5 ms·

I don't think I'm going to die in a terrorist attack, and yet, I'm outraged and offended by acts of terrorism. I want them prevented and I want terrorists thwar

by nsxwolf 11y ago

I don't think I'm going to die in a terrorist attack, and yet, I'm outraged and offended by acts of terrorism. I want them prevented and I want terrorists thwarted and destroyed. I don't think most people's opposition to terrorism and will to defeat it comes from a personal fear of becoming a victim. Admonitions to shrug your shoulders at terrorism because car accidents kill more people always ring hollow with me.

grandalf 11y ago
What is terrorism? If two sides are fighting each other and one side has smart bombs and drones and the other side doesn't, clearly the choice for the weaker side is to give up or to find tactics that work to break its enemy's will. The word terrorism is a propaganda word intended to make the audience pass moral judgment on the act and ignore the larger issue of why the conflict exists in the first place. I too find acts of violence upsetting, but it's dangerous to buy into the propaganda around the word terrorism, since it's used to justify abandoning diplomacy and dehumanizing the enemy.
- nsxwolf 11y ago
  Like pornography, you know it when you see it. I don't care much for this bit of sophistry. Islamic fundamentalists or lone wolf nuts deliberately targeting innocent people works as a definition of terrorism to me. I don't feel like I'm being manipulated by propaganda.
- ubersync 11y ago
  > I too find acts of violence upsetting, but it's dangerous to buy into the propaganda around the word terrorism, since it's used to justify abandoning diplomacy and dehumanizing the enemy. And it's used to curb the rights of your own citizens.
  - jqm 11y ago
    Exactly. I haven't figured out the true aim of terrorists. Unless it's to give license and cause for government to do outrageous things. Which seems to cause more problems for society than the initial terrorism. So maybe that is the aim.
    - woah 11y ago
      Here's one of their strategic guidebooks, 'The Management of Savagery/Chaos'[1]. They want to cause America (and Europe) to exhaust their military resources in the Middle East and cause the states there to fail. In failed states, they are able to establish a caliphate, as the strongest armed force on the ground. So far we are fulfilling their goals quite well with our useless war, and France is now going down the same path. [1] https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the...
      - kgwgk 11y ago
        > So far we are fulfilling their goals quite well with our useless war, and France is now going down the same path. Is France fulfilling Daesh's goals by destroying their administrative, economic and military infrastructure? What kind of action or inaction would go against Daesh's goals in your opinion?
- d23 11y ago
  Oh hogwash. Bombing innocent people simply isn't right and isn't effective. If you're honestly sympathizing with these people or justifying their actions (which you seem one skip and jump from doing), you should at least want them to do things that are effective at getting the change they want. Then again, maybe their entire motive is to bring global sharia law and secure their place in heaven by killing as many innocent infidels as possible. As far as I know, ISIS has made no claims that were less extreme than this. I have no problem dehumanizing someone with that sort of motivation. It's barbaric; it's monstrous. They have made no attempt at diplomacy, and there is no chance.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    It isn't effective? So far in the past 15 years the terrorists have spent at most a few million dollars on their attacks, and the west has spent trillions. The amount of economic damage to the west has been profound, and yet our leaders would be happy to spend 20% of GDP indefinitely on ineffective projects attempting to thwart terrorism. So yes, terrorism works very well and often terrorist groups transition into respectable and moderate political parties.
  - Karellen 11y ago
    Yup, you're entirely correct. Fortunately, We would never do anything like bombing innocent people, because We are the Good Guys, and all our actions are therefore entirely justified. Only They do things like that, because They are the Bad Guys, and Their actions are barbaric and monstrous. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/u-s-journalists-who-instantly-exonerated-their-government-of-the-kunduz-hospital-attack-declaring-it-an-accident/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/u-s-journalists-who-inst...
- raquo 11y ago
  Politics aside, if targeting and killing civilians indiscriminately is not terrorism, I don't know what is. ETA: I'm talking about the Paris attacks specifically, not giving a formal definition of terrorism. If you don't count those as terrorism, I don't know what you would count. This semantic mumbo jumbo is ridiculous.
  - rurounijones 11y ago
    By the definition you gave above: * Bombing of Dresden: Terrorism * Nuking of Hiroshima: Terrorism * America's Drone strikes: Terrorism Context and motive is everything. You cannot boil it down to an easily digestible soubd-byte to base your opinion on.
    - grandalf 11y ago
      Don't forget shooting at redcoats from behind the cover of a tree during the revolutionary war.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Yes you can. Hiroshima was in the midst of a full blown state vs. state war, in which the US was not the aggressor against Japan. While it is true that it was hoped the atomic bomb would be as useful psychologically as it was physically, there is no true comparison here, and this is argumentative for the sake of trying to make a point.
      - aianus 11y ago
