Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Terrorism is what you get when you have vulnerable and oppressed people, fashioned into a weapon by the insidiously minded.

If so, then prosperity and command of a community should cause terrorism to cease existing, yet in Europe homogenous and prosperous communities have produced thousands of terrorists who were more than willing to kill their countrymen or fly abroad to kill other people too; a QMUL study into the matter was surprised to find that contrary to the popular marxist interpretation of terrorism as a class reaction to oppression, the jihadists from England were usually well-educated, affluent middle class and socially well-connected, with their friends genuinely surprised that the person they knew was capable of orchestrating a terror attack. Generally (and the problem with generalisations being that they are always wrong), terrorism is split between three waves. The first wave of anarcho-liberal terror, the second wave of nationalist terror, both being concerned with toppling monarchical or colonial regimes, or otherwise establishing a nation state from a post-colonial settlement. We're in the third wave with religious terror, where it exists not as a reaction, but an ambition in its own right

USA's conflicting foreign policy of arming terrorists & destroying ME states is worth mentioning too. The problem is not supporting oppressive regimes, it's supporting oppressive regimes which fund terrorist groups and provide their intellectual basis for operating, whilst destroying oppressive regimes which combat those terrorist groups in the bluntest way possible. When you destroy a state and leave tens of thousands of unemployed soldiers, officers and generals, with millions more unemployed men living in a ruined country of no governance, then warfare is the only career possible and the veterans of the last war will provide the nucleus for the future war. Couple that with funding and the religious dimension, hey presto you have Iraq, Syria, Libya e.t.c.

The basic threads still apply though, even to something as domestic as the ALF, or the ELF.
The choice of target will either be for maximal exposure (and thus, maximal damage and impact), or will be performed for maximal consequence (target of critical infrastructure or critical logistical processing)

There's going to be a massive difference between eco-terrorists and jihadists when it comes to target selection. America's Right Wing terrorism seems to have more in common with Europe's Islamist terrorism than it does with something like the IRA or ELF, in that it is conducted by individuals or small cells with no co-ordination between them and any larger organisation, using the most readily available weapons to target as many civilians as possible. Disorganised, directed at civilians instead of infrastructure or security units, seeking to spread terror and undermine the government's ability to govern one way or another

In that capacity, yes-- even domestic group members are indeed victims of being organized by unscrupulous and hypocritical leaders, who use them as if they were just disposable things.

It is wise not to strip the agency of a suicide attacker who acted on their own direction

[wierd]

Recruitment of otherwise safe and secure individuals toward a goal elsewhere requires a commonality; In this case, the premise that there is organized efforts to squash islam.  This is how a message gets distorted by unscrupulous people who latch onto a desperate group, and fashion them into a weapon.  It starts "I just want to go outside and not worry about being shot; I want my daughters to not worry about being raped in the streets. I am willing to fight and die to stop those that enable this horror!", but ends up "Those animals in the west now deny you your right to live and believe as you will! They must be destroyed!"

Actions like "Muslim travel bans" do very little to counter such arguments from such unscrupulous agitators.

[smjjames]

Not really waves as if it was a new thing, all three types have always existed, just that different types were more prominent or active at different periods.

[Loud Whispers]

It doesn't require a commonality, human individuals are motivated by various things even within a sect of common religious dogma & zeal. There's no golden bullet where erasing one narrative will cause terrorism to stop, whether it's RW, J, E or whatever else.
For organised terrorism, your immediate issue will be recruiters. Those who have gone to Syria and received training, those who are exceedingly well-educated and charismatic Imams, those who run street-gangs for example, will be able to form connections with potential recruits and will be able to learn what their individual motivations are, and use them accordingly. I feel it's unnecessary to attack them for being unscrupulous agitators; it is a simple facet of leadership, that the first meaning of leadership is getting people to do things they would ordinarily not do. It is not the fault of leadership if leaders decide the objective is slaughter.

For both disorganised and organised terrorism where the tactical objective is spreading terror amongst civilian populations through public massacres, the critical moments will be stopping extremists from becoming terrorists, and stopping terrorists from spreading terror. Someone can believe infidels, jews, whoever, must be wiped out from the Earth and still be an unassuming member of society. In the case of organised terror, it's fairly simple - their leaders will help them make the leap from talking the talk, to walking the walk, and acting on their beliefs.

