Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#2301 07/13/05 01:08 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
What is the scientific definition of terrorist? What distinguishes a terrorist from a freedom fighter or a soldier?

This is a scientific question. It falls under the Political and Social sciences. Science is all about definitions. Science advances only as the precision of description of physical phenomenon advances. This advance is intimately tied to the advance of devices for examining the physical world and the creation of more precise and accurate definitions.

The social and political sciences cannot morally or ethically perform laboratory experiments. Like astronomy, geology, and many other sciences they are forced to simply examine existing physical evidence and work from that.

What is a terrorist? How do you define terrorism scientifically? How is it different from or the same as a freedom fighter or a soldier?

In another forum, a retired member of the state department defined a terrorist as a fighter not authorized or representing a recognized government. This is not a scientific definition of terrorist but a political one. Any fighter representing a government, no matter how his actions are intended to terrorize a population is not a terrorist. On the other hand, a fighter not representing a recognized government, no matter how ethical and restrained his tactics would be a terrorist.

Historically, the term terrorist probably has its roots in the French Revolution and the infamous 'Terror' during which people were guillotined for any excuse suggesting they might resist the new revolutionary government. Terror was used as a weapon purposefully and intentionally. The people using it were the government. This does not jibe well with the definition provided by that retired state department official.

Terrorism is a tactic which uses fear and terror to coerce others. What is the difference between this and legitimate military action which uses military force to coerce others?

Terrorist target women and children and noncombatants. Soldiers do not. Is this the difference?

There is a real, scientific issue here. What is the difference between terrorism and other forms of warfare?

There is a profound psychological difference between two potential alpha males battling it out for dominance and a male beating and killing a female or a child.

Orthodox military strategy is about a contest between alpha males to see who is dominant. Mano a mano, man against man, soldier against soldier. Women and children and non-combatants are left out of the mix.

Terrorism targets the non-combatants. The terrorist realizes that he is too weak to challenge the alpha and instead the attacks the weak.

This has a paralel in nature. Gorillas indulge in terrorism to acquire mates. A male gorilla indulges in infanticide to get a mate. He will follow a dominant male and that males harem around and wait. He will steal a newborn infant and rip its throat out with his teeth to prove to the mother that the dominant male cannot protect her young. She will then mate with him.

A male can only protect so many females at a time.

Terrorism is like this. The terrorist does not have the strength to challenge a dominant military force. Instead it proves by attacking and killing the helpless and defenseless that that dominant military force cannot protect them.

The goal is to force them to then seek the terrorist as a better protector. This is the terrorist strategy in Iraq.

Terrorism outside the Middle East is based on the idea that terror can coerce behavior and force the people of Europe and the US to do what the terrorists want.

This is a much different issue. The cultures involved are very different. The results are much more complex. Terrorist actions are quite simple minded and entirely ignorant of the reality of what they are dealing with.

Still, the definition of terrorist should be someone who attacks the defenseless in order to produce terror in order to coerce behavior when they are not strong enough to challenge the dominant power in real combat. Or more simply the use of terror as a weapon to coerce behavior.

Define Terrorist.

Recently someone said that the US is a terrorist nation. It is a silly statement. The US has generally relied on military force not terror to accomplish its goals. Some actions during the Revolutionary War might be called terrorist, however a few actions do not a policy make.

The Ku Klux Klan, was without doubt a terrorist organization for a few decades. Still, its activities were not officially sanctioned by the US government. While it did enjoy some tolerance and even endorsement at some times, it cannot be considered an offical organ of the US government.

Nor did it indulge in international terrorism, lynching black people in Europe or the Middle East to achieve its agenda. It was clearly limited in its scope to pure domestic terrorism. It did not use terrorism to invade and coerce behavior in foreign nations.

Define terrorist. I am interested in what you think.

.
#2302 07/13/05 03:44 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Political science is not science, per se, any more than Quranic science is science. Nevertheless, the effort to define the term is useful.

Definitions can be arbitrary; however, some problem spaces allow for less leeway than others in definitions. I wrote "allow for." What I mean is really meant is that some definitions are more useful than others.

In engineering school we were indoctrinated into the "problem solving method" in every core class. Each had their own method, but they were all variations on a theme articulated by the mathematician Georg Polya in his book "How to Solve it." This method method corresponds to the method outlined by Dewey in his "How we think."

The steps given by Polya are:
1) understand the problem
2) plan a solution
3) carry out the plan
4) look back (check your work).

Lack of sufficient resource allocation in step 1 is the primary reason for failure in large software projects, and among the primary causes for failures in engineering projects in general. Many of the engineering tools that exist today are tools that help people understand the problem - statistical packages, software engineering practices, etc.

Problem definition (understanding the problem) is a major issue even in the hard sciences where the context of the problem can be (comparatively) easily abstracted and most of the team (including most of the management) is at least partially imbued with the fundamental principle that problems have to be defined correctly before they can be solved correctly. Nevertheless, many people involved in the processes have not had a thorough indoctrination and do what all or most first year engineering students try or want to do: solve the problem without doing all the leg work. This happens in the sciences and in engineering where people have some very strong advantages:
1) education and certification ensures that some of the people at least know the importance of defining problems and have some experience with doing so,
2) the practitioners are, on average, a quite intelligent lot and a reasonably well-educated group,
3) there are a staggering numbers of tools and training available to help people do things correctly,
4) the outside pressures tend to be economic - which can be bad enough - but to a lesser degree political. Though that is not true in all problems, of course, it is true in the majority of problems.
5) the problems are (relatively easily abstracted).

In the realm of social "sciences",

1) the problems are harder to abstract (rather, it's harder to VV&A the the abstraction),
2) the practitioners are generally less intelligent,
3) their "certifications" are questionable,
4) they are not nearly so well indoctrinated in the problem solving process,
5) their are tools that might be helpful, but only a few people know how to use them,
6) the problem space is much more complicated and the problems are enormously harder,
7) there is a lack of consensus on definitions, what definitions exist are vaguer, there is a lack of consensus on the value of things for computed cost/benefit,
8) nearly everything is politicized to some extent and much of it very highly so.

Currently the US government has a plethora of definitions of terrorist. And this doesn't include the (various) definitions used by our friends. At the very least we ought to ensure that we are coordinating our efforts to fight the same enemy. I've had arguments with (otherwise very intelligent) people who insisted vehemently that defining the term wasn't near so important as taking immediate action. These people were at first amused and then exasperated at my incredulity.

I do not for one second consider this to be science. That doesn't mean that we cannot benefit from a scientific approach. Define the problem (and definining terrorism is a necessary part of that). This will enable governments to coordinate action and develop policies that are less intrusive to honest citizens and offer some protection against the perpetrators.

As for those who consider the US to be a terrorist state, I can only say that they are deceiving themselves and are employing rhetoric. These people are playing humpty dumpty - words mean whatever they wish them to mean.

#2303 07/13/05 04:58 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:

As for those who consider the US to be a terrorist state, I can only say that they are deceiving themselves and are employing rhetoric. These people are playing humpty dumpty - words mean whatever they wish them to mean. [/QB]
What is a "terrorist state"?

#2304 07/13/05 05:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
That is a good question for those who make that assertion.

#2305 07/13/05 05:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Like "rogue nation/state"

#2306 07/13/05 05:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Sorry but this thread is a load of rubbish stacked to the ceiling.

