Terrorism in Context

[August1991]

There were actually seven attempts on Queen Victoria's life. The first was in June 1840, a few months after she married Prince Albert, when a mentally ill man fired two pistol shots at their carriage. Further attempts came in 1842 (when she was shot at twice), 1849 (shot at with an unloaded pistol), 1850 (whacked over the head with a walking stick), 1872 (shot at again; her Highland servant John Brown wrestled the attacker to the ground), and 1882 (two schoolboys beat up the would-be assassin with their umbrellas). Source: Queen Victoria by Christopher Hibbert (Basic Books, 2000), pgs. 420-427.

Some Link

Until Hitler, no one wanted to kill ordinary British people indiscriminately.

There have been multiple assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States; there have been over 20 known attempts to kill sitting and former Presidents as well as Presidents-elect. Four attempts on sitting Presidents have succeeded: Abraham Lincoln (the 16th President), James A. Garfield (the 20th President), William McKinley (the 25th President) and John F. Kennedy (the 35th President). Two other Presidents were injured in attempted assassinations: then former President Theodore Roosevelt and then sitting President Ronald Reagan.

Wikipedia

(Note that three of the four successful attempts occurred in the 19th century.)

To my knowledge, the only French president assassinated was Carnot in 1894. Alexander II of Russia was assassinated in 1881. A Serb nationalist famously assassinated an Austrian Archduke in 1914.

There were various anarchist bombings in the past. So, terrorism is not a new phenomenon.

Yet, modern terrorists (late 20th/early 21st centuries) seem to target ordinary people rather than country leaders. I take this as a hopeful sign.

Apparently, even modern terrorists seem to recognize that we now live in a democratic era where ordinary people believe that stability stems more from themselves rather than from the lives of their leaders, or the permanence of the State's institutions. It is intriguing that on 9/11, bin Laden sent two planes to the WTC, one to the Pentagon and another to the White House or the Congress.

Later attacks in Madrid and London were in public transit systems, and attacks in Moscow were in a theatre - and most recently, the metro. Most recently of all, there was an attempt in New York Times Square. (Even foiled attempts cause fear.)

----

As bizarre as it sounds, it is heartening to know that these terrorists attack "we the people" rather than our leaders. These terrorists understand, like Hitler, that we the people decide affairs in our societies - and so they target us, not our leaders.

Edited May 15, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

As bizarre as it sounds, it is heartening to know that these terrorists attack "we the people" rather than our leaders.

What's so bizarre about holding people in a democracy responsible for the actions of the leaders they elect?

[Bonam]

What's so bizarre about holding people in a democracy responsible for the actions of the leaders they elect?

Uh yes here comes eyeball with his zealous justification of terrorist acts. They are simply holding us the people accountable. They are the good guys, meting out justice against the evil people of the West who deserve nothing else but to be slaughtered in terrorist attacks.

As for August's post... I think the reality is that targeting ordinary people is simply a lot easier than targeting high profile leaders. Leaders have many more layers of security around them and attacks are more likely to be foiled. Terrorists tend to lack resources to launch very many attacks, especially far removed (overseas) from their centers of power, so of course they are gonna go for targets that are more likely to result in successful strikes. If terrorists had the chance to blow up the White House you don't think they'd go for it?

Edited May 15, 2010 by Bonam

[eyeball]

Uh yes here comes eyeball with his zealous justification of terrorist acts. They are simply holding us the people accountable. They are the good guys, meting out justice against the evil people of the West who deserve nothing else but to be slaughtered in terrorist attacks.

No, you just see what you want to see. There are no good guys in this conflict at all.

As for August's post... I think the reality is that targeting ordinary people is simply a lot easier than targeting high profile leaders. Leaders have many more layers of security around them and attacks are more likely to be foiled. Terrorists tend to lack resources to launch very many attacks, especially far removed (overseas) from their centers of power, so of course they are gonna go for targets that are more likely to result in successful strikes. If terrorists had the chance to blow up the White House you don't think they'd go for it?

They did go for it apparently. It seems they went after other centers of power too for much the same reason.

[August1991]

As for August's post... I think the reality is that targeting ordinary people is simply a lot easier than targeting high profile leaders.

If you were a terrorist, once upon a time, that was not the case.

Terrorists before sought to kill government leaders, or symbols of the State. Nowadays, they seek to kill ordinary Westerners.

Without irony at all, I take this as an improvement in human civilization.

[eyeball]

Terrorists before sought to kill government leaders, or symbols of the State. Nowadays, they seek to kill ordinary Westerners.

What about the symbols and centers of power and leadership that were attacked on 9/11?

