Looking for the roots of terrorism

[Andre]

Will read the article after lunch as I need to get the dogs out for a charge but as far as origins go its why God in the old Testament created different languages at the towers of Babylon. If we go back before that when grunts were a language, I'd bet terrorism was routinely practiced by rivals I think as far as modern times go its roots are religion but now its just psychopaths using religion as a back drop.

R u doing the Iditerod thence?

Read something wondrous from this great event mate;

http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/201411...n-the-iditarod

[El Kabong]

"France has about 7.5% Muslims and [they make] up to 60–75% of the prison population. It’s a very similar situation to black youth in the United States."


Yuuuup here we go with the White Guilt , typical lefty drivel.

[Beanz]

"France has about 7.5% Muslims and [they make] up to 60–75% of the prison population. It’s a very similar situation to black youth in the United States."


Yuuuup here we go with the White Guilt , typical lefty drivel.

He was quite obviously talking about proportional representation, not justification. The very next sentence that you conveniently omitted says

" The difference is here’s an ideology that appeals to them "

So he is not making the lazy comparison that you accuse him of. It's extremely frustrating that so many people, even in this thread, are so conditioned in their own thinking that they are seemingly uninterested in facts or insights gained by someone who is actively trying to find some answers.

This is an academic with posts in both France and America, not a politician with some axe to grind. It's not "White Guilt" or "Lefty Drivel". He is hardly excusing the behaviour of people when he call them "low lifes" and "bad guys" is he?

The conclusions he draws are not the obvious ones and it's uncomfortable reading I get that. He is not toeing the government lie that they are highly trained commando like units, he is pointing out the unpredictable and often random nature of such a threat. These are often very stupid ignorant people, something he confirms when he relays that fact that many would rather shoot him than answer his questions.

But no let's not bother reading the report or examining tired, pattern based predicatable ways of thinking. Lets accuse him of having "an agenda" because then we can carry on thinking in the same comfy, flawed way.

I know many people innately distrust academics ( particularly when evidence they use goes against their own belief system) and love to hang on to simple ideas, but there is little point discussing anything if all you want to do is have your own opinion verified and have no room to contemplate new ways of thinking about a problem.

[ryanman]

"France has about 7.5% Muslims and [they make] up to 60–75% of the prison population. It’s a very similar situation to black youth in the United States."


Yuuuup here we go with the White Guilt , typical lefty drivel.

He was quite obviously talking about proportional representation, not justification. The very next sentence that you conveniently omitted says

" The difference is here’s an ideology that appeals to them "

So he is not making the lazy comparison that you accuse him of. It's extremely frustrating that so many people, even in this thread, are so conditioned in their own thinking that they are seemingly uninterested in facts or insights gained by someone who is actively trying to find some answers.

This is an academic with posts in both France and America, not a politician with some axe to grind. It's not "White Guilt" or "Lefty Drivel". He is hardly excusing the behaviour of people when he call them "low lifes" and "bad guys" is he?

The conclusions he draws are not the obvious ones and it's uncomfortable reading I get that. He is not toeing the government lie that they are highly trained commando like units, he is pointing out the unpredictable and often random nature of such a threat. These are often very stupid ignorant people, something he confirms when he relays that fact that many would rather shoot him than answer his questions.

But no let's not bother reading the report or examining tired, pattern based predicatable ways of thinking. Lets accuse him of having "an agenda" because then we can carry on thinking in the same comfy, flawed way.

I know many people innately distrust academics ( particularly when evidence they use goes against their own belief system) and love to hang on to simple ideas, but there is little point discussing anything if all you want to do is have your own opinion verified and have no room to contemplate new ways of thinking about a problem.

Sorry Beanz, you won't get a discussion on the article. The word 'terrorism' is in the subject line. That means the thread is about repeating thoughts on 'Terrorism'. I can already predict what several other people are likely to be in here saying shortly. None of which will be a discussion of any of the points raised. It's anti-intellectualism.

The fact that he refers to them as 'bad-guys' and 'low-lifes' and (rightly) points out that these guys are mostly idiots won't make a difference.

