Agreed! But of course we live in a world with a great number of people, and this is and has always been a statistics thing. One out of every X people will blow a gasket, it's just a fact of reality.

But these days people are more empowered (ie access to weapons and knowledge) and populations are denser, and of course the news services are much more efficient. So a few hundred years ago if a blacksmith went gaga and hacked up some townspeople you would probably not hear about it. But if someone does it today it's in the world wide news for weeks, possibly for ever.

I think its more complicated then that RB. I think its a wire that gets crossed or something not rights going on. I just can't believe someone can kill their family by just being spoiled. Thats why I think we need to keep these people alive to research with current and future technology. We could easily find a gene or section of the brain thats being effected. In fact many killers have been given pardons and reduced sentences after horrible crimes because they found a tumor growing in their brains.

Ok, I accept your point this is not just "spoilt" behaviour, and especially in the most horrendous instances it is the very extreme behaviour of very defective people (or very "different" people if you want to be politically correct).

But I do feel a real drop in discipline has produced a real change in society where many people are much more likely to lash out. And being that human decisions are based on so many compounded variables that extra tendency to lash out in a spolt brat fashion must factor in to the frequency and severity of these events.

 

So a few hundred years ago if a blacksmith went gaga and hacked up some townspeople you would probably not hear about it.

That is a funny way to say it.

I think this Cinema-guy is kind of special because he obviously didn't have a real motive, no racist or islamist or whatsoever. Just one guy that doesn't have any consideration for other people's lifes. That's just like these horrible movies where some guy kills others for fun... like "Scream"...

 

wasn't sure whether to stick this here or in the favorite songs, but since "we've seen it all before" ring so true, I link it here...Spirit Bird

 

wasn't sure whether to stick this here or in the favorite songs, but since "we've seen it all before" ring so true, I link it here...Spirit Bird

I got 30sec into the song and then googled the lyrics because I wasn't patient enough to wait 7 minutes to hear the message. So I read through the lyrics and I don't know whether it's my terminal incomprehension of poetry or ignorance of supporting details which would make the song clear, but I must say, it just looks like a bunch of incoherent rambling to me. From the comments on the youtube video I deduced that its about the plight of the Australian Aborigines, but what does it have to do with this thread?

 

I got 30sec into the song and then googled the lyrics because I wasn't patient enough to wait 7 minutes to hear the message. So I read through the lyrics and I don't know whether it's my terminal incomprehension of poetry or ignorance of supporting details which would make the song clear, but I must say, it just looks like a bunch of incoherent rambling to me. From the comments on the youtube video I deduced that its about the plight of the Australian Aborigines, but what does it have to do with this thread?

because it is about things universal? Sure you can link it to the plight of Aborigines only, but that view is quite narrow. The message is in the music and not the words anyway. Wasn't this thread about how to prepare for THIS? but also, how to survive this, what do we learn from this?

and also because I feel that people of today have lost their connection with what in the song is the "ancestral twine", which may partially explain how we got here and why we should have been prepared for THIS - people are disconnected from one another.

Right, to clarify as to why I take this song as being universal - know any people who has not been oppressed by government, their own or foreign? I don't.

 

Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, to ask whether right-wing extremists pose as much of a domestic terrorism threat as Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda-linked militants have caused 17 deaths in four attacks on US soil since September 11, according to Bergen's analysis. In the same period, he writes, far right extremists have killed 15 in at least nine attacks, if Sunday's shooting in Wisconsin is included in the count.

That was eye opening. When I read that the first time, I wanted to reply with the "B.S. flag" but I decided to look up the facts first. I broadened the scope to all islamic extremists and included attacks on Americans in foreign lands, and it only brought the total up to a couple hundred at most since the WTC attack. More Americans per year have been killed by lightening than by Islamic Extremists.

I guess even I am not immune from conditioning. We've (or maybe just I've) been made to think that it's some huge issue but (at least in America, as of now) it's not. I will stop worrying about it for now. Thanks for the enlightening facts.

When you expand the search to include attacks on citizens of every country, the issue is a little harder to ignore. There are countries right now (R!f@@'s is one) having bad problems with radical Islam, and there have been mass murders and daily murders in places.

 

If you read the article, you might notice that while the headline and examples all tout "right-wing extremist" terror threats, the article itself twice points out that right AND left wing extremist groups are at issue. They just very conveniently fail to put any focus on left-wing extremists except when they need to mention them to pump up some numbers.

