I'm honestly surprised that the distinction between a drunk driving accident and terrorism needs to be explained. The reason one is despised so much more than the other is because one involves the calculated, intentional killing of others because of hatred while the other does not.

@Yanik

"this is not about getting attention, this is about religious terrorists, committing violent acts because they BELIEVE IN their religion."

I'll definitely watch your video debate. In the meantime, the works I read on terrorism convinced me that the motivation is not religion.

Terrorism is facilitated by religion, that's true, but its actual CAUSE is always the same: the inability to fight a powerful enemy in any other way. Ironically, the first known instances of terrorism were perpetrated by Jews. Zealots committed terrorist acts against Romans because it was the only way to fight the world empire. And if we take legends into account, then the most famous terrorist of all time is definitely Samson.

Yes, terrorism is helped by madness, religion and poverty. But its cause is desperation in front of an all-powerful foe.

Religion, racism, and nationalism are the main ways that evil people convince others to do their dirty work. Poverty and lack of hope are conditions that make people extra vulnerable to this sort of exploitation.

The Koran was written about 2 main phases of Muhammad's life. During the first phase, Islam was a minority religion so the passages are largely about tolerance. During the second phase, when Islam was spreading quickly and dominant in its area, the passages are much more aggressive, so there's something for everyone.

What measures has the developed world taken to demilitarize radicalism in the Islamic world?

BB, that's kind of a 2 part question. Fostering democracy was positive for Tunisia. But that originated from within.

Well said, Hauta. "From within" is crucial.

Why is that the so-called "developed" world's responsibility, brainbomb?

It's not developed world responsibility. It's the developed world's cost benefit analysis.

Didnt say it was. Theres many things happening in this topic. Yanik spoke of ending terrorism as an urgent matter.

To simplify this heres what im trying to say:

1) if the goal is to end terrorism what have the victims of said terror done to decrease incentive to commit such acts.

a) if there have been efforts made to end this behavior then figuring what worked- where it worked - why it worked is a start.

2) this thread implied that terrorism is inevitable. While others argued it can be totally stopped or de-incentivized. By whom? The west? Or external factors?

3) isnt terrorism more powerful because of 24 hour news cycle and sensationalism than it is actually dangerous to the individual?

@Zmaj

the debate goes into this in more depth, but there are socioeconomic factors, there are cultural factors, and there are religious factors. all of this is obvious, but more and more we are seeing a prevalence of religion in the motivations of terrorists.

but in any case, the debate spells the situation out much better than i will be able to here. i mean... if you have 3 hours free haha

@brainbomb

i'm going to answer your questions out of order, because i feel that it's a bit more clear what i'm trying to say here.


"3) isnt terrorism more powerful because of 24 hour news cycle and sensationalism than it is actually dangerous to the individual?"

yes, especially in the united states where we are much less prone per capita to terrorism than places in europe and the middle east right now.


"2) this thread implied that terrorism is inevitable. While others argued it can be totally stopped or de-incentivized. By whom? The west? Or external factors?"

as for state sponsored terrorists, the west is able to create economic embargos, but as for radical factions, all we are able to do is denounce regimes that violate human rights, and give support to non-radical movements in the area.


"1) if the goal is to end terrorism what have the victims of said terror done to decrease incentive to commit such acts."

this is a good question, and the answer is actually twofold. for the standard model of terrorism, the victims of terrorist attacks could address the concerns and ease the worries that the political radicals have. however, in France, we have seen attacks because a comic drew a picture of Muhammad. the problem is a clash of cultures, and until the culture is changed (by moderates within the culture) we should not give up on our liberal ideals just because of fear.

right now, by being strong and principled, we are increasing the chances of terrorism. people not being frightened out of drawing what they want as freedom of speech, is making the situation worse.

clearly this is not the standard geopolitical terrorism, but religious terrorism.

"a) if there have been efforts made to end this behavior then figuring what worked- where it worked - why it worked is a start."

the behavior is threefold. there is defensive behavior, there is retaliatory behavior, and there is aggressive behavior.

- defensive behavior occurs when an unprovoked attack hurts a population, and there is internal rebellion against the intruders
- retaliatory behavior occurs when an attack occurs, either on said party or an ally of that party, and the radicals attack the original aggressors on foreign soil
- aggressive behavior occurs when an attack occurs by radicals, that was not provoked by intrusion into their lives, but by cultural differences.

to solve the defensive behavior, we need to withdraw from the nations
to solve retaliatory behavior, we need to stop ignoring civil casualties, and trying to nation-build

these two are inexorably linked.

but to solve aggressive behavior, which has bee seen coming from terrorists in the middle east, we must get moderates within the culture to fight a culture war, and we must defend ourselves.

there may be an escalation of force in our defense, but immediate retaliatory war is not recommended here.

That is all well said Yanik.

The OP was because I feel terrorism is a rather overrated term. Not overrated in the sense that lives arent lost or that some acts of terror arent horrible - but more that we sensationalized it so much after 9/11 we actually gave away a lot of rights to privacy. Weve spent billions on killing men living in caves thousands of miles away.

We went to war with two countries and ended literally one sect of a terror cell over the course of like 15 years. Sure we get rid of a dictator and got Bin Laden but all we did was embolden a new generation of even worse people.

If we treated the war on terror more like we do other existntial social diseases like alcoholism the war on drugs, hackers, and gambling addicting we maybe would drop less bombs and miraculously create less terrorists.

Although the timing of BB's post is (possibly) unfortunate given events here in the UK yesterday, it's a good point. The incident that he refers to was indeed initially reported as a suspected terror incident.

Following the attack in Manchester, I have noted several comments from friends and relations on social media in very emotional/visceral terms.