[El Kabong]

#1 "The difference is here’s an ideology that appeals to them" ...a quote which could be used to describe why someone might join Al Qaeda but if you think about it, it's also something someone might say for a black person joining the Crips or Bloods.


#2 "This is an academic" ....indeed, a LEFTY, universities are overrun with them!

#3 "The best predictors turn out to be things like who your friends are and whether you belong to some action group." .....like an Al Qaeda terrorist cell

[Beanz]

#1 "The difference is here’s an ideology that appeals to them" ...a quote which could be used to describe why someone might join Al Qaeda but if you think about it, it's also something someone might say for a black person joining the Crips or Bloods.


#2 "This is an academic" ....indeed, a LEFTY, universities are overrun with them!

#3 "The best predictors turn out to be things like who your friends are and whether you belong to some action group." .....like an Al Qaeda terrorist cell

My reply was not meant just for you but seeing as you are willing to engage rationally

1. Yes there are indeed similarities there, but Jimmy and Timmy's feelings of disenfranchisement were not good reasons to join the Karazy Kripples any more than those westerners who end up becoming vehment anti-western fanatics. He is not trying to make a simple equation to explain things.


2. I think it is only in your head that academic and Lefty are interchangeable Lyle In Europe quite the opposite is often true, with Academics seen as conservative right wing members of the establishment.


3. He tries to make clear the independent nature of individuals and small groups and disavow us of the notion of cells. That is a military allegory that makes us feel there are similar military rules of engagement, and there are not. They are criminal and psychopathic.

[Kirkland Laing]

If you want to know what they're angry about you could try asking the fucking terrorists, or even just listen to what they say. Other than the gys upset about cartoons in every single case it's because of us interfering in their countries (9/11 guys) Israel killing people in neighbouring countries/Palestinians (9/11 and most terrorist attacks previous to that), us invading Afghanistan/Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands ( 99.something percent of attacks since 2001.) Case in point. The people giving interviews to bystanders after they knifed that British soldier. And so on.

[El Kabong]

My reply was not meant just for you but seeing as you are willing to engage rationally

1. Yes there are indeed similarities there, but Jimmy and Timmy's feelings of disenfranchisement were not good reasons to join the Karazy Kripples any more than those westerners who end up becoming vehment anti-western fanatics. He is not trying to make a simple equation to explain things.


2. I think it is only in your head that academic and Lefty are interchangeable Lyle In Europe quite the opposite is often true, with Academics seen as conservative right wing members of the establishment.


3. He tries to make clear the independent nature of individuals and small groups and disavow us of the notion of cells. That is a military allegory that makes us feel there are similar military rules of engagement, and there are not. They are criminal and psychopathic.

1. That's fine, but again the problem is that the idiots who want to join Al Qaeda or "The Karazy Kripples" aren't assimilating into society for whatever reason. The SAD part is these people aren't retards, they aren't sociopaths in the psychological sense of the word (which the author states plain as day), they are just filled to the brim with resentment of Western culture and values which I'm sorry if you don't like those things then leave the west. leave the US, leave the UK, go to The Islamic State, go to another country nobody is holding you hostage in the west. I am certain SOME of the jihadis and gangsters are certifiably insane but it would be just a portion of them.

2. Is it? Again, left and right are very different in England as opposed to America. In America nearly 95% of the professors and graduate assistants every University is socialist/communist/anarchist. For example Bill Ayers of The Weather Underground is a professor at the University of Chicago...the man bombed government offices for fucks sake, but in Academia he's a hero, he's revered. Timothy Leary, Mr. "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" was a Professor. The Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was a professor...these guys are pretty much so far left they were mentally unstable and the sad thing is....in Academia they are a dime a dozen!

3. Criminal eh? You want to see the courts handle this rather than the armed forces? Which will then see our system attacked not on a national scale, but on a much harder to control LOCAL scale. This would mean enhanced powers for local authorities which would lead to more corruption (surely we've seen it nationally with who the government has chosen to spy on recently Sharyl Attkinson).