What is a terrorist? Someone else blowing up my stuff.

What is a freedom fighter? Me blowing up someone else's stuff.

Was George Washington a freedom fighter?
Not if you asked King George III.

I find it hard to believe that anyone engages it this kind of mental nonsense after age 15.


DA Morgan
#2307 07/13/05 06:17 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
Y
Member
Offline
Member
Y
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
A terrorist is someone who tries to extort political change by threatening a civilian population with death and destruction.

That's pretty much it.


Bwa ha ha haaaa!!
#2308 07/13/05 11:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Not according to Hamas. Or do you disagree because you aren't one of them?

If so ... then reread what I wrote.


DA Morgan
#2309 07/14/05 12:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
What is the scientific definition of terrorist?
As has been stated, poli sci contains no science. Poli sci is opportunism, history rewritten by the victors, strong arm tactics, purchase of favors, expendable assets, acceptable collateral damage, plausible deniablity... power and money. "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson.

Terrorism has at least two characteristics. The muzzle is pointed at you, your friends, or your interests. There is no battle front.

Give the modern US Armed Forces a goal and the difference between advance and retreat. They cannot be defeated. Remove directionality and the US is impotent. The US has no balls to kill off an entire hatchery. The US is feminized and weepy-teep.

As with Indian Thuggees, The Cold War, The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Cancer, the War on Terrorism... one cannot tell the enforcers from the crooks but for the direction badges face. Government is in a symbiotic relationship with the "problem," mobilizing its polity to make insane sacrifices of personal wealth and freedom while simultaneously being disarmed and targeted to turn the crank another rev. The "problem" is meanwhile subsidized and nurtured to maintain its credible threat.

The solution to "stateless" terrorism is to revoke its carte blanche. Pick an expendable country like Syria as demo. Ablate it. Nuke it to hell - one or two MIRVs. If the lesson is not then obvious to the students, vaporize Mecca with the Ka'aba as one hypocenter, Medina as afterhought. Still slow at the daily quiz? Take out 17 million in Cairo and pop the Aswan High Dam. Let them know you care. Don't go back and fix anything. Leave the lesson in the workbook.

Japan in WWII was on a mission from god. Battlefield death rates of 90% were common, followed by suicide attacks and mass suicides of the survivors. Kamikazees, one man submarines with warheads... Curtis LeMay melted every major Japanese city save six with napalm. Civilian casualties were in seven figures. The Japanese fought on undeterred. "We will eat stones."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. God changed His mind. It was merely a matter of peeling back the layers until those who cannot be touched were stripped naked in the noonday sun. Yeah, we can touch you too.

That is the only solution to "stateless" terrorism. A martyr religion will eagerly sacrifice the greater portion of its overexpanded population - as would Bush the Lesser to feed his cronies. the enemy rears up in sudden horror when management is in the target reticle.

Do you want to win the "war" on terrorism? Go after its management and its management's friends with a broad inescapable trowel. One civilian dead is a front page tragedy. Nobody cares about 10 million dead, not even history.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#2310 07/14/05 01:18 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
DA, I know there are many people who agree with you. This is beyond a discussion of science; however, that is not what terrorism is. Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense.

#2311 07/14/05 04:04 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
DA, I know there are many people who agree with you. This is beyond a discussion of science; however, that is not what terrorism is. Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense.
So is terrorism.

#2312 07/14/05 06:09 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Sorry but this thread is a load of rubbish stacked to the ceiling.

What is a terrorist? Someone else blowing up my stuff.

What is a freedom fighter? Me blowing up someone else's stuff.

Was George Washington a freedom fighter?
Not if you asked King George III.

I find it hard to believe that anyone engages it this kind of mental nonsense after age 15.
This is a widely acknowledged observation, and I think people here know at least that much, DA.

This said, however, it is only one starting point in understanding human behavior. That is, being aware of certain political aspects of terrorism, like the one you raise, has not prevented acts of aggression, so any further attempt to delve deeper into the problem of human aggression can only be a good thing, not something to be discouraged. Summing up "terrorism" in a couple of sentences and declaring it not worthy of discussion isn't good enough.

Whether having such a discussion can be counted as science, however, is another matter altogether. If science could somehow observe all the mechanics that govern human behavior, would these observations explain what I?d tentatively call ?human nature?? Would it change anything if science did know? Even if science did know everything there was to know about how the mind works, would it then have predictive powers over human behavior? That is, using the knowledge they have on human behavior could science have some influence over real world politics, and human interaction?

I?m not sure it could. I would imagine that people would react counter intuitively if they suspected they were being manipulated in even the slightest way. If "hard" science cannot answer these questions, or cannot explain human interaction, then perhaps we should consider political science a real science. The science of human relations, or do you consider this not to be a real phenomenon?

#2313 07/14/05 11:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
That is, using the knowledge they have on human behavior could science have some influence over real world politics, and human interaction?
I do think so. The invasion of Iraq is a good example. The Neo-Cons didn't take into account what many experts knew: Some people would actively resist the occupation of Iraq.

#2314 07/14/05 12:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
DA, I know there are many people who agree with you. This is beyond a discussion of science; however, that is not what terrorism is. Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense.
DA is 100% right. What he said is certainly not nonsense. Terrorism is defined by us in such a way that what we do is not terrorism and what our opponents do is terrorism (or something else with a negative designation).


In the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union were prepaired to vaporize each other cities killing a few hundred million people. This attitude could not be justified by the underlying political disputes. The Soviet Union, at least, had a no ''first use of nuclear weapons'' policy. The US still hasn't ruled out first use of nukes.


What's the difference between Nixon threatening the Soviet Union with nuclear annihilation in case Brezhnev didn't back down from his plans to help Egypt in the Yom Kippur war and some Al Qa'ida members killing 200 people in Spain because Spain was involved in the Iraq war?

#2315 07/14/05 12:41 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
Several persons have stated that Political Science, and presumably, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology, History and Psychology are not sciences. The most intelligent and thoughtful post containing this assertion listed thoughtfully the differences between the physical sciences and the social sciences. This was done by "The Fallible Fiend".

It is worth pointing out that chemistry was alchemy a few hundred years ago and most astronomers were actually astrologers. Physics was not a science until we had Newton's three laws.

None of what we call science today was a science four hundred years ago. They became sciences only when accurate empirical observations allowed us to create accurate definitions. Given accurate observation providing accurate definitions acurate analysis became possible and they became sciences.

The difficulties enumerated by the Fiend in the social sciences are quite real. However there is no reason to believe that they are insoluble, nor is there any reason to believe that nothing in the social sciences is actual science today.

These statements reflect a profound personal bias on the part of most members of this forum.

The Fiend admits the value of attempting to find an accurate definition of terrorist. He also accurately describes the difficulties.

DA and Al as usual simply say the idea is nonsense, there is no real difference between a terrorist and a legitimate soldier. Our friends are good guys, people who shoot at us are bad guys. Al pretty much endorses terrorism as a tactic and suggests that we should nuke Syria until it glows. Set a terrorizing example for the rest of Islam.

As a retired Soldier, I naturally disagree with DA and Al. I do not see soldiers as terrorists.

When the Cole was bombed, the word terrorist was used to describe the bombers in another forum. Two persons immediately disagreed. The other was a former marine.