[August1991]

What about the symbols and centers of power and leadership that were attacked on 9/11?

There were seven attempts to kill Queen Victoria.

When 21st century terrorists attempted to attack America in 2001, only one of the four planes was apparently aimed to kill the US President. The three others sought to kill other Americans.

I take this as an improvement in the Human Condition.

Edited May 15, 2010 by August1991

[Shwa]

There were seven attempts to kill Queen Victoria.

When 21st century terrorists attempted to attack America in 2001, only one of the four planes was apparently aimed to kill the US President. The three others sought to kill other Americans.

I take this as an improvement in the Human Condition.

On the face if it maybe. But your view is a titch too retrospective. You know about the attempts on Queen Victoria some 100-150 years later. What about all the attempts on the lives of all the various US Presidents that you don't know about or recent attempts that have been kept secret for security purposes?

Attacks on the public are more well known because they are, well, attacks in public. Besides, when you select historical examples for your defintion of terrorism throughout the ages, let's not forget the religious and political terrorism in Europe over centuries.

Here is a decent article on terrorism and I am sure if you do a little book research you will find plenty of examples of terrorists targetting groups of civilians or a general population in a given area.

Terrorism isn't a sign of improved Human Condition unless you are referring to the ubiquity of mass media. If you consider that an improvement I mean.

[eyeball]

There were seven attempts to kill Queen Victoria.

When 21st century terrorists attempted to attack America in 2001, only one of the four planes was apparently aimed to kill the US President. The three others sought to kill other Americans.

I take this as an improvement in the Human Condition.

All the planes sought to hit symbols of power and leadership. The World Trade Center was as symbolic of the West's economic dominance as the Pentagon is of it's military.

If they'ed only wanted to kill as many people as possible why didn't they just fly into a packed Super-bowl game? Why didn't they simply attack Iceland or Sweden if all they hated was freedom?

What you're doing is no improvement over the old shtick of implying terrorists don't have any actual grievances and that their enemies have done absolutely nothing to aggrieve them.

[Argus]

There were seven attempts to kill Queen Victoria.

When 21st century terrorists attempted to attack America in 2001, only one of the four planes was apparently aimed to kill the US President. The three others sought to kill other Americans.

I take this as an improvement in the Human Condition.

Nonsense. Terrorists are simply lazy, for the most part, and unless they're Muslim, not usually suicidal. Trying to kill politicians is dangerous and time consuming. You have to find out where they'll be and what protection they have, and then brazen your way in close somehow, preferably with a good chance of getting out again. It's so much easier to just drop a bomb into a garbage can on the subway or place it at a counter in a supermarket. You can make up for the lack of quality by getting quantity. And still keep your self-righteouenss intact as a brave warrior for all that's good and right.

But there isn't a terrorist alive who wouldn't prefer to kill off high level politicians or generals if it was as simple and safe as killing the common people.

[Wilber]

The problem with this hypothesis is that except for Lincoln, those assassination attempts were not the acts of organized groups. For the most part they were the acts of individual wackos.

[IsaacParn89]

Nonsense. Terrorists are simply lazy, for the most part, and unless they're Muslim, not usually suicidal. Trying to kill politicians is dangerous and time consuming. You have to find out where they'll be and what protection they have, and then brazen your way in close somehow, preferably with a good chance of getting out again. It's so much easier to just drop a bomb into a garbage can on the subway or place it at a counter in a supermarket. You can make up for the lack of quality by getting quantity. And still keep your self-righteouenss intact as a brave warrior for all that's good and right.

But there isn't a terrorist alive who wouldn't prefer to kill off high level politicians or generals if it was as simple and safe as killing the common people.

I absolutely agree with you, because even terrorist value their lives. If they can kill such high generals/politicians in safer ways which will not put themselves in danger, I could not say that they'll not choose that..

Yours,

Isaac

Current Health Articles

[Oleg Bach]

The election of leaders in modern democratic nations is NOT really an election - Media elects these people - media is owned by these people..they elect themselves.

[Moonlight Graham]

What's so bizarre about holding people in a democracy responsible for the actions of the leaders they elect?

He's talking about how bizarre it sounds is to think its "heartening", not what you said above.

[Oleg Bach]

He's talking about how bizarre it sounds is to think its "heartening", not what you said above.

What eye ball is saying demonstrates the classic illusionary reverse. To hold the population at large responsible for electing a crook is like saying those in power are good and should have domain over us even if they lied to get that power.

[Moonlight Graham]

Terrorists before sought to kill government leaders, or symbols of the State. Nowadays, they seek to kill ordinary Westerners.

