What do the terrorists want?

royboy · Oct 9, 2006

Has anyone actually stopped to think about why terrorists are committing these horrible acts?

There has to be a reason right? Can't we address their problems using non-violent means?

People say not to negotiate with terrorists, but in this case, they aren't doing it for money right? They aren't doing it to get us to release prisoners.

So why are they doing it?

mwb · Oct 9, 2006

Terrorists like bin Laden don't make any demands so it's kind of hard to work with them. It seems they blow up U.S. targets because they don't like the U.S.

pantsman52 · Oct 9, 2006

mwb said:
Terrorists like bin Laden don't make any demands so it's kind of hard to work with them. It seems they blow up U.S. targets because they don't like the U.S.

You're really proving Alabasters point in the other thread.

Bin Laden wants the U.S. out of Muslim lands, espescially Saudi Arabia, and he wants to stop what he considers U.S. Imperialism where we have our hands in the inner-workings of the middle eastern governments.

nvxplorer · Oct 9, 2006

A solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

skullcrush · Oct 9, 2006

Two reasons why they're acting that way:

1) They're sociopaths. It takes a special kind of person to blow up a school full of children.

2) The U.S. keeps sticking it's nose where it don't belong. If that's too simplistic for some, suck it.

royboy · Oct 9, 2006

Do the US really need to publically support Israel's every action? Can't they supply them with technology and arms covertly?

skullcrush · Oct 9, 2006

royboy said:
Do the US really need to publically support Israel's every action? Can't they supply them with technology and arms covertly?

In public or incognito, doesn't matter. The world will know who Israel got the weapons from.

royboy · Oct 9, 2006

pantsman52 said:
You're really proving Alabasters point in the other thread.

Bin Laden wants the U.S. out of Muslim lands, espescially Saudi Arabia, and he wants to stop what he considers U.S. Imperialism where we have our hands in the inner-workings of the middle eastern governments.

What does he mean by have our hands in the inner-workings...? Is he against trade between the nations in general?

mwb · Oct 9, 2006

pantsman52 said:
You're really proving Alabasters point in the other thread.

Bin Laden wants the U.S. out of Muslim lands, espescially Saudi Arabia, and he wants to stop what he considers U.S. Imperialism where we have our hands in the inner-workings of the middle eastern governments.

Before he blew up two embassies, I didn't recall him making any demands. Before he blew up the Cole, I don't recall him making any demands. Before 9/11, I don't recall him making any demands.

We can all assume what he wants. We know the usual suspects but he's never said you better do this or else I will attack you.

mwb · Oct 9, 2006

royboy said:
What does he mean by have our hands in the inner-workings...? Is he against trade between the nations in general?

bin Laden seems like he wants to dictate U.S. foreign policy. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of his business. Although it looks like he will be successful in Iraq & Afghanistan.

marshlewis · Oct 9, 2006

royboy said:
What does he mean by have our hands in the inner-workings...? Is he against trade between the nations in general?

No this is not about trade. Its about pursuing US strategic interests at the expense of the peoples interests in these countries. Dictatorships supported, Democracies overthrown and popular movements undermined. These are the things that the US is responsible.
However some will always insist that the people who have been the victims of these policies have no rational reason for feeling the way they do. Leaving only an ugly, accusing, emotive and irational dogma to explain whats going on. Mwb will demonstrate.

royboy · Oct 9, 2006

marshlewis said:
No this is not about trade. Its about pursuing US strategic interests at the expense of the peoples interests in these countries. Dictatorships supported, Democracies overthrown and popular movements undermined. These are the things that the US is responsible.
However some will always insist that the people who have been the victims of these policies have no rational reason for feeling the way they do. Leaving only an ugly, accusing, emotive and irational dogma to explain whats going on. Mwb will demonstrate.

But isn't that easily remedied? Does the US need to conduct those activities to prosper?

If resources are the reason why we need to dip our hand in foreign matters, then couldn't we develope these resources ourselves if we diverted money from the millitary budget?

Alabaster · Oct 9, 2006

The problem with terrorism is that people fail to understand, usually due to a complete lack of actual study, what is actually going on in these countries.