The Cole was a military target. No one was threatened or injured except military personnel. Two professional US trained military personnel immediately refused to call the act a terrorist act.

This is, to some degree, the difference between the US and the terrorists. The kind of indoctrination the US military gets as opposed to the kind of indoctrination terrorists get.

Science is an issue of accurate assessment of the facts, creating accurate terms with accurate definitions based on those facts, then relating those definitions to accepted scientific theory.

It can be applied in social issues as well as physical science issues, even though social issues are much more complex and political pressure much more intense. It should be applied despite those problems.

We should be looking for a definition of terrorist based on factual differences in the behavior and attitude of soldiers and terrorists, and relating those differences to fundamentals of human nature which are best derived from evolutionary pschology.

Terrorism is used to rule through the Stockholm Syndrome. http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=719&lsel=S

This is a very good discussion of the Stockholm syndrome and its role in government up to the last paragraph or two. It applies very clearly to terrorist regimes like that of Saddam Hussein.

It is an ancient and widespread method of government, prevalent in the Middle East since our earliest evidence. It is probably the dominant psychology of Government in Russia throughout its history. It is the alpha male pecking order government at its most extreme.

Republican government depends upon a different artifact of evolutionary psychology. In Republican government the territorial imperative has a strength equal to or greater than pecking order psychology. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568361440/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-4680912-4613639#reader-link

Each full Citizen in a Republic has his own sacred territory in which he is the supreme Alpha Male. He interacts as an equal when dealing with other Alphas in De Re Publica, latin for the Commonwealth or that portion of property and power which is shared by the Citizens.

In a Stockhold Syndrome or autocratic government, property rights are not guaranteed. The Supreme Alpha can violate any subjects rights at any time without question.

No such Supreme Alpha exists in a Territorial Imperative system where each individuals territory is distinct, sacred, and defended by the laws of the state.

Terrorism is a methodology of Stockholm Syndrome social systems. Human rights, especially property rights are an artifact of Territorial Imperative social systems.

Members of Stockholm Syndrome systems have no emotional conception of human rights, property rights, etc. They are totally pecking order oriented. Persons with a background in Republican or Territorial Imperative systems see full Citizens as being invested with certain dignities and rights that no authority can violate with impunity. The two systems are psychologically alien to each other, though both are based on artifacts of human psychology originating in evolution, territoriality and pecking order behavior.

Because Territorial Imperative systems involve the possession of territory, they are typical of the early agrarian semi-rural period of economic development. Such as early Rome of the 13 Colonies. Stockholm Syndrome tends to become dominant in highly rural populations. As in the Roman Principate.

Terrorism is enabled by Stockholm Syndrome or extreme Pecking Order behavior systems because these systems do not recognize the existence of equals and deny any rights to inferiors. Terrorists assume absolute authority as the divine representative of this or that belief system and feel an absolute right to do anything to others needed to advance their beliefs.

The dominant psychology in the US has always been the Territorial Imperative. This may be changing today, but it was true in the past. Thus the US has never been a 'Terrorist' nation.

Now, both sides have 'alpha males'. In a Stockholm Syndrome system, there can be only one. All others must be inferior and obedient to the one. In a Territorial System, there are many, and they learn to interact as equals and allies while respecting each others territory.

This is the fundamental of human rights psychology. That fundamental leads to rules regarding the treatment of others and restraint in how you treat them.

This is an attempt to relate the behavioral difference between terrorists and soldiers to evolutionary psychology. Much of it would be familiar to Jefferson, Adams, and Washington.

#2316 07/14/05 02:23 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
A
Member
OP Offline
Member
A
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 52
Let us consider Somalia, Vietnam, and the current War on Terror in terms of the Territorial Imperative vs. Stockholm Syndrome behaviors.

Both Somalia and Vietnam involved US military involvement in a foreign territory. Thus, the US being inherently Territorial oriented felt wrong in the gut at being there. This made the US people willing to get out as soon as sustained resistance became apparent.

To a Stockholm Syndrome oriented person the US retreat from Vietnam and Somalia represents a subordinate in the pecking order bowing to fear. The real US gut dislike of violating another peoples territory did not enter into the thinking.

Thus the fundamental misunderstanding of US psychology which has led to Islamic Terrorism against the US. Not understanding how important Territoriality is to US gut emotions they could not realistically evaluate the effect that terrorist acts on US soil, violating US territoriality would have.

They anticipated that attacking the US on US soil would terrify the US into submission. Instead such attacks such as Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers outrage the US as violations of US territory.

The same psychological artifact which makes the US awkward in wars involving other peoples territory makes them adamant in wars defending their own territory.

This psychology, based as it is on mutual respect of territoriality is alien to Stockholm Syndrome societies, like that of Terrorist Islam.

It is alien and incomprehensible to them.

The outrage against Israel in Islam is not so much territorially as pecking order driven. Islam became dominant very rapidly early in its history, and while tolerant in the early years of other religions, they were and remained for a millenium or so at the top of the pecking order in Islamic territories.

They are outraged at violation of the pecking order status of Muslims by non-Muslims. While there are territorial disputes involved, the psychology of the struggle is not primarily territorial but pecking order.

Since their world view involves Islam as the highest authority in the world at the top of the Pecking Order, they cannot comprehend anything like non-Muslims having human rights. All 'rights' of non-Muslims are the charity of the strong to the weak. When the weak demand them as rights instead of charity, they become outraged at the arrogance and viciousness of the ungrateful weak. This results in terrorist attacks on the 'weak'. Muslim employers in the US have been known to deny their employees the right to eat ham, while demanding respect for their own religion. This is the one sided psychology of pecking order behavior. The strong have rights the weak do not.

Since, in the real world, Islam is weak and non-Muslims strong, there is going to be a considerable shock for Islam over the next few decades. They will not be able to comprehend reality until it is driven home with the muzzle of a gun. Muslim terrorists live in a fantasy world in which Allah will provide them with miraculous victories over the Infidel. Their faith is not based on the belief that Allah sent Muhammed to be a prophet providing guidance in the Koran and Sharia for men to live better lives.

Their belief lies in the idea that Allah guarantees miraculous military triumph to Islam.

Muhammed, however, did come to give guidance for better lives. His warfare was largely reluctant and forced on him. The early Jihads were largely accidental and unintentional. In worshipping military victory and personal vanity instead of focusing on using the teaching of Muhammed to live better lives, the terrorists are worshiping false idols and not true Muslims.

If Allah exists, I doubt he will be giving any military aid to people who worship their own pride and vanity instead of him. If Allah exists, the he would probably be using the West to humble the pride of these men, rather than strengthening their pride and vanity with undeserved victories.

Regardless of the questionable existence of Allah, things look bad for Islam over the next few decades. Pecking order psychology destroys freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and thus cripples industry, science, and the other things which make the West mighty and powerful.

Until Islam reforms it will be unable to face or even comprehend the West.

#2317 07/14/05 02:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
"In a Territorial System, there are many, and they learn to interact as equals and allies while respecting each others territory."

Theoretically speaking.

#2318 07/14/05 04:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Responses to a few of you:

To: TheFallibleFiend
You wrote: "Terrorists focus attacks mainly on civilians. What you have stated is childish nonsense."

