CDZ Can I hear different perspective on why terrorism exists?

[buddhallah_the_christ]

Why does terrorism, specifically, terrorism against America and other western states, occur from middle eastern groups?
I'm trying to find where I stand. I have heard many from "Because they hate our freedoms" to "Because American foreign intervention incites it". What do participants think about the issue?
Who has actually created such a phenomena as "terrorism"?

Thanks!

 

[Pogo]

Terrorism is an anarchistic political act. And little of it comes from "Middle Eastern groups". That's just what sells in the blogosphere. The numbers put the lie to it. Big time.

 

[Josf]

If at all possible the accusation could be made specific instead of general, in other words an example of precisely who perpetrated terrorism in time and place ought to be focused on so as to know precisely what is meant when the word terrorism is employed by whoever employs the word terrorism.

To me a precise example of terrorism is defined as anyone willfully invents a method of communicating to a target audience a message that accomplished the goal of terrorizing the targeted victims. If that is the definition of terrorism then the criminals who took over in 1787 were terrorists when they fabricated terrifying (false) consequences that would result if the people (targets) did not adopt their criminal constitution of 1787.

Example:
Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787 Robert Yates John Lansing 9781410203632 Amazon.com Books
Luther Martin page 4:
_____________________________________________________________
But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.
________________________________________________________________

A more modern example of terrorism is here:


And here:

 

[Donald Polish]

I am still sure that our Government and we ourselves provoke some peoples to become terrorists.
The United States needs middle east oil and the united states financially supports Israel, that is why Islamic people are angry. They would prefer we kept our noses out of their countries.
Don't we have such an aggressive international political course what will happen with global terrorism?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Terrorism is the result of religious zealotry combined with anger about social standing, anger about perceived oppression, anger about inability to improve your situation, and the desire to give your life for what some religious nutjob has convinced you is a noble cause.

That is why terrorism exists.

 

[idb]

Terrorism is intended to affect the way a population carries on its daily life.
AQ and the like have been spectacularly successful in this - just look at the security and restrictions on travel and public assembly.

Through that the public will put pressure on their government to change its policies towards the groups that the terrorists represent.

 

[syonidv]

There are a lot of reasons.

Islamic extremism plays a part (and more so of one in recent years), but hatred for western society also stems from the many military engagements by western nations, the west's support for Israel, and the west's (in particular, the United States') perpetual meddling in ME affairs--funding dictators, funding rebellions, supplying arms, supplying training, fomenting revolution, and generally attempting to topple or destabilize regimes that act contrary to western interests.

Rightly or wrongly, much of the Middle East sees the west as corrupt, decadent, murderous, godless, immoral, oppressive, and arrogant. They see us as a dying empire. Economically and demographically speaking, they're right.

It's also true that most people--even most Americans--aren't aware of just how much havoc CIA meddling has caused in the ME, Turkey, and the Ukraine. The Republicans have jumped on the Benghazi debacle because they see that as a means of discrediting the White House, but Benghazi is the tiniest tip of the iceberg in terms of CIA involvement in eastern Europe and the Middle East. In particular, CIA arms trafficking through Turkey has been going on for more than a decade.

The same is true with Crimea. To watch the American newsmedia, you'd think the CIA had nothing to do with the revolution there or with Russia's involvement, but Crimea is yet another example of CIA meddling (trying to cut Russia off from a key port in this case) and Russia basically saying, "No bloody way, America." If you've never heard the CIA mentioned in the context of the conflicts in Turkey, Ukraine, and Syria--let alone being the instigator--you're not alone. It's not something the US MSM reports on.

I condemn the US government, not the US people, but your government has a lot of blood on its hands and a lot to answer for. Unfortunately, the people who want vengeance aren't going to discriminate between the US government and US citizens. They're angry, they have nothing to lose, they're empowered by doctrines that glorify death in service to their religion/state, and they're going to kill whoever they can.

 

[idb]

It's a function of the imbalance of military power as well.
The terrorist groups don't have the military capability of the US so they use the methods that they have available.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Terrorism' is a very loose term. It is often stated that much of the WWII bombing was to terrorize the opposition into surrender.
In general, as the term is used today, it means what 'they' do to 'us'.
As a tactic used currently, it fits with the classic young male desire for violent expression. It is cheap, it is easily available, and it is independent; a lot like masturbation.

 

[Muhammed]

Why does terrorism, specifically, terrorism against America and other western states, occur from middle eastern groups?
I'm trying to find where I stand. I have heard many from "Because they hate our freedoms" to "Because American foreign intervention incites it". What do participants think about the issue?
Who has actually created such a phenomena as "terrorism"?

Thanks!

Simply stated, terrorism is a war tactic.

Too many Americans are ignorant of the fact that the USA is at war.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Why does terrorism, specifically, terrorism against America and other western states, occur from middle eastern groups?
I'm trying to find where I stand. I have heard many from "Because they hate our freedoms" to "Because American foreign intervention incites it". What do participants think about the issue?
Who has actually created such a phenomena as "terrorism"?

Thanks!

America and our allies are the root cause of the situation in the middle east because we installed many of the heads of state there in decades past. These puppet regimes then oppressed their people lining their own pockets with treasure of which we in the West got a share. Naturally this irked the locals a little bit and looking around at who's to blame, seeing the US, they naturally struck the root cause of their woe.

So long as the US has an oil interest in the middle east, and protects it playing king-maker, people oppressed by our proxies will be gunning for us.

Didn't used to hate us like they do now, because we didn't used to meddle like we did after winning WW2. Mighta been better long-term if we'd lost that since winning seems to have made us a sort of default unofficial ruler of the world. And in order to rule others you have to knock down dissent. This is why so many are justifiably pissed at us. Difference in religion doesn't help either.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

America and our allies are the root cause of the situation in the middle east because we installed many of the heads of state there in decades past. These puppet regimes then oppressed their people lining their own pockets with treasure of which we in the West got a share. Naturally this irked the locals a little bit and looking around at who's to blame, seeing the US, they naturally struck the root cause of their woe.

So long as the US has an oil interest in the middle east, and protects it playing king-maker, people oppressed by our proxies will be gunning for us.

Didn't used to hate us like they do now, because we didn't used to meddle like we did after winning WW2. Mighta been better long-term if we'd lost that since winning seems to have made us a sort of default unofficial ruler of the world. And in order to rule others you have to knock down dissent. This is why so many are justifiably pissed at us. Difference in religion doesn't help either.

But don't you think terrorism is not so effective today? Mass genocide would be more resultive than the another terrorist act. Or maybe than killing one poor soldier or journalist and filming it. That's why I think our government funds terrorists in the Middle East as well as Iraqi, Syrian and other governments.

 

[Asclepias]

Why does terrorism, specifically, terrorism against America and other western states, occur from middle eastern groups?
I'm trying to find where I stand. I have heard many from "Because they hate our freedoms" to "Because American foreign intervention incites it". What do participants think about the issue?
Who has actually created such a phenomena as "terrorism"?

Thanks!

Terrorism is a political word used to incite fear/terror against those the label is applied to. If you scare enough people they will let you say or do anything to make them feel more secure.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

Terrorism exists because it's always being sponsored. Those who who fund terrorism have big money. Big money usually only corporations and governments have. Therefore, until we have big corporations and governments we will always have terrorism.

Terrorism is a political word used to incite fear/terror against those the label is applied to. If you scare enough people they will let you say or do anything to make them feel more secure.

Thanks for quoting vocabulary, it may be useful for somebody who'd like to watch this thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

Terrorism is a tactic used mainly by stateless radicals who rely on failed or anarchic states to harbor and protect them. Often, their funding comes from recognized states that use them as a proxy weapon against their enemies (Iran, Cuba Saudi eg) Our failed policies have contributed largely to their success. And our ability to terminate them is hampered because of the number of dysfunctional states that we've helped to create that now are safe harbors for the more organized and ambitious groups like ISIL.

We should be less concerned about them and MORE concerned about building back the vacuums of power that have sprung up in Africa, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Libya.

Truth is --- a military strong man or a caliphate is the more stable form of government in those regions. OUR job should be identifying stable govts that ASK for our help to remove . Not sham operations like the current Iraqi govt who essentially asked us to leave. EVEN IF it happens to be a Khadafy or a Assad or even a Saddam Hussein. But ESPECIALLY if it is a Jordan or Egypt or Kurdish region facing immediate threats.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

Truth is --- a military strong man or a caliphate is the more stable form of government in those regions. OUR job should be identifying stable govts that ASK for our help to remove . Not sham operations like the current Iraqi govt who essentially asked us to leave. EVEN IF it happens to be a Khadafy or a Assad or even a Saddam Hussein. But ESPECIALLY if it is a Jordan or Egypt or Kurdish region facing immediate threats.

Don't you think the Middle Eastern region would be safer without American intervention? Who do you think "asks" the US for help?

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]
Don't you think the Middle Eastern region would be safer without American intervention? Who do you think "asks" the US for help?[/QUOTE]

All the countries and companies that rely on oil supplies from there.

Exxon and Total are very pleased with the service, for example.

 

[Brian Nott]

Why does terrorism, specifically, terrorism against America and other western states, occur from middle eastern groups?
I'm trying to find where I stand. I have heard many from "Because they hate our freedoms" to "Because American foreign intervention incites it". What do participants think about the issue?
Who has actually created such a phenomena as "terrorism"?

Thanks!

I think the present terrorism is an artificially created phenomenon completely and it's been designed on the single purpose only - to cover all numerous and diverse false flag operations of all possible secrete services and not only American but Britain, Israeli, Russian ones as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Truth is --- a military strong man or a caliphate is the more stable form of government in those regions. OUR job should be identifying stable govts that ASK for our help to remove . Not sham operations like the current Iraqi govt who essentially asked us to leave. EVEN IF it happens to be a Khadafy or a Assad or even a Saddam Hussein. But ESPECIALLY if it is a Jordan or Egypt or Kurdish region facing immediate threats.

Don't you think the Middle Eastern region would be safer without American intervention? Who do you think "asks" the US for help?

Different response depending on WHO exactly asks for help. If ISIL threatened Jordan or Egypt, we should defend them vigorously. Not so much the corrupt and inept govt of Iraq that has invited in Iran to do their fighting. Even unrecognized factions like the Kurds with a cause and a will to defend and fight and increase stability in the region.

Our reason to fight should be to protect WHATEVER form of govt they have that is responsive to their people and represents stability.

You can't clear a vacuum of pestilience. We should have learned that by now. You can also not do Western style "makeovers" of govts and systems in that region. We are terminally stupid about imperialism and suck at it.

 

[suplex3000]

If we must have an enemy but don't want to identify a country then we can just make one called "Terrorists". We can then make enemies by subjugating people and creating War on their lands. That is how we made Bin Laden, Saddam and ISIS. Remember Saddam and Bin Laden were supported by the USA before the USA decided they were not playing ball correctly.