It was pointed out to me by an Egyptian friend that the US glorifies suicide missions, in film, war, and society. People who run into buildings, jump on grenades (or are thrown on them), or go into a scenario against the grim reaper odds are considered heroes. This is not because suicide is seen in a positive light, but because the individual is seen to be trading their lives for a more noble purpose. The same is true in the world, but for some reason while this connection is easily made in the US, the connection is not made outside the US.

In short terrorists obviously believe they are fighting for a noble cause that justifies their actions. When the US policy actions, not goals, but actions, are seen, it is fairly obvious why opposition to the US is considered noble.

The US supported and funded Saddam. Saddam was just as bloodthirsty when the US supported him as he was when the US opposed him, but at the time it suited US purposes. The US funded Osama Bin Laden, again at the time it suited the US’s purpose. I live in Egypt. The US has been supporting the Egyptian dictatorship for over two and a half decades, which I know for a fact has resorted in a rise in militant Islam. The US created the nation of Saudi Arabia, and the excesses of the Saud family has soured the population of that national fabrication. The CIA actually deposed a liberal democracy in Iran, which led to the rise of the Ayatollah regime.

The problem is that short-term aims have been somewhat successful, but the long-term ramifications have resulted in the problems we are seeing today. What we need is a fire-hose dosage of education to make long-term and short-term goals synchronize. As long as the short-term takes precedence the US will be viewed as a capricious, arrogant, imperialistic, ignorant, and most importantly interventionist nation that deserves retaliation. Unfortunately if the same were applied to the US by an outside source most US citizens would favor violence as well.

royboy · Oct 9, 2006

Alabaster said:
The problem with terrorism is that people fail to understand, usually due to a complete lack of actual study, what is actually going on in these countries.

It was pointed out to me by an Egyptian friend that the US glorifies suicide missions, in film, war, and society. People who run into buildings, jump on grenades (or are thrown on them), or go into a scenario against the grim reaper odds are considered heroes. This is not because suicide is seen in a positive light, but because the individual is seen to be trading their lives for a more noble purpose. The same is true in the world, but for some reason while this connection is easily made in the US, the connection is not made outside the US.

In short terrorists obviously believe they are fighting for a noble cause that justifies their actions. When the US policy actions, not goals, but actions, are seen, it is faily obvious why opposition to the US is considered noble.

The US supported and funded Saddam. Saddam was just as bloodthirsty when the US supported him as he was when the US opposed him, but at the time it suited US purposes. The US funded Osama Bin Laden, again at the time it suited the USs purpose. I live in Egypt. The US has been supporting the Egyptian dictatorship for over two and a half decades, which I know for a fact has resorted in a rise in militant Islam. The US created the nation of Saudi Arabia, and the excesses of the Saud family has soured the population of that national fabrication. The CIA actually deposed a liberal democracy in Iran, which led to the rise of the Ayatollah regime.

The problem is that short-term aims have been somewhat successful, but the long-term ramifications have resulted in the problems we are seeing today. What we need is a fire-hose dosage of education to make long-term and short-term goals synchronize. As long as the short-term takes precedence the US will be viewed as a capricious, arrogant, imperialistic, ignorant, and most importantly interventionist nation that deserves retaliation. Unfortunately if the same were applied to the US by an outside source most US citizens would favor violence as well.

The US supported and funded Saddam. Saddam was just as bloodthirsty when the US supported him as he was when the US opposed him, but at the time it suited US purposes. The US funded Osama Bin Laden, again at the time it suited the USs purpose.

Were these actions necessary? What did the US gain or hope to gain by these actions?

If acknowledged as mistakes, are policy makers, etc. learning from these mistakes?

Alabaster · Oct 9, 2006

royboy said:
Were these actions necessary? What did the US gain or hope to gain by these actions?

Do you mean why the US supported Saddam?

The US wanted influence through Saddam to balance the loss of Iran to the Ayatollah. Osama fought the Russians.

The necessity of these actions is debatable. The overall strategic necessity of Afghanistan is probably not very high, but the public image of the USSR mired down by Afghans was probably worth the money.

Iraq provided a nice buffer state against Iran for the Saudis and oil interests.