Actually what I wrote is the cold hard truth and what you are engaging in is flights of fantasy. Lets consider the facts. We, the US, took out the lawfully elected government of Panama and still have their leader in a jail in our country? What gave us the right to overthrow their government? Lets look at Iraq. How many civilians have been killed by terrorists in the last two years compared to the number killed by the US military?
And no I am not making a value judgement here. Lets look at the civilians killed by US oil companies via their hired mercenaries in third-world countries? Terrorism?

If you haven't the courage to point to yourself when you are wrong you have no moral or ethical standing except as a self-serving hypocrite.


DA Morgan
#2319 07/14/05 04:59 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Responses to a few of you:

To: Rusty

Delving into terrorism will not stop it. We know the cause ... if you or I were forced by circumstance to live in those countries under those circumstances likely we too would be carrying an AK47.

We know how to stop it ... (1) stop meddling in their countries in a manner we wouldn't wish to have them meddle in ours? How quickly we forget that we, US and British, overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because it was threatening to take control of Iran's oil fields away from US and British oil firms. A case of remarkably self-serving and convenient meory. But certainly all of this is not our meddling so (2) terrorism costs money ... lots of it. So far we have done little or nothing to cut off terrorism's oxygen supply.

Which leads to the question you should be asking and that is "Why are we doing almost nothing to actually fight terrorism?"

Why is part of Pakistan off-limits?

Why did we let Osama bin Laden slip away by using totally unreliable people to try to take Tora Bora?

Why is Al Qaida not classified under the RICO act, Racketeering, Influenced, and Corrupt Organizations as organized crime as is the mafia?

Why is it that terrorism financiers bank accounts and financing have not been closed down?

and the list is endless.

When you have the courage to answer the "Why" then you will know that it is almost irrelevant. No one really cares that once in 5 years an incident occured that killed fewer people than alcohol on the highways in one year. It was political fodder used to gain political advantages. And anyone that thinks anything is "actually" being done is a fool.

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature can hijaack an airplane anytime they want. If airplanes are not being hijaacked it is because no one chooses to do so ... not because we are more secure.


DA Morgan
#2320 07/14/05 05:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Responses to a few of you:

To: Count Iblis II
Wrote: "Terrorism is defined by us in such a way that what we do is not terrorism and what our opponents do is terrorism."

Absolutely true. And those that haven't the intelligence or the integrity to see this are the primary problem. We are not entirely blameless for what has happened.

Certainly we can pat ourselves on the back and say we don't blow up innocent women and children. But isn't it amazing how simple it was for one of us, the obvious Falliable Field so quickly forgot that we called it an act of terrorism when someone blew up two embassies in Africa? Were there innocent civilians inside those embassies? How about when they put a hole in a US naval warship? Was that ship's mission purely humanitarian and all of the sailors young innocent children? And yet every bit of media the west could muster labelled it an act of TERRORISM.

So yes we are human and self-serving and label what we do freedom fighting and what they do terrorism. And those of us that are not total hypocrites know that they look into the mirror and do the exact same thing.

What is critical to solving the problem is for us to hold OUR OWN government accountable for the conditions that have allowed it to be born, to prosper, and especially those that have used it for cynical self-serving political purposes.

Me? I'd like them all to go away and leave me to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Likely not an unusual dream.


DA Morgan
#2321 07/14/05 07:35 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Why is everyone so biased in considering that terrorism is only related to death being caused by a group to another group? Not that such circumstances should not be considered. But I have been waiting for someone to state the obvious, which didn't happen yet.

If you adopt the view that terrorism targets innocent civilians, then everytime some moron commits credit card fraud, he has committed an act of terrorism. Under the same view, the Enron and Worldcom scandals can easily be viewed as acts of terorism, and it is a fact that a huge number of civilians have suffered and will continue to suffer as a consequence of the acts of imbeciles like Ebbers. Does it matter that they haven't been killed literally? And this would only be the tip of the iceberg.

One reason why such a definition is not given and adopted yet could very well be the liability under the law, so to speak. You cannot give a strictly oriented definition of terrorism (to serve only one purpose, say that of armed conflicts) since the concepts involved in the definition could easily be extended to other social, political and economical aspects of life. Which would be inconvenient for many, to say the least.

#2322 07/15/05 04:18 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Y
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Y
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Terrorism is the act of inciting fear in a target group for the purpose of forcing that group to change their behavior in some way.

War is the act of directly changing the behavior of the target group by force.

In general war is overt and terrorism is covert.

War and terrorism can both be carried out by large groups such as nations and by small groups such as religious sects.

However, war is more likely to be waged by the large groups and terrorism is more likely to be waged by the smaller groups.

War is about the power to go in and kick some serious a*s because you have the resources and manpower to do so.

Terrorism is about having to do the job in secret because you don't have the power and resources to act openly with impunity.

The common ground is that both are ways for one group to impose their will on another group against the other groups will.

This post does not attempt to get into the subject of justification for either war or terrorism.


People don't care what you have done
People won't remember what you have said
But they will never forget how you made them feel
#2323 07/15/05 04:26 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
One who tries to convert you to his religion or belief system by force,violence or by other non-peaceful can be called Terrorist.
But unfortunately after the application of the above definition only very few are left who are not terrorist.

#2324 07/15/05 02:03 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
To Yogi who wrote: "In general war is overt and terrorism is covert."

So, by your definition, the CIA is a terorrist organization. The US Navy Seals are a terrorist organization.

You also wrote: "Terrorism is the act of inciting fear in a target group" and "War is the act of directly changing the behavior of the target group by force."

Obviously you have never found yourself in combat. My memories include quite a bit of fear. And an awful lot of trying to make the other guy more afraid than I was.

Come on folks ... surely you can think more deeply than these sound byte phrases.


DA Morgan
#2325 07/15/05 10:35 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
To be clear.

I did not say and did not mean to imply that there is no legitimate science in sociology or even psychology.

Political science is a quandry for me, mainly because I am even more ignorant of it than I am of the other two. Economics and Management Science have strong scientific components. (The parts of MS I consider science is actually sociology or psychology.)

I don't think the problems are intractable - at least I have no reason for believing it at the moment.

I don't think that the definition of terrorist is a scientific issue, per se, though I do believe that in this - as in many other areas - science might help inform our decisions.

Very interesting book I highly recommend: "The Breaking of Nations," by Robert Cooper.

BTW, this does not imply that I condone US actions in Iraq or anywhere else in particular. While I'm willing to admit that even scientific words have some flexibility in them, there is a point of stretching the definitions where they have no meaning at all. Defining 'terrorism' in such a way as to include the US is such a stretch (at least based on the 'reasoning' so far offered). One might as well say that all police officers are criminals because they use violence on other people.

#2326 07/16/05 02:48 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Responses to a few of you:

To: Rusty

Delving into terrorism will not stop it. We know the cause ... if you or I were forced by circumstance to live in those countries under those circumstances likely we too would be carrying an AK47.

We know how to stop it ... (1) stop meddling in their countries in a manner we wouldn't wish to have them meddle in ours? How quickly we forget that we, US and British, overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran because it was threatening to take control of Iran's oil fields away from US and British oil firms. A case of remarkably self-serving and convenient meory. But certainly all of this is not our meddling so (2) terrorism costs money ... lots of it. So far we have done little or nothing to cut off terrorism's oxygen supply.