If you want to know what they're angry about you could try asking the fucking terrorists, or even just listen to what they say. Other than the gys upset about cartoons in every single case it's because of us interfering in their countries (9/11 guys) Israel killing people in neighbouring countries/Palestinians (9/11 and most terrorist attacks previous to that), us invading Afghanistan/Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands ( 99.something percent of attacks since 2001.) Case in point. The people giving interviews to bystanders after they knifed that British soldier. And so on.

So if Israel just disappeared then much of this terrorism would cease? Well great, how about YOU hand out some yellow stars to the Jews so we can round them up and gas them later.

As for US intervention, we're damned if we DO (Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia) and we're damned if we DON'T (East Timor, Chechnya). Bin Laden Mr. Jihad himself was a fucking hypocrite of the highest order "The US arms Israel, whine, cry" with NOOOOO fucking mention of how the US helped his ass out against the Commies in the 80's NOR about how the US again helped his ass out against the fucking Serbs in Bosnia!

The Mujihadeen/Jihadi's what have you aren't fucking known for their rational thought processes. They hate us because they envy us plain and simple. They think they have oil they should make the rules, but they are very tribal and fight amongst themselves more than they attack the West shit look at The Islamic State, they aren't attacking the United States, I'm sure they would if they could but right now they are attacking geopolitical nation states Syria and Iraq in the attempts to erase borders and form their own nation state.

[Beanz]

If you want to know what they're angry about you could try asking the fucking terrorists, or even just listen to what they say. Other than the gys upset about cartoons in every single case it's because of us interfering in their countries (9/11 guys) Israel killing people in neighbouring countries/Palestinians (9/11 and most terrorist attacks previous to that), us invading Afghanistan/Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands ( 99.something percent of attacks since 2001.) Case in point. The people giving interviews to bystanders after they knifed that British soldier. And so on.

And so it begins. With the greatest respect Kirkland, what you could try doing is reading the article. What Atran is saying is that this work is simply not being done. As an Anthropologist, while it is not the end game, you can derive insights from large sample surveys but Ironically, (considering the propaganda led agenda of many) not only are wannabe Jihadis unwilling to talk, but also research ethics criteria has become too obstructive in seeking to overprotect university research students.

France did not Invade Iraq and the French gunmen made very little sense, being just as pissed off at having to pay tax, so things are not as simple as you are claiming.

[ryanman]

If you want to know what they're angry about you could try asking the fucking terrorists, or even just listen to what they say. Other than the gys upset about cartoons in every single case it's because of us interfering in their countries (9/11 guys) Israel killing people in neighbouring countries/Palestinians (9/11 and most terrorist attacks previous to that), us invading Afghanistan/Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands ( 99.something percent of attacks since 2001.) Case in point. The people giving interviews to bystanders after they knifed that British soldier. And so on.

@Kirkland Laing that may well be true for the genesis of many of the groups and the attacks they carry out however for me it can't be the definitive reason to explain Islamic extremism as there are things that don't fit.
Boko Haram for instance are not engaging in Anti-Western activities.
ISIS were happy to have no involvement and conflict with the US.

There is more to terrorism than just blow back against countries that have interfered.
If it were simply that then as I said before we would also be having a spate of international terrorist groups emanating from South and Central America.

There are a multitude of reasons for the spate of Islamic extremist groups and I think that an anti-west agenda is just one of those reasons. For some groups it is the primary reason, yet for others it doesn't really feature at all. So for me it isn't a satisfactory (complete) explanation.

[Andre]

3. He tries to make clear the independent nature of individuals and small groups and disavow us of the notion of cells. That is a military allegory that makes us feel there are similar military rules of engagement, and there are not. They are criminal and psychopathic.

There are both though! We have home grown terrorists and we have home grown fighters who head back to their birth places to fight for Allah and Mohammad.

Some work single for sure, like that fuckwit in Sydney who killed in the cafe recently. But many also eventually are organized into cells too its a fact,911 was a group of men who broke into 3 organized cells on a timed hit, how can it be seen any other way? It occurs both ways so why only look one way at it I dont really get it?

Unless maybe we are on total crossed purposes here mate and I think you might be talking about and are trying to stem the real dumb from within our western societies getting ideas and heading for the Mosques and disrupting the innocent families there -young angry men eventually going in with the old style like the shaved heads and bother boots of old routine to rout them out in their evil dopey mindless fucking way.Those types of people who get dumbed down enough to attack Muslim women on trains etc.
That has to be your thoughts here?

