Looking for the roots of terrorism

[jahmez]

The Romans considered the Christians terrorists. All evil is relative.

[brocktonblockbust]

The Uighurs in Xinjiang are kicking ass against the Chinese govt, who considers them to be terrorists.
The Turks considered Armenians to be terrorists in 1915.
There are Buddhist terrorists killing Rohingyas in Myanmar right now.

anyone who wreacks havoc and terror is a terrorist. FARQ, Los Luminosos in Peru-Shining Path, etc.

[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.

[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.

[ryanman]

@Andre Don't forget that Greenbeanz is the one that created this thread -
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...gies-evil.html

I think he takes a very balanced and objective view mate. He never makes excuses for the acts, he doesn't deny that there is a problem of an extremist strand in Islam. Yet he also doesn't make sweeping statements that are anti Islamic.
Also, when discussing the causes of Islamic extremism he is balanced in that he can see,and has often said, that the causes are more complex than those often put forward. Saying that he doesn't want all the mosques closed doesn't mean he is in denial that there is an issue that needs addressing.

[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.

[El Kabong]

There is more to terrorism than just blow back against countries that have interfered.

"Awww but that doesn't fit my agenda" - KirklandLaing

[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.

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.

The French gunmen were upset about the cartoons, like I said.

France currently have their military in the Maghreb so some French Muslims are upset about that.

[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.

@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.

For over half a century now Saudi Arabia has been funding radical Islam all over the world. The Saudi brand of Islam, Wahaabism, is pretty indistinguishable from the brand practiced under ISIS. Saudi have funded the building of mosques all over the Muslim world including Nigeria, Pakistan, Britain and so on and they in most cases get radical Waahabi imans preaching in them as part of the deal.

Fundamentalist Islam used to be a minority thing but due to Saudi money it's becoming the dominant strain of religion. Preachers funded by Saudi and Gulf state money are all over the world and the internet preaching hate. This is the ideological foundation of groups like Al Quaeda and ISIS.

If we didn't involve ourselves in their part of the world they'd be far too busy fighting amongst themselves to bother about us (see Syria pre our involvement) but once we get involved then some of them are going to respond violently.

[Kirkland Laing]

Also, too. South American or Vietnamese or whoever groups who would like to fight back against America need money and organisation. The Saudis/Gulf states provide the money for all these Islamic groups and initially the Americans provided the organisation ( Saudi/Arab fighters going to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets and being trained by the US).

Now they have military know-how and basically unlimited military funding from Saudi and the Gulf states.

[brocktonblockbust]

Nice.

[El Kabong]

Here's a root cause of terrorism, the collapse of The Ottoman Empire

[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).

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.

Ok we are on the same page.
Im all for routing out these fuckers where there meet.
In reality here in Australia, ASIO are doing that undercover within Islam and that is the only way to find out who is stepping out of their back doors for private meetings and grooming their kids for war against us here in the west.

I 've never been with the close all mosques idea either. That would bring open warfare onto our streets if you think about the stages and where it would all lead.

Thing is here in the forum,I've pointed out that its a fact we know where these lads are coming from here and it is the other side of homegrown terrorism, I belive the Anthropologist fellow who went and interviewed terrorists interviewed ones that strike at home not the already organised system of recruting from within the religion and there was no mention of that or that those lines do cross at times as seen in 911.

My beliefs about it stem from the arrests out here and where they actually found these fellows,I think its right to go in after them.

People out there whos main aim is to protect the rights of individuals to practice what they like above everything else and belive the goverment is trying to form more controls over everyone through fear of this religion etc are jaded. They ignore real threats,real facts to prove their points and will try to dump others into the reverse group to theirs politically and the reverse occurs too then they both lose focus in the blame game, meanwhile the physical threat to us all is still building its reserves and numbers from within.

[Andre]

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.

For over half a century now Saudi Arabia has been funding radical Islam all over the world. The Saudi brand of Islam, Wahaabism, is pretty indistinguishable from the brand practiced under ISIS. Saudi have funded the building of mosques all over the Muslim world including Nigeria, Pakistan, Britain and so on and they in most cases get radical Waahabi imans preaching in them as part of the deal.

Fundamentalist Islam used to be a minority thing but due to Saudi money it's becoming the dominant strain of religion. Preachers funded by Saudi and Gulf state money are all over the world and the internet preaching hate. This is the ideological foundation of groups like Al Quaeda and ISIS.

If we didn't involve ourselves in their part of the world they'd be far too busy fighting amongst themselves to bother about us (see Syria pre our involvement) but once we get involved then some of them are going to respond violently.

For real, bang on the money.

[Andre]

@Andre Don't forget that Greenbeanz is the one that created this thread -
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...gies-evil.html

I think he takes a very balanced and objective view mate. He never makes excuses for the acts, he doesn't deny that there is a problem of an extremist strand in Islam. Yet he also doesn't make sweeping statements that are anti Islamic.
Also, when discussing the causes of Islamic extremism he is balanced in that he can see,and has often said, that the causes are more complex than those often put forward. Saying that he doesn't want all the mosques closed doesn't mean he is in denial that there is an issue that needs addressing.

Sure, and me pointing out some factual events and a whole section of terrorism the Anthropologist fellow omitted doesnt make me the reverse to him or anti education either.