Which leads to the question you should be asking and that is "Why are we doing almost nothing to actually fight terrorism?"

Why is part of Pakistan off-limits?

Why did we let Osama bin Laden slip away by using totally unreliable people to try to take Tora Bora?

Why is Al Qaida not classified under the RICO act, Racketeering, Influenced, and Corrupt Organizations as organized crime as is the mafia?

Why is it that terrorism financiers bank accounts and financing have not been closed down?

and the list is endless.

When you have the courage to answer the "Why" then you will know that it is almost irrelevant. No one really cares that once in 5 years an incident occured that killed fewer people than alcohol on the highways in one year. It was political fodder used to gain political advantages. And anyone that thinks anything is "actually" being done is a fool.

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature can hijaack an airplane anytime they want. If airplanes are not being hijaacked it is because no one chooses to do so ... not because we are more secure.
Yes, I realize this, DA. But I'm afraid a lot of people don't seem to. I never said dialogue would solve terrorism, because terrorism is a convenient political construction to differentiate "them" from "us". Strip away the politics, intentions, etc., and look at the casualties and deaths and you can see there is little difference between the players involved. Although the player with the most power, weapons and budget will almost always be doing the most maiming and killing during a conflict.

My point (apologies if this was not clear) is that keeping dialogue on terrorism open is far better than nothing if you want to have people (in your own country) eventually realize that we, the US, Australia, etc., are quite selective, as you say, in our approach to terrorism. As you say: "Why", well yes, exactly. The problem, the one that has to be overcome through constant dialogue on "terrorism", is getting people to at least listen to those who try and draw attention to the opportunistic rhetoric coming from our "team" without shouting them down.

As you say, if people actually feel the need to carry out acts of terror (the symptom) stopping them is more than likely just not going to happen. I know this, you know this, government officials know this, but many people don't seem to (or don't want to) because they appear to believe the politically convenient lines that they are fed via the media.

Know I'm going to look a fool after saying that dialogue should remain open on "terrorism", because I suggest that we move off politics and back to science. Unless someone can offer us some sound scientific reasoning for war and its subcategories.

#2327 07/16/05 02:58 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
Defining 'terrorism' in such a way as to include the US is such a stretch (at least based on the 'reasoning' so far offered). One might as well say that all police officers are criminals because they use violence on other people.
Police can terrorize, or be called terrorists when they instigate aggression without provocation (without a crime, say), not just because they can use violence.

#2328 07/16/05 04:20 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Some police can be called terrorists, but that doesn't justify calling all police terrorists.


"Delving into terrorism will not stop it. We know the cause ... if you or I were forced by circumstance to live in those countries under those circumstances likely we too would be carrying an AK47."

Living "under those circumstances" is vague. The majority of the people who live under those circumstances are not terrorists. The terrorists who struck the OKC, the twin towers, and London were not living "under those circumstances."

There is a crisis in Islamic / Arabic culture that isn't about numbers, but about self-perception.

In a few decades, the oil will be gone and the west will have no interest in what happens in the middle east. We'll see after the westerners are gone whether they magically get their act together or devolve into a nice orderly society like Congo.

#2329 07/16/05 08:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Kate: This is precisely what is wrong with this forum software ... it is impossible to link a response directly to the post to which we are responding. Please look for something close to what you had in the past.

Rusty:
Thanks for the clarification. We are far more in agreement than I had thought. I am firmly on the side of opening and/or continuing any dialogue. And I am quite sure having seen a bit of Northern Ireland and Israeli/Palestinian politics that only a moron (read George Bush) would think this could be solved with guns alone.

What bothers me about the current "terrorism" is two-fold.

1. If any terrorist wanted to commit a terorist action in any country, especially the US, they would need a few hundred dollars at most. That these events are not happening is, in and of itself, ample evidence that no one wishes to commit them.

2. That the government of my country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting terrorism and produced not a single thing of value indicates to me that their goal is to spend money ... not to make me or anyone else safer.

Given the results one is left to ponder very unpalatable explanations.

I'd love to move from politics to science ... but I've seen a lot of the former and very little of the later here as Kate does not seem to take making this a science forum much of a priority.
At least it hasn't been filled with theological imbecility for awhile. That is one good thing.


DA Morgan
#2330 07/16/05 08:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
To: TheFallibleFiend

Some of your points are valid ... other naive.

Not having the personal integrity to label some of the actions of the US terrorist is the grossest of hypocrisy.

Were we justified invading Cuba in '61?
Were we justified invading Panama and taking out Noriega?

The truth, and one you had better get comfortable with is that while we loudly proclaim our desire to bring democracy to the middle east it is us, yes the US, that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosadek. I repeat WE overthrew the first democratically elected government in the middle east just to get corporate hands on oil. So don't expect those "terrorists" to see your point of view because I was born here, am a loyal flag waving citizen, and I don't. But then I try not to be a flaming hypocrite too.

Your damned right there is a crisis in Islamic culture. Sort of like saying "gee there's a fire" after you've poured on the gasoline.


DA Morgan
#2331 07/16/05 11:22 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I didn't say we didn't do things that were stupid, wrong, and illegal. I said we weren't terrorists. It is true, however, that we have supported terrorists - at least to some degree.
No problems with my personal integrity on this account.

The Brits were the primary consumers of that oil, but they asked us to help and we did. The Brits were right to argue against Iranians profiting from oil manufactured in plants that they stole from the brits themselves. So the CIA backed successful efforts to oust him. It's not clear to me whether we were acting ethically, but I'll grant that it was questionable. Far short of 'terrorism', though. OTOH, you did not say it was terrorism, per se. You said it was adding gas to the fire. Perhaps. But that's not the same thing as being a terrorist. This is the same logic used by islamist fanatics during the Satanic Verses troubles - they insisted that what Rushdie did was morally equivalent to assassination and so it was only right that he himself should be assassinated.

The impending crisis in Islamic culture hasn't got anything to do with us pouring gasoline on anything. It's an inevitable juggernaut. There were already serious problems in the ME and no sign that they were about to improve.

There was a web site I was browsing. It listed contributions by Arab culture throughout history. I don't recall the exact date, but I think the last one was about the 14th century.

The problems are innumerable and they haven't got anything directly to do with equity or even democracy. They have to do with institutions and self-perception.

BTW, Mossadeq may have been "democratically elected," but he was backed largely by communists and radical islamists. Had he succeeded, Iran would have been exactly the sort of democratic haven that it is today.

#2332 07/16/05 11:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Quote:
BTW, Mossadeq may have been "democratically elected," but he was backed largely by communists and radical islamists. Had he succeeded, Iran would have been exactly the sort of democratic haven that it is today.
I think that this is exactly the wrong kind of attitude that has led the US interfere in other countries with disastrous consequences. On the long run it is much better to let people inside a country ''fight'' over their future without outside interference.

#2333 07/17/05 01:05 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Y
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Y
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
To Yogi who wrote: "In general war is overt and terrorism is covert."

So, by your definition, the CIA is a terorrist organization. The US Navy Seals are a terrorist organization.

You also wrote: "Terrorism is the act of inciting fear in a target group" and "War is the act of directly changing the behavior of the target group by force."

Obviously you have never found yourself in combat. My memories include quite a bit of fear. And an awful lot of trying to make the other guy more afraid than I was.

