Ambitions, Success and Terror

[hallenrm]

Today is 9/11, five years ago the world witnesses an incident that has launched a million thoughts and questions. For starters consider the following:

1. What is the genesis of terrorism?
2. Can anybody become a terrorist?
3. Why is it that most terrorists are said to belong to a few religions.?
4. Is there a relationship between the economic status and the propensity to become a terrorist?
5. Can any society really prevent the birth of terrorism within its members, if so what would be the prerequisites for it?

Can we contemplate on the above questions? If you think you have an answer or a comment on any of the above questions, then do join me on this thread!!

[rockytriton]

ambitions and success breeds jealousy, which breeds terror.

[hallenrm]

Ah ha! you are a minreader rocky, that is precisely that was in my mind when I started this thread!!!!

[CraigD]

What a great, topical short answer questionnaire! I must give it a shot.

Originally Posted by hallenrm

1.What is the genesis of terrorism?

The perception of injustice.

People have grievances, often of a personal, economic kind, though particulary among the wealthy, the grievances may be more abstract. They can find no acceptable process for redressing their grievances. Therefore, they band together, and invent their own. When these inventions destroy lives and property, we term them terrorism.

2.Can anybody become a terrorist?

Yes.

Timothy McVeigh resorted to terrorism because he believed the US federal government had become repressive to the extent that it would wantonly kill dissidents and social separatists such as the Branch Davidians relegious group. Possibly Catholic, possible agnostic, his motivation almost certainly had nothing to do with religion.

As is well known, the 9/11/01 hijackers were motivated by religion.

3.Why is it that most terrorists are said to belong to a few religions.?

I believe it is said because of the prominence of the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent “war on terror”. This appears to have led to a belief that the religion of a terrorist is more of a determining factor than any other.

I don’t believe this is correct.

4.Is there a relationship between the economic status and the propensity to become a terrorist?

There appears to be.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from poor parts of Saudi Arabia. Some terrorists, such as alleged leader Muhamad Atta, were what a US citizen would likely call “middle class”. Alleged mastermind Osama bin Laden would be considered to have been born very rich by most citizens of any country.

Although terrorists appear to come from all economic classes, I note a tendency for rich terrorists to remain in relative safety as leaders, while the poor ones face the likelihood (or certainty) of injury and death. This tendency also appears in the armed services of nearly all recognized, legitimate nations, expecially since the middle of the 20th century.

5.Can any society really prevent the birth of terrorism within its members, if so what would be the prerequisites for it?

If my answer to question 1 was correct, then society can prevent many, though likely not all, of its people from becoming terrorist by making acceptable processes for redressing their grievances available – in a more catchy turn of phrase, “peace through justice”.

In countries that lack known processes for this, such as civil courts in which any person can bring suit against any other, such processes should be created, or their defunct remnants reinvigorated. In countries that do have them, such as the US, we should strive to assure that nearly all people believe these processes to be fair: that no individual or institution is immune from civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution, and that no individual or institution may abridge the guarantee of due process of law from any individual.

Alarmingly, in my view, current leaders, most visibly US president George W Bush, appear to be seeking to do just the opposite of this, in contending that we are in an extraordinary “state of war”, under which the usual rule of law must be relaxed or suspended. I believe that not since the American Civil War, (1861-1865), when legal due processes was suspended by US president Abraham Lincoln for a similar stated reason, has the Republic of the US been in such great jeopardy. I hope that it is restored as promptly as it was following the Civil War, but fear that, since the “war on terror” is so much less well defined, and potentially without end, that it may not be.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by CraigD

As is well known, the 9/11/01 hijackers were motivated by religion.I believe it is said because of the prominence of the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent “war on terror”. This appears to have led to a belief that the religion of a terrorist is more of a determining factor than any other.

I don’t believe this is correct.

Then what is more of a determining factor?
No, these Islamic terrorists are claiming this a Holy War, and want to kill all infadels. They base their reasoning on interpretations of the Koran, and use financial hardship as additional motivation/recruitment.

If it appears that the vast majority of those whom "we" label as terrorists are Muslims, its because they are...theres No sugar-coating it.