        > there is no true comparison here You're right, the Hiroshima attack in itself was worse in terms of the death and suffering of innocents than all Islamic terrorism of the past 20 years put together.
        grandalf 11y ago
        True. Ironically, it's generally understood by Americans that this was done to break Japan's will to continue fighting. It worked. Everything we do in war is to break the will of the enemy to continue. Thus unless we expect one side to nobly surrender, we ought to expect the most extreme atrocities to occur in war. When you think about it, it's silly to draw an arbitrary distinction of humane combat, since if we really wanted to be humane we'd have our leaders compete in chess boxing or something that would minimize the destruction of property and loss of life.
- pugio 11y ago
  Terrorism is psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population. It could be an expression of frustration; an act by one who doesn't care, or cares exclusively and consumingly. And it is horrific, disgusting, and morally reprehensible. The word is not merely propaganda, it is a word whose extremity exactly conveys the revulsion and moral judgement of the speaker. As with any label, you run the risk of superficiality and preoccupation with simplified narratives, but "terrorism" is NOT just propaganda, and it deliberately conveys more than "acts of violence". (A clinical term with its own problems of distancing audiences from the immediate reality.) I wrote this because your last sentence seemed to imply something that I've noticed crop up in these kinds of discussions: the (typically Western) assumption that there is legitimacy to both sides of any conflict, and that, recognizing this, a diplomatic solution can be achieved. I've yet to see concrete evidence that this is the case. Short of deprogramming, how do you reason with a group of people brainwashed to be fundamentally unreasonable?
  - awakeasleep 11y ago
    Was it terrorism when the US dropped the nukes on Japan? Psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population, right? Even if you agree that it was, you have to admit that is not how the history books are writte, because we don't use the propagana term "terrorist" to describe our own actions.
    - bottled_poe 11y ago
      Things have changed a bit since then. How many ISIS members adhere to the Geneva conventions?
      - acjohnson55 11y ago
        Does the US?
    - grandalf 11y ago
      Exactly. The drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan are intended to make the populations of the border regions worry constantly about being fired upon. It's what terrorism looks like when you have an essentially unlimited budget and don't have to resort to crude munitions like IEDs or suicide bombers.
- ekanes 11y ago
  Honest question: Do you think Daesh is open to diplomacy? What course of action do you propose with them?
lkbm 11y ago
Opposition to terrorism is pretty broad. Insistence that we bomb entire countries or bar refugees because some of them might be terrorists seems fear-relate. I refuse to give up freedoms or deny those freedoms to innocent people out of fear of terrorists. That's not "shrugging my shoulders". That's not succumbing to the terror that is so obviously the tool of terrorism.
hackaflocka 11y ago
FWIW, the micromorts for an innocent Iraqi, when it was being bombed by the Allied forces was pretty high too. But at least Donald Trump is going to ensure that we get all the Iraqi oil. /sarcasm
- rory096 11y ago
  Let's put some actual numbers to this. Using IraqBodyCount.org's estimate, Iraqis suffered 1.86 micromorts per day from March 2003 to present. Compare to 2.18 μmorts/day during the Iran-Iraq War or 29,090 μmorts inflicted on Halabja residents in one day in 1988. Here's a calculator, with my data in the Iraq tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wH6BOoKXun-C3_WLHZr7bpQdq7_T1r605--t34l3vbI/edit https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wH6BOoKXun-C3_WLHZr7... (n.b.: I use conservative estimates to yield higher μmorts for the US-initiated Iraq War and lower for the other two, like 1988 populations for Iran-Iraq and 2003 populations for the US invasion/aftermath. IBC measures only documented deaths; I used their figure for total deaths including combatants. Alternative figures are listed in the cells/notes on the right. Feel free to plug in different values and see how things change.)
rayiner 11y ago
Absolutely. I don't worry about being a victim of terrorism. And I don't care if car accidents kill more people--the number of deaths isn't the point. The point is that there are people fighting to drag the world back into the 7th century, and they must be stopped on all fronts.
privacy101 11y ago
Of course killings are never good but why don't you get rid of the cause?
ap22213 11y ago
On the other hand, with our population of 7.3 billion, it's kind of amazing that we don't see more terrorism. Personally, it kind of makes me feel good about Humans, given all the negatives that I usually hear about them. To me, the problem with terrorism (aside from the terrorists) is that there are people willing to jump in immediately with political (or financial) agendas. Within hours, I'd already seen comments on FB about how fewer people would have died if France had a 2nd amendment. And, over the past few days, I've seen so much pro-police-state propaganda in the US media that it frankly scares me to death. No - we really don't need more 'surveillance' or more build-ups in 'defense spending'. Call me 'crazy', but I really think we should be spending the trillions and trillions of dollars (which would otherwise go into the pockets of the propagandists) on our generation's geniuses to enable them to create the technologies that makes disease, poverty, and inequality obsolete.