Also, they make no mention of the number of significant attacks that have been stopped before they could be carried out.

While we shouldn't go off the deep end (and in many respects we have) regarding the actual threat posed by Islamic Extremists, I would still maintain that there is quite a difference between organized terrorist efforts aimed at finding a way to cause massive casualties and unorganized and isolationed nutcases, of whatever motivation, carrying out acts that kill a few (or, on very rare occasion, a dozen or so) people.

The latest push to classify anyone that does anything like this as a 'terrorist' is unfortunate, because it is lumping people with very different motives together into the same group and trying to make them indistinguishable. A 'terrorist' is someone that uses violence and terror as part of a campaign aimed at bringing about a political objective.

 

If you read the article, you might notice that while the headline and examples all tout "right-wing extremist" terror threats, the article itself twice points out that right AND left wing extremist groups are at issue. They just very conveniently fail to put any focus on left-wing extremists except when they need to mention them to pump up some numbers.

Also, they make no mention of the number of significant attacks that have been stopped before they could be carried out.

While we shouldn't go off the deep end (and in many respects we have) regarding the actual threat posed by Islamic Extremists, I would still maintain that there is quite a difference between organized terrorist efforts aimed at finding a way to cause massive casualties and unorganized and isolationed nutcases, of whatever motivation, carrying out acts that kill a few (or, on very rare occasion, a dozen or so) people.

The latest push to classify anyone that does anything like this as a 'terrorist' is unfortunate, because it is lumping people with very different motives together into the same group and trying to make them indistinguishable. A 'terrorist' is someone that uses violence and terror as part of a campaign aimed at bringing about a political objective.

I totally agree with everything you just said, but read your last sentence again. Couldn't America be labeled a terrorist nation by that definition? Hard to launch missiles and deploy troops into countries that aren't attacking you, without crossing the line into "using violence and terror as part of a campaign aimed at bringing about a political objective." My point is not that we are terrorists, but that terrorism is probably objective. The people we call terrorists probably call us terrorists. Maybe that's what they mean by "infidel."

EDIT:
I'm not sure that I made my point well. Please read the above in context to what I said previously:

But..... If we condone government control and invasion of privacy of members of "hate groups" then what lies on the path ahead? How do we define a hate group? Or, more importantly, what groups might suddenly and undeserving fall into the category of a "hate group" once we define it? How could the law be twisted to include, and the people manipulated to demonize in the future, any group who may oppose whatever agenda the government or other influential entities are pushing? It's a slippery slope we're on, but for now, I don't perceive us to be sliding down it. We are close though. Is this your point?

(replace "hate group" with "terrorist")
How do we define terrorist?
You tried, and by my interpretation of your definition, we are all terrorists.
So if we try again and get a little bit closer, we might still include some as terrorists that don't deserve it. Especially because, as you mentioned, they are blurring the line between nutcases and organized terrorists.

 

There will always be the issue of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

But even so there is still a pretty objective difference involved and which, admittedly, my off-the-cuff definition didn't make clear. A terrorist targets their violence and terror tactics specifically and deliberately at civilian non-combatants; their objective is specifically to terrorize the civilian populace. So, for instance, I wouldn't necessarily categorize the attack on the USS Cole as a terrorist attack. Similarly, I don't categorize categorize collateral deaths of civilians as a terrorist act if the target of the attack was a legitimate target. Thus, I wouldn't categorize the deaths of the many innocent civilian at Pearl Harbor as a terrorist act. Now, for the victims and their families, it is of little comfort whether the attack was aimed at you or you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By the same token, does it really make a lot of difference to the family that lost a father on 9/11 if he died in the Towers versus killed in a robbery versus hit by a drunk driver versus falling off the roof?

If you look at WWII and the concept of 'total war', then things get real murky because civilian populations were deemed to be legitimate military targets in their own right. Was this proper? fair? legal? right? The point will probably always be debated, but the simple fact is that what is considered acceptable, especially at the time, when involved in an existential conflict is very different from what is considered acceptable is less dire conflicts.

 

I think strantor is dead on by applying the definition of "terrorist" to the USA...where I live...and I sometimes worry about it.