Speaking of poor Saudi terrorists.. Wahhabism is definitely a religious branch of Islam that advocates the non-tolerance and destruction of Infadels...

excerpts:A Textbook Case of Wahhabism
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/wahhabi.html

In a region where holy war is explained in public-school textbooks as "consider the infidel your enemy," (advises a Saudi text for 10th-graders), the connection between political Islam of the sort advocated by Osama bin Laden and the education offered to Persian Gulf schoolchildren has been the subject of agonizing dispute.

In these Wahhabi texts, Islam is presented as the only true religion while all other religions are presented as false. ìIslam is the only religion leading its followers to Paradise, whereas all other religions destroy their believers in Hell. The Muslims are, consequently, superior to followers of all other religions, in both this world and the next.î

Christians and Jews in particular are denounced as infidels. Jews especially are presented as enemies of Islam and of Muslims. ìMuslims may not befriend them, nor emulate them in any way, lest that lead to love and friendship which is forbiddenî.

In a broader context, the textbooks make clear that the West, in particular, is the source of all misfortunes of the Muslim world - itís most dangerous effect on Muslim society being ìits cultural and intellectual influence in various fields including the spread of Western practices and habits - from Western democracy to Western influence in the fields of literature, art, music, the media, fashion, education and research - including Christian missionary work, Western humanitarian and medical aid, and even Western-invented computer games.î

According to the Wahhabi world perspective, ìthe Jews are a wicked nation, characterized by bribery, slyness, deception, betrayal, aggressiveness and haughtiness.î As such, they have been ìa harmful element in world history,î and are responsible, inter alia, for ìthe French and Bolshevik revolutions and for the outbreak of World War I.î

[Racoon]

And towards the bottom of that link:


Former CIA Director James Woolsey told Congress:

"Wahhabi extremism today is the soil in which al Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are growing."

Our problem is that we are not just fighting terrorists and their financial supporters. We are also fighting a religious ideology.

The intrusion of Wahhabism into America is a threat to our security and to our way of life. The fact remains that the government has not done enough to root out Wahhabism, to shut off its funding, to close down its funding recipients, or to encourage moderate Islamic leaders to emphasize the inclusive (as opposed to the exclusive) writings of the Quran and the more humble and pluralistic commentaries of the Hadith.

The U.S. has also failed to pursue a coherent political strategy aimed at de-legitimizing the ideology of Islamic terrorism in America and undermining the terrorists' sources of support. And it is becoming increasingly clear that the reason for this failure is Washington's unwillingness to risk a rupture with Saudi Arabia.

The Bush administration has to face up to the fact that Riyadh has been - and remains - the main ideological and financial sponsor of Islamic extremism worldwide, and the Saudis are not seriously interested in helping us combat it.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations Report, Saudi Arabia is the largest source of financing for al-Qaeda, and blamed both the U.S. and Saudi governments for not being tough enough.

Matthew Levitt, has said that ìSaudi officials and state-paid religious leaders sit on the boards of charities that the American government suspects of supporting terrorism.î

Let there be no doubt. Al Qaeda ideology is essentially Wahhabism, and most, if not all members of al Qaeda are ideologically Wahhabist. Billions of Saudi dollars are flowing through legitimate businesses, charitable front organizations, Islamic Centers, academies, private schools, wealthy Saudi individuals and world wide criminal activities for the sole purpose of promoting a religious philosophy that is antithetical to democracy, the democratic ideals of freedom, tolerance, religious pluralism and Western civilization as we know it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Racoon

Then what is more of a determining factor?
No, these Islamic terrorists are claiming this a Holy War, and want to kill all infadels. They base their reasoning on interpretations of the Koran, and use financial hardship as additional motivation/recruitment.

As I stated in answer to question #1 - What is the genesis of terrorism? – I believe that the perception of injustice, and the related failure of society and government to provide for the lawful adjudication and redress of grievances, is the greatest single factor that causes terrorism.

No major world religion, Wahhabi Islam included, teach that one should seek out people you do not believe have injured you, and attack them. If you study the words that acknowledged Islamic terrorists leaders use to rally and inflame their followers and sympathisers, such as Osama bin Ladin’s 9/1/04 speech, you’ll find no mention of a holy war to rid the world of non-Muslims, but refutation of that, and a strong message of tit-for-tat retaliation and resistance to alleged oppression, capped by such memorable catch-phases as

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression.