Come on folks ... surely you can think more deeply than these sound byte phrases.
I love the way some people can bend words to their meaning. The words overt and covert can be applied to many different enterprises besides war and terrorism. All I was doing was pointing up some differences between war and terrorism.

You do not have to be at war to do something overtly and you do not have to be a terrorist to do something covertly.

And yes, sometimes seemingly complex situations can be simplified to "sound byte phrases" and still contain useful information and meaning.


People don't care what you have done
People won't remember what you have said
But they will never forget how you made them feel
#2334 07/17/05 12:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Yogi ... you wrote: "All I was doing was pointing up some differences between war and terrorism."

My problem with what you wrote is that you didn't do that at all. What you did was concoct a definition, of sorts, that labels covert military operations, such as CIA and Navy Seals, as terrorist operations.

I'm not making a value judgement here as to whether you are correct or not. Merely pointing out the implications of your definition.

Sound bites are worthless except to those incapable of complex thought. I suggest you get a copy of Neil Postman's book "Amusing Ourselves To Death."


DA Morgan
#2335 07/17/05 12:56 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
TheFallibleFiend ...

You wrote: "I said we weren't terrorists."

And I have very clearly given you a few examples out of a very long list in which we have been and still are. Deal with it.

If you think I am incorrect, and that is your right, then by all means point to specific laws that give us the right to overthrow the lawfully elected government of another country without a declaration of war or hostilities?

You wrote: "It's not clear to me whether we were acting ethically"

It is certainly clear to me that we engaged in an activity with the moral authority of a pirate. And what is more important is that it is equally clear to those we did it to.

You wrote: "Far short of 'terrorism'"

If you truly believe this nonsense then demonstrate that belief by justifying, in any reasonable manner, our '61 Bay of Pigs invasion. And also include the arguments why the reverse application of your logic wouldn't justify Cuba having invaded Florida.

You wrote: "There was a web site I was browsing. It listed contributions by Arab culture throughout history. I don't recall the exact date, but I think the last one was about the 14th century."

So by your reckoning it was morally and ethically justified to give the blankets with smallpox to the American Indians ... after all ... they never contributed anything to anyone. And lets see:

1. You were at an anonymous web site
2. Created by person or person's unknown
3. With agenda or political leanings unknown
4. And therefore you believe what you read

I pray you are still in middle school and are years away from being given the right to vote.


DA Morgan
#2336 07/17/05 06:35 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
J
j6p Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
Quote from Yet Another Crank :"A terrorist is someone who tries to extort political change by threatening a civilian population with death and destruction.

That's pretty much it."

Terrorize the citizens and let the citizens pressure the government to change.
The only way a government can be terrorized is with threat of expulsion of those in power and only the citizens can do that in today's world. In the past governments could be terrorized with the threat of invasion, expulsion and killing of its leaders but that's pretty much out of the question now. So what's left is to go after the citizens. Terrorize them.
Of coarse negotiation and compromise is the best way to bring about change but it's hard to negotiate with an entity that wants you dead. When wanting you and yours dead is the change the other party desires, it makes negotiations really tuff.

#2337 07/18/05 10:19 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I like that quote: "A terrorist is someone who tries to extort political change by threatening a civilian population with death and destruction."

So when the German's in WWII dropped V2 rockets on London ... that was terrorism. Ok. And when we fire bombed Dresden that too was terrorism. Ok. And when we fire bombed Tokyo that was terorism. Ok. And when we vaporized the civilian population of two Japanese cities of no military or strategic value that too was terrorism. Are you seeing a trend here?

Once again I implore those of you willing to engage in this mental joust ... think more deeply ... apply a few synapses to the discussion. These shallow responses are worthy of Fox News but not thinking people in a science forum.

It is not that I have a problem with the definition. It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. But do understand that when you create an accurate definition you MUST also have the ethical and moral integrity to acknowledge its implications.


DA Morgan
#2338 07/18/05 11:05 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
J
j6p Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 47
"So when the German's in WWII dropped V2 rockets on London ... that was terrorism. Ok. And when we fire bombed Dresden that too was terrorism. Ok. And when we fire bombed Tokyo that was terrorism. Ok. And when we vaporized the civilian population of two Japanese cities of no military or strategic value that too was terrorism. Are you seeing a trend here?"

I'm not 100% up on my history and I don't feel like looking up the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo so I'll shrug on those. But the V2 rockets dropped on London, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki yes, that was terrorism. Some of it worked and some of it didn't but it was terrorism.

#2339 07/18/05 11:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"deal with it?"

This is the kind of argument you learned in college? You haven't produced any evidence that you think you have produced. You've produced an invisible line of reasoning and ordered, suggested, requested I deal with it. I know that this is what the average college student learns as 'reasoning', but here's your first lesson - It aint.

Overthrowing the governments of other countries is not necessarily terrorism and not necessarily even criminal. Though I think there is legitimate reason for claiming that the action against Iraq was illegal, that doesn't make it terrorist. Slobodan Milosovic was also democratically elected. Few people outside Serbia argue that the international community wasn't justified in removing him from power.

You know snippets of history, but nothing of substance. You remind me so much of the campus pseudointellectuals who spent more time in political rallies than they did in class - and then got As from soc and poly sci professors who attended the same rallies. If you'd quit parotting what you were told and read a book, you'd know that both Nagasaki and Hiroshima had "HIGH" military significance. Look it up on wiki for highlights. I'm not sure that justifies what we did, but at least get the basic facts straight.

I don't think you've demonstrated that you're qualified to judge the shallowness of the responses of anyone else in this forum - same for ethics.

I've never said that what we did was noble or right. I've only said we aren't terrorists and we're not acting like terrorists right now.

To summarize:
I don't consider poly sci to be science, per se.

I think that it (or at least part of it) is capable of becoming scientific.

I agree that science or its methods might nevertheless enlighten the discussion.

I don't think that the definition of terrorist, per se, is amenable to scientific definition.

I don't consider the US to be a terrorist state (by any reasonable definition of the term), albeit I agree we've done a lot reprehensible things.

I'll give you the last word, as this subject is not of interest to me.

#2340 07/19/05 04:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Thank you j6p of demonstrating a willingness to face up to the consequences of a perfectly reasonable definition of the word. You really should, however, look up and learn about the fire bombings. They were not exactly one of our proudest moments. Which is not to say I wouldn't have endorsed them at the time. But hardly something to be proud of.

FalliableFiend ... you wrote: "Overthrowing the governments of other countries is not necessarily terrorism and not necessarily even criminal."

Actually it is. Unless, of course, you are one of those people that thinks the international agreements your country agreed to abide by are worthless.

You are a strange bird to accuse me of engaging in debate society behaviour. So far you've dodged addressing a single substantive issue. Why? Lacking in knowledge? or courage? or integrity?

Was our vaporization of two civilian cities in Japan an act of terrorism? Yes or No?

Was our firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo acts of terrorism? Yes or No?

Was our invasion and overthrow of the democratically elected government of a sovereign country terrorism? Yes or No?

Why not stop the posturing and address the specific issues that have been put forward.

I understand self-criticism takes courage but it is quite cathartic. And you can not address the issue if you are not willing to be honest about your own country's failings.