For disorganised terrorism, your immediate issue will be that there is nothing you can do besides damage control, because why an individual will decide on their own volition to adopt extremist beliefs and then act on them varies immensely. Some rando Joe Bloggs who uses readily available tools, vehicles or weapons, who does not stand out in their community and does not raise any digital noise for security bureaus or their local community to notice is only someone you can deal with after the fact, and there's not really any way you can stop creating such individuals short of controlling the entire national environment in the style of Chinese governance, which would be intolerable in the West.

Not really waves as if it was a new thing, all three types have always existed, just that different types were more prominent or active at different periods.

I thought that would be clear with reference to monarchical and colonial regimes

[wierd]

Leadership, is when a person does their best to organize his community toward true commonly collective betterment.  EG, one who acts for the community, for the benefit of the community.

An unscrupulous tyrant is one who pretends to be the former, but organizes the community for his own personal enrichment and empowerment.


The latter tend to have an alarming number of ways of supplanting and then silencing the former.  See also, "Lenin vs Stalin"  It's a tale as old as time.

[smjjames]

Obama vs Trump? Obviously not the same as Lenin vs Stalin, but your definition of unscrupulous tyrant certainly fits Trump.

[Max™]

cupboard-cum-sentry-box

Remind me to never check through your cupboards...

Biggest problem would just be logistical though, how do you guard everywhere? You need a lot of guards to guard every population centre

What if the guards are terrorists, who guards the guardsman guarding guarsman guards?

Guys, I have the idea to fix America. What is our big problem right now? The average civility has gone down. So all we need to do is get more civil people in order to bring that average up.

Hence, it is obvious that the solution to Trump and the alt-right is to #AnnexCanada.

What aboot the newfies?

[Trekkin]

Guys, I have the idea to fix America. What is our big problem right now? The average civility has gone down. So all we need to do is get more civil people in order to bring that average up.

Hence, it is obvious that the solution to Trump and the alt-right is to #AnnexCanada.

We don't need to annex them. If they ask to be a state we legally have to let them in.

[wierd]

Obama vs Trump? Obviously not the same as Lenin vs Stalin, but your definition of unscrupulous tyrant certainly fits Trump.

Honestly, look who he likes to rub elbows with. You ask me if I think that shoe fits?

Hell yes it does.

[Loud Whispers]

Leadership, is when a person does their best to organize his community toward true commonly collective betterment.  EG, one who acts for the community, for the benefit of the community.
An unscrupulous tyrant is one who pretends to be the former, but organizes the community for his own personal enrichment and empowerment.
The latter tend to have an alarming number of ways of supplanting and then silencing the former.  See also, "Lenin vs Stalin"  It's a tale as old as time.

I'm not making a comment on moral values, or organising communities, or swindling communities. Leadership is foremost the capability to get someone to do something they would otherwise not do. Leaders can use this capability to do whatever, whether it serve the good of those who follow them, or be entirely self-serving. Without this capability however, they are not even a leader.

Apologies in advance for being semantic :[
More on topic, to continue on my argumentation - I would just like to illustrate how you cannot strip terrorists of agency and ascribe whole-heartedly to a marxist view of terrorism as a class reaction to oppression, because it is an ideological one which has little bearing to reality. Jihadist terror is made whether it is under the auspices of governments which have influential or authorial Salafist clerics in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan e.t.c, whether it is made under the auspices of governments which are progressive and secularist in Sweden, Denmark, France, Britain e.t.c., while the obvious, obvious retort is that if terrorism is a call for attention against oppression - then why would white Americans become domestic terrorists in America?
They have their own various motivations, ambitions and ideology - they are more than reactions, and as such cannot be dissolved by simply altering government policy alone

What if the guards are terrorists, who guards the guardsman guarding guarsman guards?

Reminds me of when airlines fortified the cockpit so that terrorists couldn't get in, which allowed the Germanwings Flight 9525 pilot to commit suicide with everyone on board - even with a fire axe, no one could break in in time to wrest back control.
In regards to guards, the risk is low that they'd be murderous or join terrorists, provided they were disciplined and trained in accordance with high standards. The only issue is you can't post guards everywhere, as that costs lots of money :[
One of the ways terrorism can succeed as a strategy, is if it breaks the ability of a government to administrate its territory. In the absence of government administration, parallel institutions become the local area's only institution - with such a process happening in Palestine, Afghanistan and Syria, and one can certainly posit that were the US government to falter, various American militias would be poised to establish themselves as the new local authority

[Max™]

Uh, we had a bunch of bitchbois walking the streets with tiki torches "bravely standing up" against some imagined gay black jewish oppressors... in polo shirts and khakis no less... what a bunch of cunts.