 

There will always be the issue of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

But even so there is still a pretty objective difference involved and which, admittedly, my off-the-cuff definition didn't make clear. A terrorist targets their violence and terror tactics specifically and deliberately at civilian non-combatants; their objective is specifically to terrorize the civilian populace. So, for instance, I wouldn't necessarily categorize the attack on the USS Cole as a terrorist attack. Similarly, I don't categorize categorize collateral deaths of civilians as a terrorist act if the target of the attack was a legitimate target. Thus, I wouldn't categorize the deaths of the many innocent civilian at Pearl Harbor as a terrorist act. Now, for the victims and their families, it is of little comfort whether the attack was aimed at you or you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By the same token, does it really make a lot of difference to the family that lost a father on 9/11 if he died in the Towers versus killed in a robbery versus hit by a drunk driver versus falling off the roof?

If you look at WWII and the concept of 'total war', then things get real murky because civilian populations were deemed to be legitimate military targets in their own right. Was this proper? fair? legal? right? The point will probably always be debated, but the simple fact is that what is considered acceptable, especially at the time, when involved in an existential conflict is very different from what is considered acceptable is less dire conflicts.

In your last paragraph are you referring to the nuking of 2 Japanese cities full of civilians? Because as bad as I want to, I find it very hard to argue against that being an act of terrorism.

I would like to expound on my previous train of thought. The word "terrorist" is a heavy word. I think it is getting heavier. You already touched on this, but I am thinking of the implications. It's like "heretic." If the media or the government (why do I make a distinction?) brands someone a terrorist, their credibility is lost to the public. Whatever message they were trying to convey, no matter how correct or important, is lost. So far, I haven't seen the utility of this word overly used in a way that I disagree with. Maybe it's because I'm drinking the coolaid or maybe it's just as I see it. In any case, there is a scary potential for gross misuse.
I bring it up a lot, but here goes again; In America, we have the right to alter or abolish our government and institute a new one if it doesn't serve us as we see fit. Says it right there in the declaration of independence. Let's say that 99% of the country is content with the government and 1% sees it as a tyrannical institution and seeks to abolish it. This 1% forms a group with a name, what do you think the mainstream will label it? What if it were >1%? What would the government do? When I think about it, the scenario that plays out in my head makes me think that I probably don't live in a free country like I always say that I do.

 

I like the image... I can't help but wonder - the US and its isolation, the cold war was "won" US has no-one to fear on its borders. Think about the terrorist activities that have been happening throughout the years prior to 9/11, there was no war on terror waged. Every act has a clear and specific reasoning behind it. Most are done for territory and resources. Note that the suicide bombers (still by far the most common terror act) do not target civilians, they target specific figures (politicians, etc) and civilians become casualties. The cases of bombing of public places often happened after the military of the respective country have managed to do some collateral damage of their own. And thus the world turns... I remember the eyes of Chechen women arrested before they had time to blow themselves up in Moscow, there was nothing political about their actions, just the fact that they had lost everything and did not want to live anymore. I question, what would I do in their place? I don't know. Would I join guerilla fighting group, well as a woman, they wouldn't take me, so this is they only way you can help your people. A bit of a dilemma, isn't it? US is a colonial nation, like all before it. No doubt about it, and it shouldn't pretend to be something else.

maybe you find this interesting: Russian Muslims Targeted in Attack

 

In your last paragraph are you referring to the nuking of 2 Japanese cities full of civilians? Because as bad as I want to, I find it very hard to argue against that being an act of terrorism.

No. What I actually had in mind was the general doctrine and strategy of area bombing used by both sides in both Europe and the Pacific. In Europe, the U.S. was criticize by Brittain and others for generally avoiding nighttime area bombing of population centers in favor of daylight precision bombing against strategic military targets. But that criticism stemmed not because the others preferred to targer overall civilian populations, but because the cost in aircraft/aircrew losses associated with daylight precision raids was deemed unsustainable (and very nearly was until we finally had long-range fighters that could stay with the bombers all the way to the target and that were able to overcome 'ace fever' and learn that their sole mission was to protect the bombers).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no less military targets under such doctines as the dozens (hundreds?) of other cities that were bombed often, repeatedly and savagely under the 'total war' mindset. In fact, the damages in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less, in almost all respects including long-term death toll, that those suffered by several other cities using conventional weapons. Had the decision been made to not use them, both cities (and many more) would have been promptly reduced to cinders using the same incendiary bombing raids used on other cities, Tokyo included.

