Even before 9/11, the international community has had to deal (or refuse to deal) with terrorism. Whether it be from the likes of Al-Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh, or Che Guevara, terrorists are specifically defined by their willingness to use violence to demonstrate for or cater to their cause. However, in almost every terrorist attack, the goal of the violence often isn't people, as in spree killings, but instead infrastructure.
Take, for instance, the train bombings in Madrid. The attack killed 192 people and injured 2050. Sure, the death toll is tragic, but if Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, the group who claimed responsibility for the attacks, wanted to kill as many people as possible, wouldn't it be more logical that they blow up the train in the station? Or blow up the station itself? Or does the train at rush hour represent something greater?
Or consider the 9/11 attacks themselves. Wouldn't there have been a greater death toll had Al-Qaeda operatives tactically placed bombs at or near the bottom of the World Trade Center towers, preventing more people from escaping? But the attack was not solely on the American people, but on the buildings which contribute (if only symbolically) to occupation and economic rape of the Middle East.
Timothy McVeigh's Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was not an act of sole bloodlust. He claimed it was in retaliation for the seige of compounds at Waco (the Branch Davidians) and Ruby Ridge (the Aryan Nation). If he were looking for a death toll, why hadn't he bombed one of the city's many skyscrapers?
I suppose my point is that so-called terrorists and terrorist organizations do not function for the sake of killing innocent people. In order to combat violence carried out by terrorism, we must eliminate the cause for terrorism, rather than the culprits, because although terrorists die, ideas seldom do. With every act of terrorism, there is a message. If you ignore that message, you only proliferate cause for more violence.
Good pt, but your pt must be weighed against the idea of appeasement.
It didn't work to give Hitler everything he wanted.
And their are countless other examples. If you just give people what they want, they have no motivation to walk away from the methods they used to convince you to do so.
I'm not talking about appeasement; I'm talking about understanding history.
--Mike
ok,
Then look back.
look up the word
Tripolee in american history.
Muslim terrorists have been a pain in our ass for a long time.
You mean Tripoli?
You're assuming that the Barbary War started because the US was paying Tripoli, but you forget that in addition to not paying Tripoli for protection from piracy, the US also decided to blockade (blockade=act of war) Tripoli. See? Even then the problem was US military presence in Arabian lands.
--Mike
There is plenty of "terrorists" in every religion.. dont just target the Muslims.. its just their turn... like the tag your it game... someone else is going to do something wrong and guess what its their turn and they are going to be all the rage.... But back at it their are terrorists in every religion people who think they are doing good for their holy book.. but if you know anything about Islam you would know the number one rule in the Quran is Suicide is EXTREMELY BAD.. and completely unforgivable.... so do you think they would do that unless they feel like they are being attacked themselves and trying to protect their country... or maybe they are just taking the Quran out of context which I think and just kinda making it into their own and reading it and understanding it the way they want to... .their is always going to be terrorists and war and etc... people are never going to be on the same page or wavelength especially with religion...
~* Mowgli *~
I believe that the purpose of terrorism is to inflict terror. Hence the term. Therefore, all bombing is terrorism.
(And, in 1993, Al Qaeda tried to place bombs at the base of the WTC, but it didn't work out very well. The people responsible were tried and are currently spending the rest of their miserable lives in a maximum security federal prison.)
well, some of the people responsible. Ramzi Yousef may have been captured, but several of the masterminds got off scott-free. Though, I'm not sure why they'd want scotts in the first place.
Regardless, they don't call it terrorism; hence the disregard for etymology.
--Mike
The way we are dealing with terrorism is just causing more and more of it. They see themselves as freedom fighters and the more we go in and kill them the more they are going to believe that they must terrorise the U.S. in order to accomplish their goals. Although I do not know the best way to deal with the situation of Terrorism I do know that we are dealing with it in one of the worst ways possible.
I agree with almost all of the comments posted above. I believe in order to eliminate TERRORISM we must understand HISTORY. If we look into HISTORY we will see how these muslim third world countries have been opressed for years, not only by the European countries, but also by their Jewish neighbors. (I might be a bit biased, because I am a muslim women myself. However, I am not a Middle-Easter, and have everyone's best interest at heart.) The reason they see them selves as freedom fighters is because they believe by doing so they can actually get power. The power they need to run their own country.
The Israelis (I don't consider then Jews anymore) haven't actively done anything to oppress the Muslims per se. Any true oppression is mostly recent history. But why are the Israelis there in the first place?
--Mike
The way we are dealing with terrorism is just causing more and more of it.
Well, ignoring it for eight years didn't help. Turning tail and running away in the Mog only showed them that we were a "paper tiger". Negotiating and begging doesn't do anything either.
Peace always follows victory. That's the historical lesson.
BTW, the concept that they're terrorists (call them what they are) because we're in their land is totally bogus. Note how they kill other muslims. The reason they're terrorists is because they can't tolerate anybody who doesn't believe what they believe nor do they tolerate dissent.
Yeah, peace totally followed World War One and Two and the Gulf War...
Muslims aren't one people.
--Mike
just a quick question, what do you mean muslim are not one people?
To lump all muslims together as if they were at all unified is an absolute farce. Arab culture breaks down into disparate religious sects, tribes, and clans.
--Mike
I agree with you on that. Not all Muslims are Arabs, and not all Arabs are Muslim. Its not a cultural thing, but a religious one.
It is a more complicated issue, than knowing who started it. for sure
It hasn't been peacefull in that part of the world for a 1000 years
More than 1,000 years. Don't forget about the Romans...
--Mike
I do believe it is very complicated issue, and today's generation is suffering for our forefathers
Terrorist aren't targeting people?
Yes, the targets themself do have significance, but you can't deny the casuality rate. If all that was important was that an infrastructure was destroyed then why wouldn't they attack only at night or at least take steps in which they prevent casualities? It would seem easier to plot an attack with the cover of darkness. I hardly believe that suicide bombers are trying to impair the public transit system when they blow up a bus with passengers on it.
They could've killed more people, but it probably wouldve been more risky, and therefore, would've heightened their chances of being caught.
Nonetheless, I understand your point. We need to focus more on why these people are attacking, and not how to foil their plans.
Yes, it's true that they do want casualties. The idea being that buildings and transit systems don't have families of their own. They have to get people concerned as well as inconvenienced...
--Mike
Check out my blog on terrorism: http://progressiveu.org/093724-justification-for-terrorism.
I'm assuming that's for those who visit my blog to see your blog (being that I'd already commented on it).
--Mike
You assume correctly.