Could You Be a Terrorist?

[Two Thumbs]

Is there anything you'd be willing to commit an act of terror in order to achieve? I'm thinking along the lines of detonating a bomb in a crowded place in order to start the process of instigating change. Be as explicit or vague as you like, but please include a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the central question.

In the not-too-distant future I think there's going to be serious bloodshed in Europe over the rise of Islamism and the E.U., and I'd support and contribute to that violence if it meant collective action would topple the E.U. and weaken the spread of Islam.

Die on your feet

or

Serve on your knees


I'd avoid bystanders, civilians.

 

[Two Thumbs]

kinda funny seeing my Fellow Americans saying they wouldn't when in fact terrorists built America.


kinda funny like stubbing your toe, falling over and banging your head, then laughing at how funny it must have looked to ignore the pain.

 

[Skull Pilot]

kinda funny seeing my Fellow Americans saying they wouldn't when in fact terrorists built America.


kinda funny like stubbing your toe, falling over and banging your head, then laughing at how funny it must have looked to ignore the pain.

It's funny to attribute mores of centuries ago to modern attitudes.

 

[editec]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvA1bKLQtbM]The Fugs - Kill For Peace - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FA_Q2]

kinda funny seeing my Fellow Americans saying they wouldn't when in fact terrorists built America.


kinda funny like stubbing your toe, falling over and banging your head, then laughing at how funny it must have looked to ignore the pain.

Terrorism did not build this nation. Terrorism is inflicting terror through the targeting of civilian populations, not blowing things up. We blow shit up on a regular basis but that is not terrorism as we are not targeting civilians but actual military targets.

That is the key difference. Essentially, would you be willing to target innocents and kill them for political gains. I say no but then again, none of my political beliefs would be served in such a way.

 

[editec]

Could You Be a Terrorist?

I could be. After all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to kill unarmed innocents

But the benefits and retirement package really sucks, so I have elected to find other employment opportunities.

 

[Circe]

Could You Be a Terrorist?

I could be. After all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to kill unarmed innocents

But the benefits and retirement package really sucks, so I have elected to find other employment opportunities.

Yes, good point, we're all looking at that kid who had the wild, free life of an American college student one day and the next is facing the rest of his life spent in a small cage or concrete room with no windows, books, or much of anything. And it doesn't seem a good career decision. Why did he suppose this was a GOOD idea?

But to me the big puzzle is efficacy. The OP seems to assume that bomb-throwing into crowds, the usual definition of terrorism, accomplishes something. But what does it ever accomplish? It's like a train wreck, all destruction and no new achievement. I can't see how they talk themselves into thinking anything will change by means of their actions. Does anyone see a way this WORKS for terrorists in any political or military sense?

That's why I think these are just schizophrenics, the leader types, and dependent blind followers like the little brother in this case. Pure homicidal maniacs. Sometimes if there's a terrorist pair, it's a father substitute thing, like this situation surely was, and the DC Sniper pair was definitely that.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Yes, good point, we're all looking at that kid who had the wild, free life of an American college student one day and the next is facing the rest of his life spent in a small cage or concrete room with no windows, books, or much of anything. And it doesn't seem a good career decision. Why did he suppose this was a GOOD idea?

But to me the big puzzle is efficacy. The OP seems to assume that bomb-throwing into crowds, the usual definition of terrorism, accomplishes something. But what does it ever accomplish? It's like a train wreck, all destruction and no new achievement. I can't see how they talk themselves into thinking anything will change by means of their actions. Does anyone see a way this WORKS for terrorists in any political or military sense?

That's why I think these are just schizophrenics, the leader types, and dependent blind followers like the little brother in this case. Pure homicidal maniacs. Sometimes if there's a terrorist pair, it's a father substitute thing, like this situation surely was, and the DC Sniper pair was definitely that.

ahoy Circe,

well met, matey.

though the September 11th attacks were far more formidable than "bomb throwing into crowds", i thought that the return fer the investment 'o commandeerin' a few commercial jets was in some ways magnificent (fer this nation's foes).

two decade long engagements - one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan - that hath helped bleed our treasury dry 'o monies, helpin' cripple the US economy fer generations to come.

i mean, if them terrorists seeked to undermine our way 'o life, wouldn't ye say that they were successful?

- MeadHallPirate

 

[numan]

'
One thing which has teased my thoughts is why there are not more elderly terrorists.