DA Morgan
#2341 07/19/05 05:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
We also have to take into account who exactly the people are who talk most about terrorists and what their motives really are.

Without doubt, it are the Neo-Cons who talk most about terrorists. But they don't define it very clearly. They simply have a list of so-called ''terrorist'' countries they don't like. Whatever these countries do, it is never ok. They also have a list of friendly countries. They can do whatever they like it is always ok.

So, if a bomb explodes in Lebanon, then Syria is almost automatically blamed. Syria is a terrorist state so if something bad happenes they must be responsible, according to Neo-Con logic. If a Palestinian refugee camp is bombed by Israel, then Israel can count on the US to veto a resolution condemning this action. Israel is not a terrorist state so they cannot possibly do anything wrong, acording to Neo-Con logic.


What is most interesting is when countries change their staus. Iraq used to be on the states sponsors of terrorism lists (before 1980). Then Saddam invades Iran, and the US takes Iraq off this list. Relations between Iraq and the US improve. Saddam invades Kuwait and Iraq is put back on the list.

#2342 07/20/05 05:14 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Count Iblis ... you are seeing things clearly. Terrorist is a label without meaning. Just like liberal, or conservative, or the one you used Neo-Con. They are words intended to inflame rather than clarify (not that I am saying that was your intent).

What is pathetic is that so many people take these fuzzy labels and use them to render opinions such as "tax and spend liberals" which we heard so much about. Funny that now with conservative Republicans controlling the White House and all of Congress, and with budgets higher than they ever were before ... we don't hear any complaining about government spending being out of control. Yep is was just a red herring that meant ... they control who gets the money and not us.

So it is with terrorism. We do effectively the same things they do ... of course we do it with 500 pound bombs and don't kill our pilots while they do it with volunteers shorter on brains than guts. But in both cases innocent people are killed.

The problems will stop when the average moron on the street gets it through his thick head that none of this benefits him and his family. He's just too stupid to say "Hell no we won't go" when called upon to support the label d'jour.


DA Morgan
#2343 07/21/05 05:26 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Come one guys stop this discussion.
You know you are not qualified enough to guage the difference between murder and suicide.
Those concepts do not relate to my science...
and what about yours?

#2344 07/21/05 07:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
dkv, many people are uncomfortable with such topics, and in very many cases, too many cases I would say, they refuse to address them. One of the excuses is that they are not competent to judge them, and that there are others, much more competent that cann address them (your argument). While such an approach is valid in physics, it's falacity is rather obvious in the social context of a democracy (social sciences). You elect your representatives, so you must judge them, their platforms and their actions, if indeed you are to uphold the underlying democratical principles you claim you adhere to.

Brushing such issues under the carpet will only undermine a democratic society, and its principles, to the point where the peoples themselves have to suffer the most. Which bring you to the issue of the average people's actions mentioned by D.A.Morgan, and others posting on this thread.

#2345 07/22/05 02:51 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk you wrote: "You know you are not qualified enough to guage the difference between murder and suicide."

Sorry dvk you are absolutely correct. We should leave the definitions of these words to those paid to define them: Politicians and spin doctors.

You see dvk I didn't have a lobotomy. So I think I have as much right to define the word as they do: And I will until such time as their definitions come with clarity or pigs can fly whichever comes first.


DA Morgan
#2346 07/22/05 04:25 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
that reply contained humour .. i dont know to which country you belong to but I feel you are affected by terrorism at least at psycological level...And your reply was a brave one...
I dont know what to write on this subject .. and I dont know who is write and who is wrong ...
But the innocent people must not die...they all have there own war to wage everyday...
I hope no one will over react to this .. like some people do.

#2347 07/22/05 05:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
I am not saying that I am not affected by terorrism, far from me to believe that. And I fully agree with you that innocent people, or more generally people should not in such idiotic acts, or in wars which are equally idiotic. But in order to prevent such occurrences, people need to be socially (and politically for that matter) knowledgeable, so they can prevent morons to gain power. Which latter trend is becomming more and more common lately. And I am not pointing the finger to one country in particular. There are several other countries in this situation, developed or not.
Only very, and I mean very seldom during the history it had happend that governments have avoided conflicts of one nature or another. Most often, they have either started conflicts, or had to take sides in some conflict that not always "swallowed" the coutry geographically or politically or economically.
And if one might find this understandable for the mentalities in the 1600's or so, it becomes rather sad that the same arguments (in slightly different forms) are used for the same reasons today. So much for learning from history/past experience.

#2348 07/22/05 06:06 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The chances of you getting attacked is 1 in millions ... so why do you want powerful people to effect your lives in a way which reduces your freedom and offers false security...
The chances that someone will die because of heart attack is much more than due to terrorist attack...
If countries or people start over reacting then we know who won...
It must ignored and fundamental reasons needs to be resolved peacefully.
The fundamental solution involves mutual accpetance of the fact they do not fully understand each other as countires and communities ...and we need to discuss and allow osmosis of cultures..
Both parties must accpet that they both will have to change their undertanding of what they know(as their is always something new to know)..
Even the prophet failed to write every detail about the Universe...not becuase he didnt knew it but because he had not enough time to write it... thus every individual must discover new truths on his own...
Going back every time exclusively to science and religion will not help ...They both describe the truth in a self enclosed way ... nothing from outside can validate it...or prove it right or wrong...
Reality uses reality to verify..
Maths uses maths to verify...
Religion uses religion to verify ...
Therfore discuss more often ...and share more often and share it like christ.

#2349 07/22/05 06:41 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
dkv:"The chances of you getting attacked is 1 in millions ... so why do you want powerful people to effect your lives in a way which reduces your freedom and offers false security..."

My point exactly. With the only difference that I am also affected when someone is attacked, for the very obvious reasons.

dkv: "The chances that someone will die because of heart attack is much more than due to terrorist attack..."

And yet there is a major imbalance for the funding alotted to medical research of heart diseases and the funding alotted to, let's call it euphemistically "defensive measures". Care to think about why?

dkv: "If countries or people start over reacting then we know who won.It must ignored and fundamental reasons needs to be resolved peacefully."

Sure, you are perfectly right, except the ignorance fact. It must be acknowledged, and as you say, the fundamental reasons need to be addressed and solved peacefully. But are you aware what your solution involves? Do you think for example, that the oil companies will find your reasons and arguments compelling?

dkv: "The fundamental solution involves mutual accpetance of the fact they do not fully understand each other as countries and communities. And we need to discuss and allow osmosis of cultures."

Involves mutual acceptance, yes. That countries do not understand each other and communities do not understand each other, that is just an excuse. they can understand each other if they so desire. What lacks is the effort in such directions. Afterall, you have a power structure in each corner of the world, and a hierarchy of such powe structures at the international level.

dkv: "Both parties must accpet that they both will have to change their undertanding of what they know(as their is always something new to know)."

This would have solved the Christian/Muslim/Jewish issues even before the crusades, and yet itt did not happen. Why do you think this is?

dkv: "Even the prophet failed to write every detail about the Universe.Not becuase he didnt knew it but because he had not enough time to write it. Thus every individual must discover new truths on his own."

And all is fine until they replace their holy books with the grean abridged version stating "In God we trust" or similar verses/pictures. Which would explain whay there actually were so few prophets....

dkv: "Going back every time exclusively to science and religion will not help.They both describe the truth in a self enclosed way.Nothing from outside can validate it.Or prove it right or wrong."