[smjjames]

Guys, I have the idea to fix America. What is our big problem right now? The average civility has gone down. So all we need to do is get more civil people in order to bring that average up.

Hence, it is obvious that the solution to Trump and the alt-right is to #AnnexCanada.

We don't need to annex them. If they ask to be a state we legally have to let them in.

I don't think that's how it actually works? I know that's what Texas did, but different situation. We'd still have to split Canada up into it's consistuent provinces, and do something about Quebec? Quebec would probably be all NOPE NOPE NOPE! GET ME OUTTA HERE! even though the US has it's own 'French Quarter' in Louisiana. Nobody speaks French there anymore, but influences are definetly there.

Leadership, is when a person does their best to organize his community toward true commonly collective betterment.  EG, one who acts for the community, for the benefit of the community.
An unscrupulous tyrant is one who pretends to be the former, but organizes the community for his own personal enrichment and empowerment.
The latter tend to have an alarming number of ways of supplanting and then silencing the former.  See also, "Lenin vs Stalin"  It's a tale as old as time.

I'm not making a comment on moral values, or organising communities, or swindling communities. Leadership is foremost the capability to get someone to do something they would otherwise not do. Leaders can use this capability to do whatever, whether it serve the good of those who follow them, or be entirely self-serving. Without this capability however, they are not even a leader.

Apologies in advance for being semantic :[
More on topic, to continue on my argumentation - I would just like to illustrate how you cannot strip terrorists of agency and ascribe whole-heartedly to a marxist view of terrorism as a class reaction to oppression, because it is an ideological one which has little bearing to reality. Jihadist terror is made whether it is under the auspices of governments which have influential or authorial Salafist clerics in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan e.t.c, whether it is made under the auspices of governments which are progressive and secularist in Sweden, Denmark, France, Britain e.t.c., while the obvious, obvious retort is that if terrorism is a call for attention against oppression - then why would white Americans become domestic terrorists in America?
They have their own various motivations, ambitions and ideology - they are more than reactions, and as such cannot be dissolved by simply altering government policy alone

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, not all terrorism fits under the definition of it being a call for attention against oppression.

Uh, we had a bunch of bitchbois walking the streets with tiki torches "bravely standing up" against some imagined gay black jewish oppressors... in polo shirts and khakis no less... what a bunch of cunts.

Theres imagined oppression and theres actual oppression.

[wierd]

AGAIN--

The US is a cosmopolitan society.  It contains people who practice islam.  It contains people who would very much like Sharia law enacted, because they ascribe to extremist islam.  (Just like it contains people who would very much like to institute religiously themed laws and government, because they too are extreme in their religiosity.  See also, those crazy as bugnuts southern baptists.)

With such a diverse demographic to work with, you are almost certain to have individuals with a combination of poor analytical prowess (and thus, easily manipulated to service), and a vested interest in the promised changes, which you can "convince" or "compel" to service.

The unscrupulous action is the very act of such convincing or compulsion to such a kind of service.  It is very much the kind of think a tyrannical oppressor does. Not the kind of thing that a genuinely concerned leader of a community would do.

AGAIN-- it is the manipulation of a person to action, via a shared commonality, such that the "Oppression!" being enacted by the local government abroad, can be internalized as "just the beginning!" of things that "Will happen here too, unless it is stopped!"


As for your semantic quibbling-- here's some of my own.

A slasher and a doctor both know how to use a scalpel.  The doctor uses it to remove malignancies, and does his best to assure that his patient does not experience suffering.  The slasher does it to heighten his own pleasure, and nothing more.

The leader knows how to manipulate people into doing things they would otherwise not do, but does so to improve the conditions of his fellow community members, not strictly for himself.

The tyrant knows how to manipulate people into doing things they would otherwise not do, but does so to keep everyone else down, and to further enshrine his position at the top, and all the benefits that brings him.

For the same reason we do not conflate slashers and doctors, we should not conflate real leaders with tyrants.

[smjjames]

If we're gonna get into a semantic argument, let me throw in the dictionary definition:

lead·er
/ˈlēdər/
noun
noun: leader; plural noun: leaders

    1.
    the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.

Stalin was both a leader (of his country) and a tyrant.

[Max™]

Who said Quebec would be included in any invite or annexation of Canada?

You want a real problem in the world today, there it is: the French.