One would think that an old person, with little left to live for, perhaps near to death already, is the perfect candidate to be a terrorist. Yet the few terrorists who are not just the tools and dupes of governments are almost always young -- or at least middle-aged.

One naturally thinks it is because the old have learned some wisdom, that they know that terrorism rarely accomplishes any worthwhile goal, that it often produces effects the opposite of what was intended, or even that they simply ignobly and selfishly overvalue their few remaining days.

Such considerations seem valid, but they do not seem to explain the almost total nonexistence of elderly terrorists -- especially since very few humans ever learn any wisdom
.

 

[emilynghiem]

'
One thing which has teased my thoughts is why there are not more elderly terrorists.

One would think that an old person, with little left to live for, perhaps near to death already, is the perfect candidate to be a terrorist. Yet the few terrorists who are not just the tools and dupes of governments are almost always young -- or at least middle-aged.

One naturally thinks it is because the old have learned some wisdom, that they know that terrorism rarely accomplishes any worthwhile goal, that it often produces effects the opposite of what was intended, or even that they simply ignobly and selfishly overvalue their few remaining days.

Such considerations seem valid, but they do not seem to explain the almost total nonexistence of elderly terrorists -- especially since very few humans ever learn any wisdom
.

maybe because they kill themselves off and don't live to see old age?

 

[emilynghiem]

ahoy Circe,

well met, matey.

though the September 11th attacks were far more formidable than "bomb throwing into crowds", i thought that the return fer the investment 'o commandeerin' a few commercial jets was in some ways magnificent (fer this nation's foes).

two decade long engagements - one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan - that hath helped bleed our treasury dry 'o monies, helpin' cripple the US economy fer generations to come.

i mean, if them terrorists seeked to undermine our way 'o life, wouldn't ye say that they were successful?

- MeadHallPirate

the humbling affect of the 9/11 attacks and
the divisive aftermath that threatened to disrupt democratic relations
even within the country certainly had great impact.

out of this process, you can see the progress people have made
in response to the Boston bombings. A lot more seasoned and experienced
response, more focus and compassion for the victims and helping where
contributions can do the most good. So as an indirect response to these attacks,
there is greater promotion of more positive sides of American freedom and actions
of charity, and less and less fear-based focus on negative forces of greed abusing capitalistic freedom being protested politically or violently.

in the end, we will see the msg is that these positive actions to effect change are more powerful, effective and longlasting/sustainable than any of the negative attacks protesting the very disparity or oppression solved by using democratic freedom for positive change.

as for the economy of the 9/11 attacks, if those responsible were held to account for the full cost and losses of their actions, then no, this would hardly be economical. Especially counting the continuing costs and suffering of responders with failing health and not enough help.
what I do find to be striking is that so many more lives could have been lost.

when I look at the safety officer who saved every one of his employees, got them all out of the building due to repeat drills
he practiced with his company on a regular routine following the previous attack on the WTC,
what that man did was obviously effective in terms of reducing the costs and lives that would have been lost.

so stories like his have more impact and lasting influence on me as a positive example
than these negative actions which are not necessary. we can acheive greater change
and solve more problems by acting as the safety director and not as the hijackers.

all the heroes after the bombings in Boston also send that message.
so this is the impact that will last and multiply, and far surpass the need for any negative protests using violence.

 

[Toronado3800]

Absolutely. In 1999 when oil was $10/barrel and gasoline was $1/gallon (60 cents before taxes), it was all I could do to feed my family, 3 year-old daughter included. We were living hand-to-mouth.
No, it was worse than that. I was putting everything on various credit cards. When the smoke cleared it took me 10 (count 'em, ten) years to pay off my debt.

I lived a few miles from a major crude oil collection station. Told Mrs. H. that I was going to rent an 18 wheeler and park it sideways across the highway so the tankers couldn't access the terminal.

Thank goodness Mrs. H.'s calm presence calmed my radical presence.

President Clinton allowed foreign countries to dump their crude on our domestic markets at below production cost- contrary to international trade law.

Fuck that shit. And fuck Carter. And fuck Obama.

Goddamn Democrat whores.

So let me get this straight, when oil is cheap you make less money so you want the other 90% of the country to be worse off?

Then you want the U.S. to bow to some one world government trade organization instead of letting other countries and companies compete on the free market as they see fit?

Come now mr liberal. Do not be calling names of yourself.