by nsxwolf 11y ago

grandalf 11y ago

What is terrorism? If two sides are fighting each other and one side has smart bombs and drones and the other side doesn't, clearly the choice for the weaker side is to give up or to find tactics that work to break its enemy's will. The word terrorism is a propaganda word intended to make the audience pass moral judgment on the act and ignore the larger issue of why the conflict exists in the first place. I too find acts of violence upsetting, but it's dangerous to buy into the propaganda around the word terrorism, since it's used to justify abandoning diplomacy and dehumanizing the enemy.

nsxwolf 11y ago
Like pornography, you know it when you see it. I don't care much for this bit of sophistry. Islamic fundamentalists or lone wolf nuts deliberately targeting innocent people works as a definition of terrorism to me. I don't feel like I'm being manipulated by propaganda.
ubersync 11y ago
> I too find acts of violence upsetting, but it's dangerous to buy into the propaganda around the word terrorism, since it's used to justify abandoning diplomacy and dehumanizing the enemy. And it's used to curb the rights of your own citizens.
- jqm 11y ago
  Exactly. I haven't figured out the true aim of terrorists. Unless it's to give license and cause for government to do outrageous things. Which seems to cause more problems for society than the initial terrorism. So maybe that is the aim.
  - woah 11y ago
    Here's one of their strategic guidebooks, 'The Management of Savagery/Chaos'[1]. They want to cause America (and Europe) to exhaust their military resources in the Middle East and cause the states there to fail. In failed states, they are able to establish a caliphate, as the strongest armed force on the ground. So far we are fulfilling their goals quite well with our useless war, and France is now going down the same path. [1] https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the-management-of-savagery-the-most-critical-stage-through-which-the-umma-will-pass.pdf https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/abu-bakr-naji-the...
    - kgwgk 11y ago
      > So far we are fulfilling their goals quite well with our useless war, and France is now going down the same path. Is France fulfilling Daesh's goals by destroying their administrative, economic and military infrastructure? What kind of action or inaction would go against Daesh's goals in your opinion?
d23 11y ago
Oh hogwash. Bombing innocent people simply isn't right and isn't effective. If you're honestly sympathizing with these people or justifying their actions (which you seem one skip and jump from doing), you should at least want them to do things that are effective at getting the change they want. Then again, maybe their entire motive is to bring global sharia law and secure their place in heaven by killing as many innocent infidels as possible. As far as I know, ISIS has made no claims that were less extreme than this. I have no problem dehumanizing someone with that sort of motivation. It's barbaric; it's monstrous. They have made no attempt at diplomacy, and there is no chance.
- grandalf 11y ago
  It isn't effective? So far in the past 15 years the terrorists have spent at most a few million dollars on their attacks, and the west has spent trillions. The amount of economic damage to the west has been profound, and yet our leaders would be happy to spend 20% of GDP indefinitely on ineffective projects attempting to thwart terrorism. So yes, terrorism works very well and often terrorist groups transition into respectable and moderate political parties.
- Karellen 11y ago
  Yup, you're entirely correct. Fortunately, We would never do anything like bombing innocent people, because We are the Good Guys, and all our actions are therefore entirely justified. Only They do things like that, because They are the Bad Guys, and Their actions are barbaric and monstrous. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/u-s-journalists-who-instantly-exonerated-their-government-of-the-kunduz-hospital-attack-declaring-it-an-accident/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/u-s-journalists-who-inst...
raquo 11y ago
Politics aside, if targeting and killing civilians indiscriminately is not terrorism, I don't know what is. ETA: I'm talking about the Paris attacks specifically, not giving a formal definition of terrorism. If you don't count those as terrorism, I don't know what you would count. This semantic mumbo jumbo is ridiculous.
- rurounijones 11y ago
  By the definition you gave above: * Bombing of Dresden: Terrorism * Nuking of Hiroshima: Terrorism * America's Drone strikes: Terrorism Context and motive is everything. You cannot boil it down to an easily digestible soubd-byte to base your opinion on.
  - grandalf 11y ago
    Don't forget shooting at redcoats from behind the cover of a tree during the revolutionary war.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Yes you can. Hiroshima was in the midst of a full blown state vs. state war, in which the US was not the aggressor against Japan. While it is true that it was hoped the atomic bomb would be as useful psychologically as it was physically, there is no true comparison here, and this is argumentative for the sake of trying to make a point.
    - aianus 11y ago
      > there is no true comparison here You're right, the Hiroshima attack in itself was worse in terms of the death and suffering of innocents than all Islamic terrorism of the past 20 years put together.
      - grandalf 11y ago
        True. Ironically, it's generally understood by Americans that this was done to break Japan's will to continue fighting. It worked. Everything we do in war is to break the will of the enemy to continue. Thus unless we expect one side to nobly surrender, we ought to expect the most extreme atrocities to occur in war. When you think about it, it's silly to draw an arbitrary distinction of humane combat, since if we really wanted to be humane we'd have our leaders compete in chess boxing or something that would minimize the destruction of property and loss of life.
pugio 11y ago
Terrorism is psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population. It could be an expression of frustration; an act by one who doesn't care, or cares exclusively and consumingly. And it is horrific, disgusting, and morally reprehensible. The word is not merely propaganda, it is a word whose extremity exactly conveys the revulsion and moral judgement of the speaker. As with any label, you run the risk of superficiality and preoccupation with simplified narratives, but "terrorism" is NOT just propaganda, and it deliberately conveys more than "acts of violence". (A clinical term with its own problems of distancing audiences from the immediate reality.) I wrote this because your last sentence seemed to imply something that I've noticed crop up in these kinds of discussions: the (typically Western) assumption that there is legitimacy to both sides of any conflict, and that, recognizing this, a diplomatic solution can be achieved. I've yet to see concrete evidence that this is the case. Short of deprogramming, how do you reason with a group of people brainwashed to be fundamentally unreasonable?
- awakeasleep 11y ago
  Was it terrorism when the US dropped the nukes on Japan? Psychological warfare aimed at a civilian population, right? Even if you agree that it was, you have to admit that is not how the history books are writte, because we don't use the propagana term "terrorist" to describe our own actions.
  - bottled_poe 11y ago
    Things have changed a bit since then. How many ISIS members adhere to the Geneva conventions?
    - acjohnson55 11y ago
      Does the US?
  - grandalf 11y ago
    Exactly. The drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan are intended to make the populations of the border regions worry constantly about being fired upon. It's what terrorism looks like when you have an essentially unlimited budget and don't have to resort to crude munitions like IEDs or suicide bombers.
ekanes 11y ago
Honest question: Do you think Daesh is open to diplomacy? What course of action do you propose with them?