I have very seldom seen people going back to science to solve conflicts. I have seen, unfortunately, science being used to provide means for a conflict to develop, or to end.

With religion, though, at least the way it is applied today (and was applied earlier in the history), I don't know of any example where conflicts were peacefully ended. But I know a lot of examples that were started by religious issues...

dkv: "Reality uses reality to verify.Maths uses maths to verify. Religion uses religion to verify. Therfore discuss more often. And share more often and share it like christ."

I don't necessarily think that you need some God for doing good to others, but there you are. Back to D.A. Morgan's issue regarding the reaction of the average person in a society.

#2350 07/22/05 06:59 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Then I am afraid that it is a clash between betweeen a totally scientific society and totally religious society...they both are trying to prove each other wrong...or atleast they are scared of each other.
We need to learn a lot and before we can think of reaching a compromise...
all i can say is that i belive in God and i believe in Science...
It might appear to be contradictory in some cases but one should not expect every idea to be reinenforced by some other orthogonal domain because it will amoount to murdering a useful component of reality as they will not match.
And They will not match unless we achieve the highest perfection in chosen domain of specialization.At that level all domains are expected get unified resolving all conflicts.
Therefore the desire should be to reach the perfection without any claim to be right ,always.

#2351 07/22/05 05:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk ... to answer your question I am a US citizen but I have lived in other countries and plan to be doing so again in a few years.

Does terrorism affect my life? Only in that environment is changed by the morons that terrorise with bombs in cars and by the morons that terrorise by using morons with bombs in cars as an excuse to try to take away my rights and freedoms.

The clash that exists today, and has existed throughout human history, is between those that follow and those that think.

The followers may be following nationalist idiocy such as in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia or, today, NeoCon America. The followers may be following religious idiocy such as those that took part in the crusades, or supported the Inquisition, or follow Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laden. The followers may be following populist/cultural idiocy such as giving a damn about what Paris Hilton does or does not do. It really doesn't matter what they follow it always leads them inevitably to hell.

The thinkers, on the other hand, whether thinking about science, or music, or art, those using their minds for creative purposes have rarely, if ever, led nations to genocide, homicide, or suicide.

When society places more value on the memory of a famous surgeon or educator than it does on the memory of a famous conqueror or football player progress will have been made. I don't expect to live long enough to see that day. Nor do I expect my children or their children to do so either.


DA Morgan
#2352 07/23/05 04:47 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
dvk ... to answer your question I am a US citizen but I have lived in other countries and plan to be doing so again in a few years.
REP: Glad to know that you belong to great country which has allowed me to speak freely.
===============================
Does terrorism affect my life? Only in that environment is changed by the morons that terrorise with bombs in cars and by the morons that terrorise by using morons with bombs in cars as an excuse to try to take away my rights and freedoms.
REP: Yes, thats what I want to say .. you have power of vote... do not choose people who speak against freedom or dilute its current expression.Because the advantages of restrictions are too tempting to ask for more and more...ask a communist nation.
============================
The clash that exists today, and has existed throughout human history, is between those that follow and those that think.
REP: Those that follow fight with those who follow, although they both follow different things.. and thinkers are not so innocent , they lay the foundation of such ideologies.clash is natrual but you must not fight with bombs... nothing serious ever happens in this billion numbered Universe.So enjoy and prescribe peace with voice without violence.
======================
The followers may be following nationalist idiocy such as in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia or, today, NeoCon America. The followers may be following religious idiocy such as those that took part in the crusades, or supported the Inquisition, or follow Pat Robertson or Osama bin Laden. The followers may be following populist/cultural idiocy such as giving a damn about what Paris Hilton does or does not do. It really doesn't matter what they follow it always leads them inevitably to hell.
REP:No one goes to hell... only those in heaven call it hell.
================================
The thinkers, on the other hand, whether thinking about science, or music, or art, those using their minds for creative purposes have rarely, if ever, led nations to genocide, homicide, or suicide.
REP: Creative people are girlishly sensitive about their feelings and ideas.. even ordinary stupid daily looks mysterious to them...
So they cant even think of doing Genocide but they lay the foundation unknowingly...
Otherwise why Einstein wrote E=mc^2
=============================
When society places more value on the memory of a famous surgeon or educator than it does on the memory of a famous conqueror or football player progress will have been made. I don't expect to live long enough to see that day. Nor do I expect my children or their children to do so either.
REP:Couldnt get you here...World remembers no one for too long ..

#2353 07/23/05 07:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk: A few comments on your responses

"and thinkers are not so innocent , they lay the foundation of such ideologies.clash is natrual but you must not fight with bombs..."

So you blame the guy who invented fire for firebombs not heat? The guy that invented chemistry for explosives not medicines? Science may be applied for good or bad. Scientists rarely if ever opt for the bad. That is not to say there isn't the occassional Edward Teller ... but they are by far the exception: Not the rule.

"REP:No one goes to hell"

Hell is a figure-of-speech not to be taken literally.

"World remembers no one for too long .."

World remembers Ghenghis Khan ... not one scientist from his time. World remembers Atilla ... not one sculture from his time. World remembers Alexander, Ceaser, Hitler, Stalin, etc.
Please keep in mind that the holy books of every Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion is a history of blood sport ... not of science or culture. Recall all the names you can remember from all of the holy books of all 3 religions. How many of those names are of people with blood on their hands? How many scientists? How many physicians? How many musicians? How many painters?

We raise our young on a steady diet of blood worship. Then we act surprised when they do as we have instructed. And please don't bore me with any Prince of Peace nonsense. History written hundreds of years after the fact is painting the target after the arrow has been shot.


DA Morgan
#2354 07/27/05 04:02 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
i Dont remember Chengiz kan(not khan as he was a mongolian) only..
A bloody history needs to be forgotten at any cost..otherwise it will carry on forever.
Learn to forget my dear friends..
And this is the reason why forgetfulness was inbuilt into the human system...

#2355 07/27/05 04:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
In other words we should forget the guy that invented the number zero. Forget the person that invented the electric battery. Forget the person that invented the alphabet, and books, and art, and dance. I think we've done that don't you? Do you remember the names of anyone on the team that invented penicillin as an antibiotic were responsible for saving hundreds of millions of lives?

How about the name Kalashnikov? Do you remember what he invented? Edward Teller ring a bell? Alfred Nobel?

Your argument is faulty at its foundation. We, as a society, value blood sport over science. Value football over culture. Value morons like Paris Hilton over high-school science teachers.

It may not be pretty ... but who said the truth would be?


DA Morgan
#2356 07/27/05 04:20 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
That was interesting...
You call them the team members ..
and you assume that we couldnt have acheived anything beyong bullock-cart without the World Wars...
That is a dangerous idea(if not faulty).. imagine some one murders you and your family for his/her own growth...

#2357 07/27/05 01:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Imagine that what your wrote made sense.

Not one sentence you wrote is understandable or appears to b e based on what I have written. Clarification might be useful.


DA Morgan
#2358 07/28/05 05:16 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I am busy call up someone who is there in this team..
:-))

#2359 07/28/05 06:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Busy? How is that possible. Summer vacation ought to have you out of school until September.


DA Morgan
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5