It must also be kept in mind that, for most people at most levels at the time, an atomic bomb was simply a really big bomb representing just another in a long and continuous line of enhancements in the destructive force that could be delivered to a target. The stigma associated with nuclear weapons didn't arise until well after its use and, in large part, because of its use against live targets. I believe it is quite arguable that had the spectre of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not been ever present in the minds of people at all levels on both sides of the Cold War, from the leadership down to the civilian population, that it would have been much more likely that, at some point, the Cold War would have gone hot. In fact, one concern I have is that we (as in the world) have only fairly recently begun moving into the era where national policy is not heavily influenced by people that lived through WWII and had the realities of total war driven into their very souls. We now have, with few exceptions, people that, at best, gained a glimpse of those realities secondhand by tales told to them as young and impressionable children and young adults by people that were there. Soon we will only have people that know those lessons only in the context of history books and who draw no critical distinctions between WWII and any other major conflict throughout history.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJZ6nwxD38

 

Just a comment on the overuse of derogatory labels. In the 1950's, anybody that wanted to improve the government and/or its policies was called a communist. In the 1960's, they were called "hippies" or, "beatniks". Now, they are called terrorists.

Whenever 2 or more of these "radicals" announce that they are going to go public with their perceptions and/or objections, the government does a knee-jerk over-reaction like calling in SWAT teams to subdue the thinkers and give them criminal records.

This doesn't reek of freedom.

 

Just a comment on the overuse of derogatory labels. In the 1950's, anybody that wanted to improve the government and/or its policies was called a communist.

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I can't believe I didn't think to use that as an example.

 

In the 1960's, they were called "hippies" or, "beatniks". Now, they are called terrorists.

This doesn't look like exactly the same thing to me.

The only thing I know is that terrorist attacks never achieved their goal, quite the opposite. I wonder why they are so stupid and attack people who have nothing to do with their problem. This is where their whole concept fails. (if there is a concept. maybe I'm not understanding what their goal is)

 

Their goal (simply put) is to achieve their means through terror of the general population. A population cannot function if they are paranoid about every bag, every bus, every bank, every person.

They attack people who have nothing to do with their problem, because they are often the easiest target. I'm simplifying things here, but most terrorist groups have an objective. If they can make the population paranoid of their existance, then they effectively gain control over whatever they want.

It is why (famously) when G. Bush was notified of the terror attacks on the twin towers, he stayed put in the classroom - the right thing to do in those circumstances.

To panic plays the game of the terrorists, to live life normally makes theirs a losing battle.

Terror has worked in the past, and no doubt it will continue to do so in the future.

I've got some interesting books you might like to read, I will dig them out and give links in the morning.

 

This doesn't look like exactly the same thing to me.

Me neither, but let's not get into that.

The only thing I know is that terrorist attacks never achieved their goal, quite the opposite. I wonder why they are so stupid and attack people who have nothing to do with their problem. This is where their whole concept fails. (if there is a concept. maybe I'm not understanding what their goal is)

I don't know to what degree terror tactics have been successful throughout history. I suspect that terror used by an oppressive government to maintain control of a populace has been used successfully, in the short term, many many times throughout history (and in many countries today as I type). But it is ultimately self-defeating (but, then again, I'm of the general opinion that civilization itself is a self-defeating concept).

But I can't think of any occasions, off the top of my head, when terror tactics have successfully brought about the desired change, but I'm not going to be too quick to say that it hasn't or that it can't.

I do think that one of the reasons that it seldom produces the desired goals, aside from the point you make and with which I agree, is that people that resort to terrorism or, more to the point, are recruited to terrorism, are seldom people that are capable of thinking logically and dispationately. Rather, they are driven by emotion and are quick to assume that the results of their actions will be what they want them to be simply because those are the results they want.

 

But terrorism nearly always works - it creates terror and fear amongst the population.

Our way of life has been changed by terrorism for decades in the UK, and the world for many years.

That's only counting the affect of groups reliant on terrorism. Terrorism itself is very effective - you only need one person to hide a few bombs in a city, detonate them and claim to be part of a bigger cell to create widespread panic. And because of the brainwashing which does take place, groups are hard to force into surrender or to demoralise.

There was a survey (which I will try to find) which suggested that the majority of Americans believed that terrorism would be solved when Bin Laden was captured or killed (let's assume that in this case we are talking about islamism). This is not the case. In 'conventional warfare', if the leader of the country/armed forces was captured/killed, then yes the battle would be all but over. But with terrorist groups, the 'head' is nothing more than a 'brand'. Just as Colonel Sanders doesn't make your chicken, Bin Laden was nothing more than a 'brand'. Replaceable should the 'worst' occur.