lkbm 11y ago

Opposition to terrorism is pretty broad. Insistence that we bomb entire countries or bar refugees because some of them might be terrorists seems fear-relate. I refuse to give up freedoms or deny those freedoms to innocent people out of fear of terrorists. That's not "shrugging my shoulders". That's not succumbing to the terror that is so obviously the tool of terrorism.

hackaflocka 11y ago

FWIW, the micromorts for an innocent Iraqi, when it was being bombed by the Allied forces was pretty high too. But at least Donald Trump is going to ensure that we get all the Iraqi oil. /sarcasm

rory096 11y ago
Let's put some actual numbers to this. Using IraqBodyCount.org's estimate, Iraqis suffered 1.86 micromorts per day from March 2003 to present. Compare to 2.18 μmorts/day during the Iran-Iraq War or 29,090 μmorts inflicted on Halabja residents in one day in 1988. Here's a calculator, with my data in the Iraq tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wH6BOoKXun-C3_WLHZr7bpQdq7_T1r605--t34l3vbI/edit https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wH6BOoKXun-C3_WLHZr7... (n.b.: I use conservative estimates to yield higher μmorts for the US-initiated Iraq War and lower for the other two, like 1988 populations for Iran-Iraq and 2003 populations for the US invasion/aftermath. IBC measures only documented deaths; I used their figure for total deaths including combatants. Alternative figures are listed in the cells/notes on the right. Feel free to plug in different values and see how things change.)

rayiner 11y ago

Absolutely. I don't worry about being a victim of terrorism. And I don't care if car accidents kill more people--the number of deaths isn't the point. The point is that there are people fighting to drag the world back into the 7th century, and they must be stopped on all fronts.

privacy101 11y ago

Of course killings are never good but why don't you get rid of the cause?

ap22213 11y ago

On the other hand, with our population of 7.3 billion, it's kind of amazing that we don't see more terrorism. Personally, it kind of makes me feel good about Humans, given all the negatives that I usually hear about them. To me, the problem with terrorism (aside from the terrorists) is that there are people willing to jump in immediately with political (or financial) agendas. Within hours, I'd already seen comments on FB about how fewer people would have died if France had a 2nd amendment. And, over the past few days, I've seen so much pro-police-state propaganda in the US media that it frankly scares me to death. No - we really don't need more 'surveillance' or more build-ups in 'defense spending'. Call me 'crazy', but I really think we should be spending the trillions and trillions of dollars (which would otherwise go into the pockets of the propagandists) on our generation's geniuses to enable them to create the technologies that makes disease, poverty, and inequality obsolete.