Could you've been a terrorist yourself ?

[El Greco]

What if at birth you were given to a family that raised children with the ideal of a suicide bomber ? Would you become one yourself ?

Or do you think that the same genes that made you a rational thinker would express themselves anyway and you would escape the route your family chose for you ?

It is a question that comes to mind every time I see a terrorist attack. We believe we have nothing in common with terrorists, but how much different would we be in another environment ?

 

[Tmy]

Terrorist? Yeah sure. Not a suicidal terrorist, Im too selfish for that.

Is it such a leap to "terrorist". Look at what people freak over, the envioronment, gun laws, foreclosures, divorce, people get violent over that stuff. Toss in religion and its a powder keg.

If your country was run over by occupiers would you fight them wh terror tactics? Im sure most of us would at least think about it.

I remember during Gulf War 1 they showed clips of bombers blowing up buildings and cheering as they did it. I thought it was poor taste to cheer the death of people, even when their the enemy. Isnt that terroristic thinking? You think of Group X as the enemy and you just want them dead.

 

[Fendetestas]

I'm not sure I like this kind of questions. I voted no. What I mean is that, had I been born in an enviroment like the one you describe, I wouldn't be me at all. It reminds me of a passage of a famous novel by Miguel Delibes (El camino) The book tells the life in a Castilian village. One day, and old woman enters the church and starts talking to the priest. "Father, I've heard that in England most people are protestants" "That's true" "So, had I been born there, I would probably be a protestant now, wouldn't I?" "eh...yes, I think you probably would" The woman starts to cry and says "Then I want to confess my sins father, for I would be a protestant if I had been born in England!!!"

The novel, of course tells it much better, and if you know the carachter of the old woman you would find it funny, I was just trying to say that I don't think the question is a very logical one (no offense intended of course)

 

[epepke]

What if at birth you were given to a family that raised children with the ideal of a suicide bomber ? Would you become one yourself ?

Or do you think that the same genes that made you a rational thinker would express themselves anyway and you would escape the route your family chose for you ?

It is a question that comes to mind every time I see a terrorist attack. We believe we have nothing in common with terrorists, but how much different would we be in another environment ?

I voted "no," and I'd like to explain.

As far back as I can remember, my "family" seemed to me to be these really weird people that I just happened to live with.

I've never felt like part of a family and likely never will.

I'm sure that if I had better parents I might have felt more like being part of a family, but I can't really see how any family could have really got on with me. I was just too weird. I caught onto things and figured out things by myself way too fast. Those tendencies were probably accelerated by my parents who were, after all, "of the Theatre" in New York to boot and so played a lot of games in the Eric Berne sense. But I think I would have been an outcast or a joker in any family. I don't think it would have been possible to indoctrinate me into suicide bombing. Of course, I developed a lot of suicidal ideation over the years, but I think an attempt to indoctrinate me into suicide bombing would, ironically, have prevented that.

In other words, I might have offed myself, but certainly not for some Great Cause™.

 

[Tmy]

Thsi question is liek asking "woudl you kill soemone".

rationally we'd proabably say know. But who knows what people do when a situation comes. Im sure the biggest pacifist would still be capable of killing if confronted by a muderer in her home.

Its easy to say youd never be a sucide bomber when your relaxing in your safe home and living a free life.


Heres a question. Woudl you sacrifice your life for your child/loveone? If "yes", then you can be suicidal.......for the right cause.

 

[El Greco]

I don't think the question is a very logical one

I think you have overemphasized the fantastic element. In its essence it is a very simple question that has been asked already millions of times. In fact we may be able to answer it definitely some time. It could be rephrased like this: "How much are our genes responsible for what we become, and how much is our environment ?"

It's simply a social biology question.

 

[Fendetestas]

I think you have overemphasized the fantastic element. In its essence it is a very simple question that has been asked already millions of times. In fact we may be able to answer it definitely some time. It could be rephrased like this: "How much are our genes responsible for what we become, and how much is our environment ?"

It's simply a social biology question.

OK, that's what I thought. Then I still say "No". I think the enviroment is as responsible as our genes of what we become, but "terrorist" is a very strong word.

 

[El Greco]

"terrorist" is a very strong word.

Yes, and I think that this may be a bias to the voting, although this is exactly what I wanted to see.

Had I asked "could you've been a fanatic muslim" the results would probably be much different, since this is a less charged characterization...

 

[Chaos]

OK, that's what I thought. Then I still say "No". I think the enviroment is as responsible as our genes of what we become, but "terrorist" is a very strong word.

So...would you have become a freedom fighter...or guerilla...or whatever...if you had been born in other circumstances?

I say you would have. I would have, too...

I think everybody could become a terrorist, under the right circumstances.

 

[Fendetestas]

Yes, and I think that this may be a bias to the voting, although this is exactly what I wanted to see.

Had I asked "could you've been a fanatic muslim" the results would probably be much different, since this is a less charged characterization...

I don't know... I've been raised by a catholic family, attended catholic schools and by the age of 15 I was already an atheist. It's not the same thing I know, and the education I received is nothing compared to the brainwash people in those countries are submitted to (or basque children in some families and even schools I'm afraid), but I still don't think I would ever become an innocent killing fanatic, religious or independentist.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Let me see- You either think not getting enough sleep turns people into terrorists, or the upgrade to 3.53 failed to fix the poll bug.

