. They feel like another face in the crowd. So they join these extremist groups. Back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, they would join leftist groups, now, they join religiously inspired groups. -----signature----- "GAIUS H. CHRIST!" - My younger brother. "you guys, you're so cute with your anal rape and man love" - lexu For Khaz Modan! "IGNORE ME!"
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 » - ~~Previous~~ | Next | Reload