There are young -------- (you fill in the blanks call em what you like, see what you come up with as a term Id be very interested) men leaving our shores to go and fight against our armies overseas.Thats a fact happened in the Afgan conflict to a minor degree now in Syria ina larger degree, we cant stop them returning back to their birth home to fight for Allah and Mohammads cause of Jihad;its happening,it is an occurrence.
They are not single criminals and physcopaths.

Where they form into groups was the main item and the main question raised here in this journos works.Not if they form into groups.

Im not against him or his works or you being 100% on his side or he fact he so called educated that is a swipe.
Im all for you protecting innocent Muslims who I agree are 97% clear, but why aren't you all for routing out the small percentage that hides among them?

I cant think of any answer for that question, except "they are not hiding in amongst their own religion". I await to stand corrected on that view.

The fundamentalist groups these lads aim at joining have recently stated to these would be soldiers of Allah and Mohammad the last prophet; "Stay in your countries there and spill blood there". Sure some fuckwits will singly get up and do exactly that. Some will be in pairs some in threes or more.

I dont get the one eyed views either way, as if it all has to be viewed one way or the other which somehow makes one view right and one wrong. This is a big subject with many fights on many fronts you cant white wash all occurrences away with one other new found true fact and that was this journalists approach it wasnt just reporting it was nailing a flag in and making a claim. (Just my view,trying to look at it both ways so to speak).

[Gandalf]

The roots of modern terrorism come from the kinds of things Kirkland mentioned, but today we have swept Iraq under a rug, refuse to publish the Chilcott whitewash, funded terrorists and then carried on bombing countries that we illegally invaded. Westminster is one of the founding roots of modern terrorism. If we are more likely talking about blowback attacks by angry, disenfranchised people, then I agree with Beanz and Ryan that there is no masterplan resistance and that is why the entire war on terror is nothing more than a scam to spy on people and justify not saving lives in hospitals.

[Beanz]

3. He tries to make clear the independent nature of individuals and small groups and disavow us of the notion of cells. That is a military allegory that makes us feel there are similar military rules of engagement, and there are not. They are criminal and psychopathic.

There are both though! We have home grown terrorists and we have home grown fighters who head back to their birth places to fight for Allah and Mohammad.

Some work single for sure, like that fuckwit in Sydney who killed in the cafe recently. But many also eventually are organized into cells too its a fact,911 was a group of men who broke into 3 organized cells on a timed hit, how can it be seen any other way? It occurs both ways so why only look one way at it I dont really get it?

Unless maybe we are on total crossed purposes here mate and I think you might be talking about and are trying to stem the real dumb from within our western societies getting ideas and heading for the Mosques and disrupting the innocent families there -young angry men eventually going in with the old style like the shaved heads and bother boots of old routine to rout them out in their evil dopey mindless fucking way.Those types of people who get dumbed down enough to attack Muslim women on trains etc.
That has to be your thoughts here?

There are young -------- (you fill in the blanks call em what you like, see what you come up with as a term Id be very interested) men leaving our shores to go and fight against our armies overseas.Thats a fact happened in the Afgan conflict to a minor degree now in Syria ina larger degree, we cant stop them returning back to their birth home to fight for Allah and Mohammads cause of Jihad;its happening,it is an occurrence.
They are not single criminals and physcopaths.

Where they form into groups was the main item and the main question raised here in this journos works.Not if they form into groups.

Im not against him or his works or you being 100% on his side or he fact he so called educated that is a swipe.
Im all for you protecting innocent Muslims who I agree are 97% clear, but why aren't you all for routing out the small percentage that hides among them?

I cant think of any answer for that question, except "they are not hiding in amongst their own religion". I await to stand corrected on that view.

The fundamentalist groups these lads aim at joining have recently stated to these would be soldiers of Allah and Mohammad the last prophet; "Stay in your countries there and spill blood there". Sure some fuckwits will singly get up and do exactly that. Some will be in pairs some in threes or more.