I'm not saying that it's wrong or improper, although it's not my reaction. I'm probably too heartless and unemotional to respond on that way. But it is curious none the less. These are people who do not normally respond in that way to other events.

I think its awful, I would rather there not be any attacks of this kind by anyone, no mass shootings, no maniacs ramming vans into crowds, no suicide bombers, -none of that crap.

that being said the media does this thing where they say "we are on high alert there may be more attacks".

its rather unfortunate that the period of fear never actually expires. the example being the now famously retired "terror alert" thermometer that Fox News made famous in the wake of 9/11. It had four major settings, Red was high alert, and for the majority of the time we had this system it never left Red. Orange was moderate threat. There was a yellow which is was on once or twice in like... 8 years. and finally Green (who the hell even thought of this?) and famously, the Green setting never once happened in the entire tenure of the system. We could go months without a mass shooting, or a terror plot and the green still would never appear.

Point is the media controls the level of fear, and controls the narrative. they cant possibly know more than what is told to them by the state anyway, or what is unearthed through evidence.

Presumably the attack in Manchester was carried out by a suicide bomber, but last I heard the investigation was still going on. And heres where politics get involved, there isn't even an article on CNN front page about this story anymore. its all about trump's scandal.

compare the front pages of the two
http://www.foxnews.com/
In enormous font "MANCHESTER BOMBER NAMED
Suicide attacker ID’d as ISIS calls monster 'soldier of caliphate' "

Pretty sensational and terrifying headline. ISIS attacked a concert. This man is a "monster". well yea, I mean he killed a ton of innocent people and ISIS is praising him. But how is this furthering any cause? what exactly does this do for them? and what exactly are we supposed to do to prevent this? stop going to concerts?

meanwhile...
http://www.cnn.com/

I don't even think there is an article about Manchester on here?

So what ive concluded is that Conservative media wants you to be TERRIFIED more attacks may come, while convienentely ignoring the Presidents snowballing scandal.

And CNN doesn't care about Manchester because its just one suicide bomber who is dead now, and Trump is in hot water so...

yea our media pretty much just does what it can to tell you what is and isn't important based on alignment.

I am old enough to remember the start of "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland in the late '60s, aircraft being hijacked to Dawson's Field, and many other horrible events since. I don't feel that the number of events is increasing, but the media coverage that each gets is undoubtedly much greater.

Most terrorist attacks have some sort of political motive and I don't think you can really stop terrorism without addressing those. Making peace is an ugly business. I loathe the sight of Gerry Adams but the Good Friday Agreement was only possible through bringing people like him into the peace process. Nelson Mandela was in prison for terrorist offences, no doubt many Afrikaaners felt the same about him as I think of Adams. Anwar Sadat was killed for making peace with the Israelis, Yitzhak Rabin was killed for making peace with the Palestinians.

That visceral reaction you all mention is the reaction which people have in war. Also, the media react as they would in a war. They aren't wrong, either: those terrorists are waging war.

But there is one huge problem: the enemy is not clearly defined.

So when the US and their NATO allies decide to stick a name to the enemy - Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, whatever - a large majority of people are relieved because they can point their fingers at something.

And I feel a strange sensation as Zmaj and I are in full agreement.

It's the Twilight Zone, brainbomb! But don't worry, I'm sure it won't last :)

Additionally if the goal was to end terrorism, then you would technically have to just massively genocide entire factions of people to erase the possibility one of their family members doesn't take up the mantle. its pretty much an impossibility. And yet growing up in rural Nebraska, there were fellow students, actual people who saw nothing wrong with nuking the entire middle east so terror could be destroyed.

I guess having known these people, and knowing that there is a side of Conservativism that is/was so afraid of anyone Muslim after 9/11; well, simply put, its pretty hard to know which side is the actual enemy sometimes.

The enemy are those advocating military responses because they simply don't work. I cannot think of a single cause of terrorism that has been ended through military means.

@brainbomb

"you would technically have to just massively genocide entire factions of people to erase the possibility one of their family members doesn't take up the mantle"

The Israeli bulldoze the houses of dead terrorists. I guess that's as far as they can go without actually killing his family members. Not that it surprises me. They're still following the Old Testament: "an eye for an eye."

"And yet growing up in rural Nebraska"

I recently saw "Nebraska". A great little film, two thumbs up.

I have been to a few of the places in that film. indeed a good one.

@ diplomat61

I can't think of one that hasn't. The whole diplomatic or military solution argument had always puzzled me. They are not alternatives, but different aspects of the same solution. Every war has ended with some kind of diplomatic conclusion, and pretty much all diplomatic successes have been supported by the threat of what could happen if diplomacy fails.

But yeah, in response to the OP it is harder to get as angry at a drink driver as it tends to be too close to home. I think that everyone has a friend or loved one who has, at some stage of their lives, taken a gamble on whether they were fit to drive and been lucky. It's hard to hate those who, but for the grace of God, could be your own family. The terrorist, by way of contrast, is far easier to despise and far harder to relate to.

@Octavious
Go on then, give us an example of a terrorist cause that was ended by military means.

I guess a totalitarian dictatorship like North Korea has zero incidents of terror. But thats mostly because its such a shithole even the terrorists see no value in attacking it.

I'd prefer that people fear heart disease more than terrorists. This and other health risks strike much closer to home for most.

Sure, diplomat. Ever heard of the Crusades?

What relationship do the Crusades have to terrorism? Wait, what IS terrorism anyway?

Which side are you implying was terrorists in the crusades...?
The side which sent boats of children to die ?
The side which reclaimed jerusalem from murderous raping templars?