American Muslim Threatens Us Over Support For Israel

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1747957' date='Jan 10 2009, 01:27 AM']word[/quote]
Ditto

[Hassan]

Alright, as MV has said this is on topic I'll ask my thread to be shut down and rejoin this with the discussion

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1747785' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:52 PM']But I am the one being vague, right? [/quote]


Yes, extremely. Before your below adaptation you simply pasted dictionary definitions which encompassed everything from Al-Quaida, French tribunals, Clowns and much in between. Of course my definition is vague, that has been my point throughout this thread, “terrorism” is an inherently vague term. It’s contemporary usage covers everything from transnational criminal organizations such as Al-Quaida to nationalist movements in Chechnya (and that is only from a western perspective). Saying “terrorists” are “lunatics” is as vague as saying “religion” is “stupid”.




[quote]This is a fundemental definition lacking what makes terrorism...well, terrorism. [b] Instilling fear or terror against civilian populations via attacks for the purpose of coercing them to a political end[/b] would be more precise.[/quote]


Is it the act of instilling fear that constitutes terrorism and the fact that this fear is intended to direct a population to a political end purely an incidental aspect that helps categorize this activity? Your adaptation of my definition would imply this. While you are free to “roll your eyes” even this after the fact attempt to present a coherent definition of what you mean by terrorism (or what any of us mean, I do not pretend to have an analytically precise coherent definition) has serious problem with it. Moreover what do you mean by “lunatic”? Do they have to have a diagnostically verifiable mental illness? If a Palestinian boy joins Hamas after his sister was groped at an Israel checkpoint or father was in the wrong place at the wrong time and killed by an Israeli airstrike would we say he is a “lunatic”? I certainly don’t think so. I’d say he was walking down a self destructive path unlikely either to avenge the wrongs inflicted against his family or prevent such incidents from happening in the future, but I wouldn’t say he was insane. There actually have been numerous sociological, psychological, and statistical studies of terrorism and it’s support. Not simply terrorism by Muslim groups but wide ranging investigations from the Russian anarchist movements to Hezbollah, I have yet to read one which concludes that “terrorists are lunatics”. The reason I persist with this is because your sentiment is shared by many people. Yet such sweeping platitudes are rarely critically examined. For one such generalizations hide the fact that many terrorist organizations are expressing real, legitimate grievances through illegitimate ends. Terrorism is often crafted precisely as a means of bringing media attention to just such grievances (though it rarely works given how episodic the news is). While legitimizing such terrorist organizations is wrong, when they are universally dismissed as “lunatics” the legitimate grievences which often fuels their popular support rarely get’s addressed, the larger population still suffers, and more young men and women are likely to follow the path of terrorism.

I'd also ask if one has to actually participate in the violent acts to be a terrorist?

Edited January 11, 2009 by Hassan

[Hassan]

BY KUJO
from the other thread

Terrorism is defined by most scholars as the use of political violence (or the threat of violence) by groups or individuals who deliberately target civilians of noncombatants in order to influence the behavior and actions of targeted publics and governments.

Our Defense Department defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of--or threatened use of-- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, ideological or religious objectives."

The FBI differentiates between domestic terrorism (the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the US or its territories...committed against persons or property, to intimidate or coerce a government, a civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives) and international terrorism (violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the US or any state; they are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of the government or affect the conduct of the government; these acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the person they intended to intimidate or the locale in which the perpetrators operate).

The State Department has adopted a definition resembling Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d):


QUOTE
Terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, and is usually intended to influence and audience.

"International terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

[sweens8403]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1748344' date='Jan 10 2009, 08:11 PM']That's not what this was. This was video of an American Muslim cleric who is popular, well-known and has a lot of clout with Muslims in America, making threats against America.[/quote]

even worse, but still its getting old

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='sweens8403' post='1748521' date='Jan 11 2009, 12:26 AM']even worse, but still its getting old[/quote]


And it really doesn't matter what you or I think. It's the world we live in and it has to be faced, not ignored because it's "getting old".

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1748737' date='Jan 11 2009, 12:46 PM']And it really doesn't matter what you or I think. It's the world we live in and it has to be faced, not ignored because it's "getting old".[/quote]


What exactly about the world "cannot be ignored"?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1748358' date='Jan 10 2009, 07:42 PM']BY KUJO
from the other thread

Terrorism is defined by most scholars as the use of political violence (or the threat of violence) by groups or individuals who deliberately target civilians of noncombatants in order to influence the behavior and actions of targeted publics and governments.

Our Defense Department defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of--or threatened use of-- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, ideological or religious objectives."

The FBI differentiates between domestic terrorism (the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the US or its territories...committed against persons or property, to intimidate or coerce a government, a civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives) and international terrorism (violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the US or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the US or any state; they are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of the government or affect the conduct of the government; these acts transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the person they intended to intimidate or the locale in which the perpetrators operate).