Neither the entire Muslim world, nor a sizable sub-community of it, is homicidally insane, but, like people of many nations and religions, when confronted with intolerable conditions and pointed by their leaders at an enemy, they will, and have, committed ruthless acts of violence against people even they concede are innocent of offense against them.

As will and have citizens of the US, the UK, or practically any other nation or community.

As Nazi war criminal Hermann Göring is reliably quoted as saying to an interviewer during his trial at Nuremberg in 1945

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

I believe this to have been true in the 1930s, and to be true now, for people of all nations and relegions, except for one critical detail: that people who perceive themselves as living well in a state of liberty and justice for all cannot be dragged into war by even the most persuasive leaders.

The solution, in my most sincere and heartfelt opinion, is to strive to produce a world in which all people of all nations and religions perceive themselves to be living thus.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Racoon

The Bush administration has to face up to the fact that Riyadh has been - and remains - the main ideological and financial sponsor of Islamic extremism worldwide, and the Saudis are not seriously interested in helping us combat it.

Originally Posted by CraigD

The solution, in my most sincere and heartfelt opinion, is to strive to produce a world in which all people of all nations and religions perceive themselves to be living thus.

I believe these 2 positions are in agreement. Not only does Saudi Arabia fail to prevent attacks against Israel and the west, but it attacks and oppresses the people, both citizens and resident aliens, within its borders. Its regime should not, IMO, be permitted by the people of the world to continue these policies.

Stating the problem, however, is comparatively easy. A more difficult question is how to bring about the true liberation of the Arabian and other oppressed people of the world. Despite its arguable current world military supremacy, I fear such a task is beyond the ability of the US, or any single nation, alone.

[hallenrm]

Let me now add a few words As may be evident from the title that I chose for this thread, I think somewhere the ambitions of some people and their success for failure to achieve those ambitions are somehow responsible for the acts of terrorism.

Let me expound my thoughts. Although I am not as well versed in history as I am in science and technology, I do know about the success of Muslims (say Moguls) and the Britons in their world wide ventures to capture very rich lands like India. I do know of the success of Changez Khan and his predecessor when they invaded India successfully, so was the case with Britons, it is said that at one time the Sun would never set in the British empire. Now it may not be just a coincidence that White men (mainly Christians) wrangled power from Muslims. Evidently the progeny of either of these cultures can never forget the frustrations and glory of their fore-fathers.

Evidently many a followers of "Islam religion" have memories of the past glory of their forefathers and also the humiliations they have suffered from the Christians. They apparently find no way for venting their frustrations besides terrorist attacks, many of them have inherited it from their forefathers. Today when the world economy is dominated by Christian countries, their prime target is those powerful nations and also any other nation that they perceive to be their allies.

Those were some random thoughts! More will follow soon!!

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Today is 9/11, five years ago the world witnesses an incident that has launched a million thoughts and questions. For starters consider the following:

1. What is the genesis of terrorism?
   
   I think CraigD answered this correctly for the most part.
   
   
2. Can anybody become a terrorist?
   
   No I dont think so or we would see a whole bunch more terrorist attempts. Its not like there are not many, many people who see injustice but it is few who go as far as to commit terrorist events themselves.
   
   
3. Why is it that most terrorists are said to belong to a few religions.?
   
   While I think this is a true statement, I think it is because most people belong to a few religions. Look at the attacks on abortion clinics in the usa and the religious alignments of the persons caught and convicted for these crimes.
   
   
4. Is there a relationship between the economic status and the propensity to become a terrorist?
   
   I dont know for sure but I would say no. We have examples across the board of various economic status being involved. I would have to say its deeper and more personal than economics.
   
   
5. Can any society really prevent the birth of terrorism within its members, if so what would be the prerequisites for it?
   
   I think a society can reduce the potential for terrorism but to say that 'it would never occur here because ...' would be diminshing the human capacity to stray from the norm. The unibomber comes to mind as does McVeigh.
   
   There is only one answer I guess and that is each person must have the belief that what is occuring in their lives has potential to change from its current (insert disapointment here) to the idea that they imagine for the future. The belief that it (the future) can be different for them.