Without irony at all, I take this as an improvement in human civilization.

I think there's a flaw in your theory. As someone else mentioned, you are comparing mostly "lone gunmen" to terrorist organizations. What about comparing terrorist orgs through the years? Like the FLQ, IRA etc.?

While i see your point, i don't think this is an improvement in human civilization simply because i'd rather see one leader and a couple of bodyguards die than hundreds of people blown up in an airplane or hotel bombing. I think more people getting murdered is not good.

[Oleg Bach]

There is an unwritten rule internationally and amoungst gang types - you do not kill the leader..this opens the door up for assassination. Leaders in Muslim nations know if they put a hit through terrorism to murder a western leader - then the west will put a hit on the Muslim leader...So Muslims at the top of the food chain instruct terrorists not to hit targets at that are important as they are..so the torment the average person instead...much like our judicary like to release bad people that harm common people and not them.

[Rue]

There have been, are and will be many forms of terrorist behaviour. It can be political

in motivation but is not necessarily limited to political motives.

A terrorist act can be violent or non violent, passive or aggressive, active or

inactive, committed by one or many.

The one distinguishing element is that its intent or purpose is to cause people

fear, i.e., to coerce or intimidate its target or targets.

Terrorist acts are carried out on an object that is either animate(person or persons)

or inanimate (property, i.e., buildings).

The intent of the terrrorist exercise is to damage or destroy the target to then

send a message to those who witness the result of the damage of destruction.

The damage of destruction, i.e., dead bodies, collapsed buildings are intended to

send a visual stimuli to the audience that will frighten and evoke fear in the audience.

The intent of the message is to make the audience feel powerless, vulnerable and

incapable of preventing the terrorist or terrorists from engaging in their actions

again.

The act is used as the prop or attention getting mechacnism to incite the feelings of

fear and vulnerability to then set the stage for sending a message attacked to the

fear. The fear evoked serves as the coercive pathogen or element that then

carries the message and attachs to the message to serve as a cause and effect

lesson-agree with the message or be hurt or killed.

The mistake many of us make when discussing terrorism is getting caught up on who

the target is or what the message is.

The target or the message is not what makes an act a terrorist act.

It is the engaging of a terrorist act to try coerce someone into obeying the person who

engages in the terrorist act which makes it terrorist in nature.

Whether the target is animate or inanimate, an animal or a human, a soldier or a civilian

is irrelevant to the determination of whether it is a terrorist act.

On the other hand the attempt to use a terrorist attack to demand something be complied

with is what determines whether the act is terrorist or not.

It is the demand by threat and use of manipulating fear that makes it terrorist.

In that sense humans have engaged in terrorism since they learned to pick up a rock

and bash another human in the head with it.

Humans by nature are primal beings and violent. Terrorism comes naturally to primal

beings prone to displays of violence when exercising territorial imperative.

All terrorism is, is the act of a primate exercising territorial imperative. Instead

of picking up a rock and trying to bash the other primate in the head, or simply

fling feces, at our stage of primal development we choose to engage in the

exercise of aggression to pursue territorial imperative through terrorism.

It is one of many aggressive behaviours we primates display.

When terrorism is engaged in by a group, the inherent nature of the group lowers inhibitions

that would otherwise serve to restrain acts of violence that would be prevalent if the primate acted alone.

This is where the expression for the group phenomena comes from, i.e., monkey see

monkey do.

Terrorists are nothing more then primates flinging their feces

at one another. We being humans however, have developed ways to make

that feces flinging lethal.

[Rue]

There is an unwritten rule internationally and amoungst gang types - you do not kill the leader..this opens the door up for assassination. Leaders in Muslim nations know if they put a hit through terrorism to murder a western leader - then the west will put a hit on the Muslim leader...So Muslims at the top of the food chain instruct terrorists not to hit targets at that are important as they are..so the torment the average person instead...much like our judicary like to release bad people that harm common people and not them.

In primal behaviour when pack animals such as primates including the primate sub-type

humans, engage in territorial imperative, i.e., battles over territory, there actually

is no distinct rule as to the alpha male of one group engaging the alpha male

in the other group.

Sometimes this is most certainly the case, in others it may not be.

Certaintly taking out the alpha male of the group will as a general rule cause the others to

scatter and run but sometimes the pack that loses its alpha male suddenly has another

emerge in battle and fill the void. So there is no black and white or general rule.

What we have also seen in history is attempts to assasinate alpha males causes martyrs for

followers to canonize and rally round and use as a symbol of unity for the next alpha male when it

takes over.