The State Department has adopted a definition resembling Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d):


QUOTE
Terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, and is usually intended to influence and audience.

"International terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.[/quote]

And I agree with all of this. The definitions both you and I have provided, Hassan, are both found above (albeit we offered condensed versions and the above goes into detail). So where is the debate?

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1748759' date='Jan 11 2009, 02:25 PM']And I agree with all of this. The definitions both you and I have provided, Hassan, are both found above (albeit we offered condensed versions and the above goes into detail). So where is the debate?[/quote]


Well I would disagree with the above definitions in that they seem to exclude states or government from being terrorist groups. I would consider Hamas, at least their military wing, a terrorist organization, simply because they won elections in Gaza does not preclude them from still being a terrorist organization. I see no reason to exclude states or governments from terrorist acts.

Once an understanding of "terrorism" is achieved then, as I said earlier it needs to be known what you mean by "lunatics" and, if individuals who support terrorism but do not actually take part in the violence may be classified as terrorists, and if all terrorists can be rationally classified as "lunatics".

[Luthien]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1748737' date='Jan 11 2009, 02:46 PM']And it really doesn't matter what you or I think. It's the world we live in and it has to be faced, not ignored because it's "getting old".[/quote]

Gee, I guess one cannot even make a comment that [b]is[/b] on topic unless you approve. Goodness me.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1748354' date='Jan 10 2009, 07:33 PM']Not simply terrorism by Muslim groups but wide ranging investigations from the Russian anarchist movements to Hezbollah, I have yet to read one which concludes that “terrorists are lunatics”. The reason I persist with this is because your sentiment is shared by many people. Yet such sweeping platitudes are rarely critically examined. For one such generalizations hide the fact that many terrorist organizations are expressing real, legitimate grievances through illegitimate ends. Terrorism is often crafted precisely as a means of bringing media attention to just such grievances (though it rarely works given how episodic the news is). While legitimizing such terrorist organizations is wrong, when they are universally dismissed as “lunatics” the legitimate grievences which often fuels their popular support rarely get’s addressed, the larger population still suffers, and more young men and women are likely to follow the path of terrorism.[/quote]

I misspoke before; you are not [i]defending[/i] terrorism, you are trying to [i]justify[/i] it. Honestly, whether or not a group or a country has a legitimate grievance, resorting to domestic or international terrorism - remember that [u]harming civilains[/u] is included in both definitions - is despicable and should not be tolerated. Do you even realize what would happen if the government then gave the terrorist organization everything they demanded on a silver platter? How that actually [b]encourages[/b] future terrorism by showing other organizations that as soon as you start blowing up innocents in the middle of a crowded street, the government will cater to you?

If there is a legitimate grievance, behave like a civilized human being. If war is necessary, let it be a just war.

[quote]I'd also ask if one has to actually participate in the violent acts to be a terrorist?[/quote]

I would have to say "no" for the obvious reasons. An individual may be teaching a group of young adults how to go about blowing up a street full of people; the teacher is not directly participating in the slaughter but is still incredibly involved and is a huge factor of influence and encouragement.


[quote name='Hassan' post='1748764' date='Jan 11 2009, 01:41 PM']Once an understanding of "terrorism" is achieved then, as I said earlier it needs to be known what you mean by "lunatics" and, if individuals who support terrorism but do not actually take part in the violence may be classified as terrorists, and if all terrorists can be rationally classified as "lunatics".[/quote]

My broad use of "lunatics" was fueled by emotion regarding the atrocities committed by terrorists, particularly (but certainly not limited to) what occurred in our very country on 9-11. Oftentimes one associates the word "lunatic" with an individual who is mentally ill, dangerous, and unpredictable. It is very, very easy to call a terrorist a lunatic especially when we marvel how a person can be so evil, so - irrational, so - insane. Because to us who are encouraged to seek peace over violence and love over hate [regardless of religion], these people are insane. But then when we examine and study terrorism from a psychological perspective we see that terrorists are, in fact, rational [i]in the sense that[/i] they think rationally (even if their behaviors may be irrational).

This is somewhat "up my alley" as I am interested in criminal psychology.

The following are excerpts from [url="http://whyfiles.org/140terror_psych/index.html"]http://whyfiles.org/140terror_psych/index.html[/url] :

[b] For 30 years, Rona Fields, a Washington, D.C. psychologist, has been psychologically testing terrorists and paramilitaries from Northern Ireland, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, Southeast Asia, and Africa. She thinks today's suicide terrorists share the still-born moral and emotional development she saw in the Khmer Rouge, who created a bloodbath in Cambodia during the late 1970s. "Their definition of right and wrong is very black-and-white, and is directed by an uthoritative director," says Fields. "There's a total limitation of the capacity to think for themselves."