Next thing you will be complaining Obama has us drilling too much and we should save our oil for when China goes crazy and trade is more difficult.

After 4 years and 19,000 posts you refer to me as "mr liberal"?

"Worse off" is when that 90% of Americans are importing the vast majority of their energy requirements while domestic producers of hydrocarbons are going belly-up.

Oh, do do the math. In your wee wee hours.

Sorry. I do not know your reputation. Good or bad.

Just went by your words in this post.

I know I prefer not to make myself have to fit any one narrow polital dogma.

 

[emilynghiem]

Could You Be a Terrorist?

I could be. After all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to kill unarmed innocents

But the benefits and retirement package really sucks, so I have elected to find other employment opportunities.

Yes, good point, we're all looking at that kid who had the wild, free life of an American college student one day and the next is facing the rest of his life spent in a small cage or concrete room with no windows, books, or much of anything. And it doesn't seem a good career decision. Why did he suppose this was a GOOD idea?

But to me the big puzzle is efficacy. The OP seems to assume that bomb-throwing into crowds, the usual definition of terrorism, accomplishes something. But what does it ever accomplish? It's like a train wreck, all destruction and no new achievement. I can't see how they talk themselves into thinking anything will change by means of their actions. Does anyone see a way this WORKS for terrorists in any political or military sense?

That's why I think these are just schizophrenics, the leader types, and dependent blind followers like the little brother in this case. Pure homicidal maniacs. Sometimes if there's a terrorist pair, it's a father substitute thing, like this situation surely was, and the DC Sniper pair was definitely that.

if there had been others involved, I would have believed it if he thought it would protect their family from threats to go along with the plans they already committed to.

if no one else was involved,
Maybe he thought if his brother was going to go down, he was going to go down with him.
or maybe at some point he thought God would give him a way out and he could talk his brother out of it and reduce damage that this guy would have done anyway. who knows.

Some family members may have regretted if their loved ones stayed in the WTC buildings
with those trapped, as at least one story was reported where someone chose to stay behind and die on the stairwell and not leave the person alone who could not longer move.

some might question that decision, as why save one person from suffering a few moments longer alone if both are going to die anyway and more family members are going to suffer than just the one? why not just save yourself? why make two families suffer losses?

in the case of the two girls raped and killed and mutilated by the gang of young men in Houston, they reported that one of the girls would have escaped while they were attacking the other, but she cried out to her friend not to leave her. So she stopped and made the choice to come back and suffer the same brutal rape and death as her best friend.

so sometimes the bond between people may be greater at that point
than the fear of death and consequences.

 

[Circe]

though the September 11th attacks were far more formidable than "bomb throwing into crowds", i thought that the return fer the investment 'o commandeerin' a few commercial jets was in some ways magnificent (fer this nation's foes).

two decade long engagements - one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan - that hath helped bleed our treasury dry 'o monies, helpin' cripple the US economy fer generations to come.

i mean, if them terrorists seeked to undermine our way 'o life, wouldn't ye say that they were successful?

- MeadHallPirate

Yes, I entirely agree with you; I wonder if we realize how much things have changed since 9/11/2013, and for the worse.

I didn't think of 9/11 when I said terrorism is not efficacious because I agree with the decision people reached pretty quickly in that case: that was not terrorism!

Plane-bombing New York and the Pentagon was war.

 

[FA_Q2]

Could You Be a Terrorist?

I could be. After all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to kill unarmed innocents

But the benefits and retirement package really sucks, so I have elected to find other employment opportunities.

Yes, good point, we're all looking at that kid who had the wild, free life of an American college student one day and the next is facing the rest of his life spent in a small cage or concrete room with no windows, books, or much of anything. And it doesn't seem a good career decision. Why did he suppose this was a GOOD idea?

But to me the big puzzle is efficacy. The OP seems to assume that bomb-throwing into crowds, the usual definition of terrorism, accomplishes something. But what does it ever accomplish? It's like a train wreck, all destruction and no new achievement. I can't see how they talk themselves into thinking anything will change by means of their actions. Does anyone see a way this WORKS for terrorists in any political or military sense?

That's why I think these are just schizophrenics, the leader types, and dependent blind followers like the little brother in this case. Pure homicidal maniacs. Sometimes if there's a terrorist pair, it's a father substitute thing, like this situation surely was, and the DC Sniper pair was definitely that.

That depends on the goal.