I dont get the one eyed views either way, as if it all has to be viewed one way or the other which somehow makes one view right and one wrong. This is a big subject with many fights on many fronts you cant white wash all occurrences away with one other new found true fact and that was this journalists approach it wasnt just reporting it was nailing a flag in and making a claim. (Just my view,trying to look at it both ways so to speak).

Andre.

You of all people should know me well enough by now to realise that I am not a subscriber to 'one eye views'. I should then maybe make myself clearer. The article is an interview with an Anthropologist, not the views of a journalist, so already it is presenting another way of looking at something. So yes it wasn't merely reporting, but making a point is not the same as making a claim that seeks to whitewash the argument ? I too do not think that the only point worth making is that potential terrorist are not all just hiding in amongst their own religion, I am merely trying to stop the whole discussion descending into ever decreasing circles of blame and very little headway being made.


"It’s the organized anarchy of it that does more to terrorize than actually carefully planned commando operations"

The threat is unpredictable and in his realm it is his job to try and understand behavioural patterns and then help predict it.

I do not subscribe to the idea of these being staged events with crisis actors like Miles does, I think that is beyond myopic and incredibly offensive. I also do not subscribe to the easy 2 =2 + 4 argument of Kirkland that seeks to solely blame the actions of Western Governments. I also don't think that closing all Mosques is likely to achieve much either except fostering animosity and attacks on all small ethnic and religious groups. And yet I am expected to respond to stuff like this ?


"Im not against him or his works or you being 100% on his side or he fact he so called educated that is a swipe.
Im all for you protecting innocent Muslims who I agree are 97% clear, but why aren't you all for routing out the small percentage that hides among them?"



This is extremely disingenuous. IT has become like forum apartheid. Why would you think I was against routing out terrorists? That's crazy and I am getting sick to the back teeth of it to be honest. You try and take a balanced approach and you get labelled a bleeding heart liberal (not by you). Yes I get pissed with people using terms like "so called educated" because it took that guy 6 or 7 years of hard work to get recognised for his expertise and I love education. I work in education and people pay thousands of pounds to better themselves and expand their brain, mind, experience and intellect, often whilst working long hours and sometimes bringing up a family, and so I will not so easily dismiss them with some mislead notion that the academic life is an easy one. Many Anthropologists live for years in tribal societies and have just as many valid spiritual, mental and life experiences as you. Ryan spent years studying immigration at a very high level and yet he is dismissed because people like to make themselves self appointed experts or rely on half baked ideas and hearsay.


I always try to look at things from more than one fixed point of view and I regret any suggestion that I do otherwise. I am not angry or preaching Or hounding anyone. but please people stop assuming any alternative view is some kind of attack or bleeding hearted liberal capitulation. It's impossible to have a discussion when people have already filled in your half of the conversation before you open your mouth.

[Beanflicker]

The answer to finding these terrorists might be easier than they think, after all Muslims believe there is a magic man in the sky and anyone who believes that is a bit daft regardless. We all know there is no Allah and Mohammed was not his final messenger, but they believe it so why not exploit it?

Just ask them if they are terrorists, and if they say no say "ok you swear on the honour of Allah that you are not a terrorist or have terrorist thoughts"? Swearing to god and the holy bible or whatever doesn't mean shit to most people because most people know that it's all bullshit and don't take it seriously, but I don't think a terrorist would be able to lie on the name of Allah. Say "if you're lying now you also agree that Allah is shite and Mohammad fucked animals", and there's no way they could lie even to protect their own necks, so when they come clean arrest them and it's one less terrorist on the streets.

[pacfan]

I've been seriously studying every aspect of terrorism and terrorists the last several years, from socialogical, cultural, psychological aspects. Terrorism is indeed a very complex issue and it's definitely not for amateurs and needs to scrutinized in a very fair and objective manner, in all its complexity and details. After all my years of, sometimes agonizing and sleepless nights, studying this very complex issue, I have come to a conclusion that the root of all terrorism, in whatever form or wherever they may be, is no other than... hold your breaths... is no other than Bob Arum himself! Yes, that infamous fellow who manipulates the world with his guile and deception, is the root cause of all terrorism... as well as the ducking of the greatest boxer in the world...