I reckon if cultural attitudes towards suicide are positive, it's more likely to be seen as acceptable behaviour. Think mediaeval Japan for instance. Personally I carry little of the Christian mental baggage about suicide being sinful. I see many situations where it might be a positive act, either for the individual concerned or his family etc. Many VCs are awarded posthumously, for bravery which can only be described as suicidal. This is Britain's "highest military honour".
Suicide murder - ie deliberately killing yourself to get past security checks and inflict damage on an enemy- seems a legitimate tactic to me, or at least as legitimate as bombing civilians from 40,000 feet.

The question one must ask is whether the war is justified in the first place. If no, then no. If yes, then why stop at anything? If someone hurt me , or certain people I am favourably disposed towards, then I would do whatever I could to hurt them back.

What I do not accept, is that random acts of terrorism, such as suicide bombing a bus, give adequate return for the cost. Economic terrorism such as introduction of livestock diseases or many other tactics achieve a far greater effect for the effort and cost involved.

 

[Darat]

To the OP - no one has been able to find a pathology* that explains suicide bombers so I think it's at least likely to be one of those terrible facts we have to accept - "we" are all potentially capable of such acts. (See signature.)


*So far at least.

 

[Freakshow]

So...would you have become a freedom fighter...or guerilla...or whatever...if you had been born in other circumstances?

I say you would have. I would have, too...

I think everybody could become a terrorist, under the right circumstances.

The line "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is such a load of horse s***. Terrorism lies in the method, not the goal. Your goal is the liberation of your society? Great. Fight all you want. But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror. Our freedom fighters (the founding fathers of the US) didn't use terrorist tactics. Did you ever hear about George Washington calling for people to go start blowing up restaurants at lunch time in England? No, you didn't. Because being a terrorist has nothing whatsoever to do with WHY a person is fighting for their cause. It is all about the method.

 

[jjramsey]

I reckon if cultural attitudes towards suicide are positive, it's more likely to be seen as acceptable behaviour.

Except that terrorist organizations that use suicide attack campaigns often operate in cultures where suicide is not acceptable. This is why they try to portray their suicide attacks as "marytrdom" operations.

I'm still reading the book Dying to Win, but given what I've read so far, the answer to whether one could become a suicide terrorist depends on the answers to these questions:

• Could you ever find yourself demonizing the enemy such that you see it as a monolith, blurring the distinction between civilian and military?
• Would you be willing to die for your community?

 

[Jon_in_london]

But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror.

Hmm... this would certainly make the US and British bomber offensives the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history.... n'cest pas?

 

[Freakshow]

Hmm... this would certainly make the US and British bomber offensives the most horrendous acts of terrorism in history.... n'cest pas?

Which ones deliberately targeted only civilians, for the sole purpose of creating terror?

BTW...you do have somewhat of a point, but I almost entirely disagree with it. But this subject here is why I am glad that weaponry has advanced to the point where we no longer have to level most of a city just to take out a couple of factories and one military base.

 

[LW]

The line "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is such a load of horse s***. Terrorism lies in the method, not the goal. Your goal is the liberation of your society? Great. Fight all you want. But don't deliberately target civilians (including children), with the sole purpose of inflicting terror.

The ambiguity comes in the definition of "civilian".

Suppose that you have two otherwise identical countries that are under foreign oppression and the only difference is that in one country the leader of the occupying forces is called a "governor" and has no official military rank and in the other the leader is a "general governor" who is a soldier.

If you go by the view that only soldiers are legitimate targets, then you get the absurd situation where one enemy leader is fair game and the other is not.

I can't draw a clear dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate targets. There are cases that are clearly on either side: attacking children is a big no-no and ambushing the commander of enemy military forces is OK. But I can't come up with a single policy that I could comfortably apply to all cases.

As for the OP, I don't think that I would have grown to be a suicide bomber in any environment. But if I had been born 80 years earlier I might have been one of the "traitors and terrorists" that operated at the time. My great-grandfather was.

My ancestor was one of those people who called themselves "Activists" and whose goal was independent Finland. As far as I know, gread-grandpa's main involvement was that he transported a couple of dozens of young men on their way to Germany to receive military training and he also gave food and shelter to other Activists during their travels.

But some of the Activists went further than that and made terrorist attacks. Though, as terrorists they were quite inept. None of their bomb attacks against Russian administration caused any noticeable damage.

The Activists were also for vigilante justice and wanted to terrorize potential informants into silency. Their actions are a great reason why I'm not fan of people taking law on their own hands: in the general area where my ancestors lived there three supposed snitches were murdered. All well, except that one of them was completely innocent, the second was blackmailed into informing, and only one was really an active participant in the Russian administration's efforts against Activists. Not a great hit rate.

 

[kalen]

"Terrorist" is a label. Applied liberally enough, anyone can be called one.

Some people just like to narrow the definition enough so that the "other guy" is a terrorist and not themselves.

It's just semantics in the end.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Which ones deliberately targeted only civilians, for the sole purpose of creating terror?

Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Berlin etc etc etc

 

[Tricky]

"Terrorist" is a label. Applied liberally enough, anyone can be called one.

Some people just like to narrow the definition enough so that the "other guy" is a terrorist and not themselves.

It's just semantics in the end.

True. As long as there is a single non-civilian or legitimate target anywhere in the area, or even believed to be in the area, you can always claim you are not a terrorist, but just willing to accept a high proportion of "collateral damage".

That is similar to what the US said when it bombed a village where it thought Saddam was hiding.