What do the terrorists want?

[KrustyKidd]

That is their tactic of choice, but under all that, what do they want and how did they get there?

They wish to return the Muslim and Arab world back to the glory days of the Caliphates, the time when Islam was the greatest and longest lasting empire the world (to this day) has ever seen. They get there by having nothing on the go personally and thus, when given this vision and offered an opportunity to become part of it, they grab it, embrace it. Much like many people in situations all over the world yearn to belong to something or organizatin greater than themselves. Islam, Conservative Wahhabism and the dream of the Caliphate go hand in hand like Johny and June, especially when you take into consideration the Arabs have been owned by Attila the Hun and every European nation (including the bloody Dutch lol) since the Caliphate went downhill in the 13th century.

The simplistic answer is: American Foreign Policy in the middle east and the undying support for Isreal.

And what prey tell is your theory for Russians being killed by Islamic terrorists? Chinas terrorist problem? Indonesia's? All of them have big problems and it must be their undying support for Israel?

As the war in Iraq continues, a crack appears in my belief in the righteousness of the American cause. They are over there promoting freedom and democracy and are very willing to shoot anyone who happens to disagree with them. Seems like a big contradiction to me.

Who have they shot that only disagreed with them? I see an Iraqi government that makes it's own decisins, some of them the US does like and some they do not. And, nobody ever said this was done to simply be nice. It was done for about ten reasons, one of them being promoting and providing the conditions for democracy. The others range from regime change, indirect pressure on SA to establishing an American presence in the arrea as they moved out of SA.

Even if one chooses to disregard this information, weapons inspectors were working in Iraq right up to the final deadline and making progress.

And they could have kept on working forever I'm sure. As Blix himself said, 'this is not a game of catch and catch can,' the Iraqi's had to provide proof they had disarmed and they did not. He found their cooperation was not 'immediate and unconditional' which was the wording used in the final resolution where Iraq was given 'one final chance' to adhere to the conditions of the ceasefire, providng 'immediate and unconditional cooperation'.

What I find continually humorous is that the blame for this invasion from the left is always placed on Bush with Saddam getting a clean bill of health. Never once have I EVER seen the sugestion that possibly, maybeSaddam might have offered the 'unconditional and immediate cooperation' that he was required to do. Instead, the ball continually goes back to Bush for taking action.

The evidence (including the Downing Street memo and statements from former administration officials) indicates the decision to invade Iraq was made irrespective of weapons inspections.

Any moron knew he was planning on invasion as soon as the attention shift went from WMDs to 'Regime Change so am not sure what the big deal of this news flash was or is. The connection with WMDs was one that had to be dealt with anyhow, and, provided a nice neat legal, moral and propaganda fueled rationale to carry on. It was only one of many of the of the reasons and only made the case for invasion even more stronger. Personally, I liked the idea of having 25 million people no longer under a dictatorship so WMDs and other reasons are secondary to that.

Now, if say, on Jan 3 2003, Saddam completely opened up and was unconditional and completely cooperative and said that he had this, tried to hide that, had these notes, had arranged for this to be taken there and on and on. Actually opened the books to the world. Like he had been required to do since 1991. So much so that come February, Blix would have said that the cooperation was unconditional, what possible reason could Bush have used to invade if Saddam was opening up the entire country like he was supposed to? If you tell me a glib statement like 'I'm sure he would have found something' then I'll be certain you are argueing out of emotion rather than reason so please, give me some stuff to work with.

[Subey]

Let's say you come up with a 10 point plan that address perceived reasons for Muslim terrorism (i.e. attacking the root)

How many of those solutions would affect a bowling for Columbine or Oklahoma City scenario? Probably none because you would still be attacking symptoms and not a root.

***

If you want to address an actual root of problems with Islam and its relationship with the rest of the world then the root that will result in the greatest success is to attack the Hijab.

Assuming it doesn't have mysognistic properties (up for debate) there is no question that it amplifies their culture as being alien. Seeing someone's face and its expressions is a fundamental method of HUMAN communication. A fundamental method of relating. And as such a means by which HUMANS build bridges between one another.

While there will be a price to pay (any time a major cultural shift like losing the Hijab occurs results in strong opposition) for both women and men within the muslim community for making it a dominant issue of cultural evolution that price is less than allowing that barrier to remain place.

[KrustyKidd]

If you want to address an actual root of problems with Islam and its relationship with the rest of the world then the root that will result in the greatest success is to attack the Hijab.

No offence intended Subey as I'm sure you are well educated, intentioned and read but your point is almost idiotic. That is the equivilent of conservative Wahhabist Terrorists flying aircraft into buildings on 911 because westerners sometimes wear shorts. Eliminate shorts and the West will become Islamic or, at least, adhere better to the law of Allah.

I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization. Have they no forward view of what the world should be, or do they merely want to oppose and destroy with no hope of winning?

You have to try to go a bit deeper than the surface here inorder to understand the true power of terrorism. Once past the initial emotional reaction you see the method and the strategy behind it. The intent of terrorism is not simply to scare the shit out of people but rather to place pressure on governments to protect them. When they cannot as is the probable case, the government is weakend. More terrorism and the government falls and the country can fall into chaos providing an opportunity for certain pre positioned groups or entities with political, religious or even in Al Qaeda's case, both, as well as a racial element thrown in. In order to recreate the middle ages Caliphate, they need mass in the old empire and if you will note, much of the terror takes place in those countries. Europe and the US are targeted in order to provide two things - show their strength and, hopefully provide a right wing backlash from non muslim countries which will, in a defensive measure from the Arab and Muslim street, unite them behind the movement.

Terrorism is an effective tool for their end. And, with the Caliphate, there need not be a central and coordinated control unit as it is simply a belief. Mount pressure wherever you can and keep pushing until the already weak and corrupt regimes begin to crumble. Then, provide a coordinated push so they fall and the vacum is taken up with your people.

[Liam]

My comment is simple, its irrelevant what they want.

I completely disagree. I think knowing one's enemy is the key to defeating him.

[PocketRocket]

There is absolutely never any excuse for targeting innocent civilians with bombs, airplanes, gunfire, tanks, etc.

Just curious, then, how you feel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Subey]

If you want to address an actual root of problems with Islam and its relationship with the rest of the world then the root that will result in the greatest success is to attack the Hijab.

No offence intended Subey as I'm sure you are well educated, intentioned and read but your point is almost idiotic. That is the equivilent of conservative Wahhabist Terrorists flying aircraft into buildings on 911 because westerners sometimes wear shorts. Eliminate shorts and the West will become Islamic or, at least, adhere better to the law of Allah.

None taken.

You've located the diametrically worst interpretation of the content of my post.

A lesson is in there... but not for me

***

This is the issue simplified feel free to transmute grey areas into black but 'bear' in mind they are all Snow White at the highest resolution.

Western Culture is not Western. It is Human Culture. Allowing women to express themselves freely as an example is not some alternative that the west has devised. It is a human cultural location that exists on higher ground that any cultural position which believes otherwise.

The problem that Islam has (and which "radical islam" is an offshoot of), is that their cultural progress is hamstrung by the need to be unique.

In the simplest example. If Ontario does X,Y and Z. Then Quebec can only do X,B and C. Because Quebec identity is built on the concept of being unique. In order to maintain that you have to artificially keep an eye on what everyone else is doing and avoid duplicating it.

Quebec is the microcosm of non-western cultures. In order to maintain identity they are avoiding adopting Western values in the mistaken belief that they are "Western Values". They are not. They are HUMAN values. The West just happened to acquire them first.

***

I'm not saying that the west is the pinnacle of the evolution of human values in all areas. But in many it is. Especially with women.

[KrustyKidd]

The problem that Islam has (and which "radical islam" is an offshoot of), is that their cultural progress is hamstrung by the need to be unique.

No. Their problem is they need to keep the same belief alive that worked from the sixth to the fourteenth century when they were more advance than the rest of the world. Unfortunately, they don't change and, when the rest of the world passed them by, they didn't bother to do any honest self critiquing. Just like today they still do not do that.

Conservative Wahhabism is the belief that by returning to the old ways with literal interpretation of islam, that is the way to go. It has nothing to do with uniqueness but rather follopwing and obeying what they belive to be true.

[Subey]

Conservative Wahhabism is the belief that by returning to the old ways with literal interpretation of islam, that is the way to go. It has nothing to do with uniqueness but rather follopwing and obeying what they belive to be true.

I rest my case...

the West's view is to look forward. Call that X.

Therefore in order to be unique they MUST express -X.

The Poles between which Global Culture is hung are far from hidden. If you think the people in TO had a choice in which direction they faced then you are mistaken.

[Wilber]

I am trying to understand the opposition point of view of world events these days and am coming up either empty or am finding a lack of info. I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization. Have they no forward view of what the world should be, or do they merely want to oppose and destroy with no hope of winning?

History is full of examples of exactly that. Mankind has killed off millions of its own over which region or view of the world will dominate.

[August1991]

If you want to address an actual root of problems with Islam and its relationship with the rest of the world then the root that will result in the greatest success is to attack the Hijab.

I'm with KrustyKidd. Peter the Great made men shave off their beards. Wearing hijab is forbidden in French State schools.

If you think you can make people change their minds by simply forcing them to change their exterior appearance, then perhaps you should get into the marketing business. It ain't so simple. You are confusing the symbol of something with the thing itself.

In the simplest example. If Ontario does X,Y and Z. Then Quebec can only do X,B and C. Because Quebec identity is built on the concept of being unique. In order to maintain that you have to artificially keep an eye on what everyone else is doing and avoid duplicating it.

Quebec is the microcosm of non-western cultures. In order to maintain identity they are avoiding adopting Western values in the mistaken belief that they are "Western Values". They are not. They are HUMAN values. The West just happened to acquire them first.

WTF?

I've seen lots of Quebec-bashing on this forum but that post, Subey, is the boutte de toute.

Let me translate your idea into English-Canadian: "If the US does X,Y and Z. Then Canada can only do X,B and C. Because Canadian identity is built on the concept of being unique. In order to maintain that you have to artificially keep an eye on what everyone else is doing and avoid duplicating it."

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Japanese are not like Americans who are not like Germans.

I'll agree with you however that there is a conflict between fundamentalist Muslims and the rest of the world.

[Machinations]

I am trying to understand the opposition point of view of world events these days and am coming up either empty or am finding a lack of info. I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization. Have they no forward view of what the world should be, or do they merely want to oppose and destroy with no hope of winning?

History is full of examples of exactly that. Mankind has killed off millions of its own over which region or view of the world will dominate.

My gods - so many people with so many opinions and so little knowledge!

If you want to understand the depth and complexity of the situation in the middle east, it would help if you understood the context. Israel has not, and I may shock some of you, been around for more than 60 years. This means that many people living TODAY remember well the past, a past most of you have not bothered to research or certainly did not do so in depth.

Now, don't take this as an argument justifying the killing of innocents - rather, as you, try to understand their motives. It can be eye-opening, and yes, the world is far more many shades of grey than black and white.

When a family is killed, a completely innocent family, does it matter if the gun that killed them was in the hands of a jihadi or an American soldier? Only in the minds of the ideologues.

And the family's relatives. They have memories, and this, as much as for 9/11 victims as for relatives killed in a 'collateral' airstrike, breeds a desire for revenge. You can say, too bad - but emotions such as this are primal and not easily quashed. I know if you killed my family I would hunt you down.

Anyways, I have rambled - please, read history. It is only through understanding the past that we can have any sort of clarity on the present. Trying to reduce it to a simplistic meme like 'they hate our civilization' or 'they are evil' does a disservice to what should be a very important discussion.

[Wilber]

If you want to understand the depth and complexity of the situation in the middle east, it would help if you understood the context. Israel has not, and I may shock some of you, been around for more than 60 years. This means that many people living TODAY remember well the past, a past most of you have not bothered to research or certainly did not do so in depth.

The situation in the Middle East has always been complex. As well as the Jews, many other ancient civilizations dominated Palestine at one time or another. In more recent history it has been the Arabs, the Mongols, Christians during the Crusades, the Arabs again, Ottoman Turks, The Brits for a few years, and the Jews again. How far do you want to go back? The area is screwed up. Always has been. Probably will be long after we are all gone.

Many of the ideologues do hate what we stand for and they use those who have a real personal grievances for their own ends. That's what ideologues everywhere tend to do.

What is the difference between Palestine and the former Yugoslavia when it broke up? Not much that I can see other than certain ideologues and surrounding countries have a vested interest in keeping Palestinians and Israelis at each others throats.

[Subey]

Subey, is the boutte de toute

If you think you can make people change their minds by simply forcing them to change their exterior appearance, then perhaps you should get into the marketing business. It ain't so simple. You are confusing the symbol of something with the thing itself.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on where this should come from. It has to be internal, from women within that society. In the same way that women's sufferage can't be lead by men. What you are mistaking is that the symbol is an anchor for the thing itself.

Let me translate your idea into English-Canadian: "If the US does X,Y and Z. Then Canada can only do X,B and C. Because Canadian identity is built on the concept of being unique. In order to maintain that you have to artificially keep an eye on what everyone else is doing and avoid duplicating it."

Exactly

Now you understand why we are shifted Left of the US and they are shifted Right of us.

I think the easiest way to look at human history is to think of the old carnival game where you are given V metal circles and asked to cover a Red circle in its entirety.

Every nation on earth is exploring the human experience. Its generally redudant to have duplication. And interactions are more interesting when there is distance between each perspective.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I really hate to burst your philosophic bubble, but life is not a game. For a vast majority of humanity it is little more than a daily struggle to survive. We extremely advantaged humans living in the lap of luxury are not qualified to pass judgement on people living outside of our little bubble of what we call civilization. We will never understand the reasons for terrorism because we are free and well feed. We are educated and able to enjoy ourselves, but we will never understand the hearts and minds of those wretched individuals not blessed with our opulant lifestyles.

They want what we have, and they are willing to kill and die for it.

[August1991]

I really hate to burst your philosophic bubble, but life is not a game. For a vast majority of humanity it is little more than a daily struggle to survive. We extremely advantaged humans living in the lap of luxury are not qualified to pass judgement on people living outside of our little bubble of what we call civilization.

Is civilization a question of wealth?

That would be news to my great-grandparents who were basically impoverished (all eight of them) but would never have killed innocent civilians, certainly not to obtain more. They realized that to obtain something in life, one had to work for it.

Jerry Fortin, I suspect your great-grandparents were no different. Poverty is no excuse for barbarism or obscurantism.

In any case, of the 19 suicide terrorists who flew the planes in September 2001, 15 came from wealthy Saudi families. Poverty has nothing to do with this.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well said! I misrepresented my own position! I did not mean to suggest that our wealth makes us target or that their poverty makes them terrorists. It is the difference in societies that determine these actions. By and large the terrorists are not state agencies but fanatical special interest groups. Sometimes religious, but not always and its definately political by design. They are people without the means to conduct conventional warfare but are intent on being heard from by means of violence. Peaceful negotiations have not worked for them, they have not yet got what they want and they lash out with any available means to draw attention to their cause. They seem to have no regard for defenseless and innocent citizens. These people will go to any means to acquire media attention.

Instead of being treated like common criminals they are treated like political warriors. When I said they want what we have I should have said they want what they want and they don't care how they get it. The don't want to live in our form of society, but to live in their own. They see western culture as the root of all the evils in their land and demonize us all as puppets of a capitalistic Godless state. They simply don't understand what we believe to be freedom and liberty. Their version is a secular one that definews theri reality. Perhaps they should be seen as the same as us prior to John Calvin. They are living within an idealist dream of religous promise.

[Rue]

I think it needs to be said again. It does NOT matter what terrorists want or think. The moment they choose to engage in violence and murder they forfeit any consideration and simply become murderers who place themselves in the position of needing to be killed before they kill others. Do not misunderstand the concept that by listening to terrorists you can learn from them. You can't. They have nothing to teach. Who you want to learn from and listen to are people born and living in the same despair but who have not reverted to violence and have not given up hope and continue to try engage in peaceful dialogue. Those are the people you should be taking the time to consider not terrorists. That is precisely the problem. I you acknowledge terrorists you in fact fuel their fire.

When you sit all safe and sheltered in Canada its fine to get into intellectual analysis of terrorism but that's a fool's game. Its one thing for an intelligence officer to do this, its another for a politician or civilian. You want to get your head blown off, try listen to a terrorist and open your arms to him.

Me no thanks.

As for all the analysis of the Middle East so? The fact is through-out history people have lived in poverty, misery, death and despair and have NOT given in to crime and violence and managed to make something positive out of their predicament. Those are the people thank you very much I will spend my energy on listening to and using as role models not terrorists.

A terrorist is like any vermin. The one solution is exterminating them. And no I would not suggest you try make a pet out of a sewer rat. They bite.