9/11 I believe was a good example of the type of goal that actually can use terrorism. The goal there was nothing in the way of ‘change’ to the current political structure but rather it was furthering total collapse. This is one of the reasons that my statement mentioned that none of my political views would be furthered through terrorism. The ONLY political views that gains steam through terrorist acts are totalitarianism and complete destabilization.

Those views are actually furthered through terrorist acts.

 

[numan]

One thing which has teased my thoughts is why there are not more elderly terrorists.

One would think that an old person, with little left to live for, perhaps near to death already, is the perfect candidate to be a terrorist. Yet the few terrorists who are not just the tools and dupes of governments are almost always young -- or at least middle-aged.

One naturally thinks it is because the old have learned some wisdom, that they know that terrorism rarely accomplishes any worthwhile goal, that it often produces effects the opposite of what was intended, or even that they simply ignobly and selfishly overvalue their few remaining days.

Such considerations seem valid, but they do not seem to explain the almost total nonexistence of elderly terrorists -- especially since very few humans ever learn any wisdom

maybe because they kill themselves off and don't live to see old age?

Droll, Emily, very droll -- but I think not quite enough for a complete explanation.

Of course, it might be that there is really very little private terrorism in the world -- after all, governments and other rich and powerful groups have much greater resources and sophistication to pull off state-sponsored terrorism, "black-ops" and the like, and then frame patsies to take the blame -- I'm sure that happens a lot, but even that is probably not sufficient to explain why the elderly so seldom take the fall.
.

 

[PaulS1950]

Terrorism is used by people who have no other means to express their frustration with what they perceive to be a future without improvement. "life isn't worth living so I will kill myself but my death can be used to provide a reason for other to be better off if I destroy the people's faith in this system that is no longer working". The psychology is easy to understand but it isn't that simple. People have to be trained that life is less important than the goal. They also need to believe that their death is an act of heroism and not cowardice.
Religion is an excellent tool for that purpose - it worked in the Crusades and it works still today. Not all Christians fought in the crusades - not all of them even knew about it but a few radicals carried out the battles because they had some who could be convinced that it was "God's will". We "Americans" did the same thing to the natives of this country. They were "godless heathens" and savages and had to be conquered. (because they were in the way of "manifest destiny" or "God's will)

 

[Pop23]

'
One thing which has teased my thoughts is why there are not more elderly terrorists.

One would think that an old person, with little left to live for, perhaps near to death already, is the perfect candidate to be a terrorist. Yet the few terrorists who are not just the tools and dupes of governments are almost always young -- or at least middle-aged.

One naturally thinks it is because the old have learned some wisdom, that they know that terrorism rarely accomplishes any worthwhile goal, that it often produces effects the opposite of what was intended, or even that they simply ignobly and selfishly overvalue their few remaining days.

Such considerations seem valid, but they do not seem to explain the almost total nonexistence of elderly terrorists -- especially since very few humans ever learn any wisdom
.

One word

Golf

 

[Circe]

There ARE a lot of elderly homocidal maniacs, the shooters in their 60s and up who have no record, no nothing, and one day just haul off and kidnap kids from a school bus and hole up in their bunker, kidnap firefighters, shoot firefighters who come to their burning house, we've all seen the news items. There are a lot recently.

I assume it's what people used to call "hardening of the arteries," a form of senile dementia before they get too impaired to act on it, age rage.

But the elderly Muslims and what-not aren't yet throwing bombs into crowds or shooting up Army bases. I suppose they just haven't thought of it yet and it will come, as a new psycho-criminal fashion.

 

[editec]

'
One thing which has teased my thoughts is why there are not more elderly terrorists.

One would think that an old person, with little left to live for, perhaps near to death already, is the perfect candidate to be a terrorist. Yet the few terrorists who are not just the tools and dupes of governments are almost always young -- or at least middle-aged.

One naturally thinks it is because the old have learned some wisdom, that they know that terrorism rarely accomplishes any worthwhile goal, that it often produces effects the opposite of what was intended, or even that they simply ignobly and selfishly overvalue their few remaining days.

Such considerations seem valid, but they do not seem to explain the almost total nonexistence of elderly terrorists -- especially since very few humans ever learn any wisdom
.

One word

Golf

PLUS.....It is inconvenient to have members of your radical terrorist cell who have to stop the revolution every two or three hours because they gotta pee.

Revolution is a young man's game.

Sending young revolutionaries out to die, now THAT is an old man's game.