A terrorist develops gradually from a young age, Fields says. The boys (typically aged 10 to 16) who are easist to recruit for suicide terrorism are "at the stage of development of moral judgment called retributive justice or vendetta." This "an eye for an eye" stage of emotional development was described by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, she adds. [/b]

Pertinent to our discussion :

[b] In contrast to the popular sense that suicidal terrorists are sociopathic whackos, many experts argue that they are effectively pursuing their goals.

"They are rational, they are not insane," says Richard Pearlstein, associate professor of political science at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. "They have goals and they are moving towards those goals."

Not only are terrorists not crazy, but they don't share a personality type, wrote David Long, former assistant director of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism. "No comparative work on terrorist psychology has ever succeeded in revealing a particular psychological type or uniform terrorist mindset."

Still, Long wrote that terrorists tend to have low self-esteem, are attracted to groups with charismatic leaders, and, not surprisingly, enjoy risk. Oddly, Long concluded that many terrorists are ambivalent about violence and guns (see "The Anatomy..." in the [bibliography - link]). [/b]

The last bit is incredibly interesting, in my opinion.

To continue, this link provides study of suicidal bombers : [url="http://whyfiles.org/140terror_psych/2.html"]http://whyfiles.org/140terror_psych/2.html[/url]

Another site I have to provide is : [url="http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/mccauley.htm"]http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/mccauley.htm[/url]
[i]The Psychology of Terrorism[/i] by Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College.

He defines terrorism (just as I have stated he, too, emphasizes the involvement of civilians):

[quote]In a global war on terrorism, it is important to ask what we mean by terrorism.

The usual definition of terrorism is something like "the use or threat of violence, by small groups against non-combatants of large groups, for avowed political goals." The key to this definition is the combination of small groups killing non-combatants. Terrorism is the warfare of the weak, the recourse of those desperate for a cause that cannot win by conventional means. But it is worth noting that state terrorism against a state's own citizens--as practiced by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, and many smaller-league tyrants--has killed millions of non-combatants, whereas the anti-state terrorism we usually focus on has killed thousands.[/quote]

This is also a long article to post, so I will include snippets and trust you look at it on your own.

[quote]A common suggestion is that there must be something wrong with terrorists. Terrorists must be crazy, or suicidal, or psychopaths without moral feelings or feelings for others. Thirty years ago this suggestion was taken very seriously, but thirty years of research has found psychopathology and personality disorder no more likely among terrorists than among non-terrorists from the same background. Interviews with current and former terrorists find few with any disorder found in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Comparisons of terrorists with non-terrorists brought up in the same neighborhoods find psychopathogy rates similar and low in both groups.[/quote]

[quote]No one wakes up one morning and decides that today is the day to become a terrorist. The trajectory by which normal people become capable of doing terrible things is usually gradual, perhaps imperceptible to the individual. This is among other things a moral trajectory, such as Horowitz has described in "The Deadly Ethnic Riot." In too-simple terms, terrorists kill for the same reasons that groups have killed other groups for centuries. They kill for cause and comrades, that is, with a combination of ideology and intense small-group dynamics.[/quote]

[quote]Terrorism inflicts immediate damage in destroying lives and material, but terrorists hope that the long-term costs will be much greater. They want to create fear and uncertainty far beyond the victims and those close to them. They want the enemy to spend time and money on security. In effect the terrorists aim to lay an enormous tax on every aspect of the enemy's society, a tax that transfers resources from productive purposes to anti-productive security measures. The costs of increased security are likely to be particularly high for a country like the U.S., where an open society is the foundation of economic success and a high-tech military.[/quote]

Thank you if you take the time to read all that.

[quote name='Luthien' post='1748765' date='Jan 11 2009, 01:46 PM']Gee, I guess one cannot even make a comment that [b]is[/b] on topic unless you approve. Goodness me.[/quote]

This is her thread and she may direct the discussion as she pleases.

[Luthien]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1748786' date='Jan 11 2009, 05:46 PM']This is her thread and she may direct the discussion as she pleases.[/quote]

Regardless, Christian charity should be used, not offhand comments on how what someone thinks doesn't matter.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1748836' date='Jan 11 2009, 04:43 PM']Regardless, Christian charity should be used, not offhand comments on how what someone thinks doesn't matter.[/quote]

She was not discussing being on or off topic, she was making a comment about Muslims in America who are making threats against America.

[Luthien]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1748737' date='Jan 11 2009, 02:46 PM']And it really doesn't matter what you or I think. It's the world we live in and it has to be faced, not ignored because it's "getting old".[/quote]

I dont consider this response to be in Christian charity.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1748840' date='Jan 11 2009, 04:51 PM']I dont consider this response to be in Christian charity.[/quote]

It's the hard reality.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1748840' date='Jan 11 2009, 05:51 PM']I dont consider this response to be in Christian charity.[/quote]

What?? What part do you think is uncharitable, the part about reality or the part about not ignoring it?

And that's a rhetorical question.