If acknowledged as mistakes, are policy makers, etc. learning from these mistakes?

Learning from mistakes? No admission has been made that I am aware of, and no evidence that I have seen indicates that the long-term implications of actions have ever been considered.

Billnew · Oct 10, 2006

What do the terrorists want?

short term goal: retake Iraq and Afganistan.
medium goal: clear the middle east of Israeli and American settlements. (death, fleeing, or enslavement.)
Long term: To convert or kill all non-believers in the world, Islamic world rule.

The middle East has never known peace, and looks on the rest of the world as weak for working for peace.
So they believe if they can unite, they can conquer the world. They are still trying to find the future world leader. They don't realize sect violence keeps them from unity.

TheReasoner · Oct 10, 2006

pantsman52 said:
You're really proving Alabasters point in the other thread.

Bin Laden wants the U.S. out of Muslim lands, espescially Saudi Arabia, and he wants to stop what he considers U.S. Imperialism where we have our hands in the inner-workings of the middle eastern governments.

Only partially true. They often want all of us to convert or die. That is Islam's way, according to many verses in the quran. Most well known is ofcourse the "quoted to death" 9:5. Or 9:73. 4:76, and more.
So, Islam in itself is a religion which has a lot of violent potential in it's scriptures. Hence the highly unfortunate acts of the west in the middle east has so much more powerful results than if their religion had been pacifistic. I fear that many see our acts in the middle east as a confirmation of our evil ways. And in many ways our actions warrant no less than we have gotten.
However, I am not warranting or condoning their attacks on civilians. This is evil, and cannot be condoned.
What I am saying i; The way we have acted a response had to come. Given the potential for violence embedded within this religion's scripture it is prectically self evident that a reponse of this nature would come.

Alabaster · Oct 10, 2006

faith guardian said:
Only partially true. They often want all of us to convert or die. That is Islam's way, according to many verses in the quran.

Have you ever studied Islam, and if so, what sources?

Alabaster · Oct 10, 2006

Billnew said:
short term goal: retake Iraq and Afganistan.

Retake Iraq and Afghanistan from who?

medium goal: clear the middle east of Israeli and American settlements

So you think there are American settlements in the Middle East?

Long term: To convert or kill all non-believers in the world, Islamic world rule.

can you back this up with evidence?

The middle East has never known peace, and looks on the rest of the world as weak for working for peace.

This is historically inaccurate. There have been several periods of peace in the Middle East. It was in such periods that dramatic advances in mathematics, philosophy, medicine, etc, occurred.

So they believe if they can unite, they can conquer the world. They are still trying to find the future world leader. They don't realize sect violence keeps them from unity.

Evidence?

jayem · Oct 10, 2006

Quote:
Long term: To convert or kill all non-believers in the world, Islamic world rule.

can you back this up with evidence?

Back in September, Al Qaeda released of video of an American Muslim, Adam Gadahn, sitting with Ayman al- Zawahiri, urging all Americans to convert to Islam.

"He said the United States was losing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and addressed U.S. soldiers who he said were fighting President George W. Bush's "crusades."
"Instead of killing yourself for Bush ... why not surrender to the truth (of Islam), escape from the unbedlieving army and join the winning side. Time is running out so make the right choice before it's too late," he said.
Al-Zawahri gave only a brief introduction to the video, calling on Americans to convert to Islam. "To the American people and the people of the West in general ... God sent his Prophet Muhammad with guidance and the religion of truth ... and sent him as a herald," he said."

"You know that if you die as an unbeliever in battle against the Muslims you're going straight to Hell without passing 'Go,"' Gadahn said, addressing American soldiers. "You know you're considered by Bush and his bunch of warmongers as nothing more than expendible cannon fodder..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211886,00.html

And OTOH, Ann Coulter said after 9/11 that America should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.

Ain't religion just great?

What do the terrorists want?

royboy

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Kama 'a-ina Mau Loa

royboy

Guest

Kama 'a-ina Mau Loa

royboy

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

royboy

Guest

Well-Known Member

royboy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Legend

Former christian, current teapot agnostic.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Naturalist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency