Could you've been a terrorist yourself ?

[Elind]

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 ?

There have been many analyses of suicide bomber's backgrounds, as well as of some live failed ones.

While there are differences ranging from revenge motivation, to financial reward for their families, for the most part they were definitely not raised to believe that was right. Most, if not all,took up fanatical religion after they became independent. The 911 killers are examples, as are the London bombers, dead and alive.

Some say that if you study the Koran hard enough, there are enough hate messages in it to almost force that sort of thinking. Most Muslims are not experts on the Koran.

Of course you might argue something similar for the bible, and most Christians are not experts on that either, but the nuttiest ones claim to be.

So, does a form of insanity cause one to immerse oneself in religious fundamentalism, or is it the other way around?

In either case I don't think the cause lies largely with the parents.

 

[Elind]

The ambiguity comes in the definition of "civilian".

No, there is no ambiguity. The terrorist sees all "others" as potential targets. Civilian means nothing to them. They themselves are civilian.

 

[brodski]

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

Yeah, "bomber" Harris, and Churchill, used terrorist tactics.
That does not necessarily make them morally wrong.

Terrorism is just another weapon of war, perhaps the most nasty, inhumane weapon, but a weapon non the less.

In "civilized" nations the weapons chosen to wage war with, should be proportionate to the force being used by the enemy.

It is conceivable that a war could escalate to a point where the use of "terrorism" was justified, I contend that WWII was one such case.

That stance no more justifies atrocities like the world trade center, any more than A tommy gunning down the Hun in Normandy justifies a punishment shooting in N.Ireland.

The weapons may be the same, but the moral justification is vastly different.

 

[Elind]

Yeah, "bomber" Harris, and Churchill, used terrorist tactics.
That does not necessarily make them morally wrong.

Any such label has to be in the context of the standards and capabilities of the day. To win they had to destroy the opponent's economies. That this involved targeting "civilian" industry was perfectly rational, as was demoralizing it. I don't think the British thought even Hitler was a terrorist for bombing them.

Now we can aim better, so we agonize over missing sometimes.

 

[Freakshow]

Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Berlin etc etc etc

Are you saying there was no military purpose whatsoever in those attacks, and that the entire sole reason for them being carried out was to cause terror in the civilian population?

 

[brodski]

Are you saying there was no military purpose whatsoever in those attacks, and that the entire sole reason for them being carried out was to cause terror in the civilian population?

No, but both terrorising the civilian population, and satisfying the domestic appetite for revenge where major factors in the decision to order those raids. In world war two, both sides used civilian bombing as a "terrorist" tactic, but as I said above, using this tactic can sometimes be justifiable.

 

[Elind]

No, but both terrorising the civilian population, and satisfying the domestic appetite for revenge where major factors in the decision to order those raids. In world war two, both sides used civilian bombing as a "terrorist" tactic, but as I said above, using this tactic can sometimes be justifiable.

The word revenge has more meaning if they did it "after" they won the war.
The objective was certainly to harm the civilian population as that is how one destroys a nation's ability to wage war at all, particularly given that the industry of Germany had been dispersed as much as possible within their cities. If they had conveniently placed all their tank factories in fields miles from the cities (perhaps with bulleyes on the roofs) and had people commute to work, then probably bombing the cities would have been considered a waste of time.

Those who can't see a difference between this and Islamic terrorism simply think the world has always been as it is today, or last week, are...... Well why stir anything up unnecessarily?

 

[Whydoe]

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 ?

I'd say yes. You're a product of the environment you live in. Or maybe I've watched "Trading Places" too many time.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

I think some might argue that a head of state is not normally a legitimate target unless your goal is to get rid of that government entirely, but if we assume a head of state is a legitimate target, then it's pretty easy to make that distinction without worrying if he has a military rank or not.

Addressing the OP, I think anyone raised to be a suicide bomber could become one.

 

[rikzilla]

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.

Yes but I believe that modern terrorism is a by-product of technology, democracy, and the mass-media. Without the ability to flash pictures of a terrorist's handiwork worldwide in seconds their actions would have little...no strike that...would have no impact in any strategic military sense. This is why Kamikazes; although suicidal; were not terrorists. They were a military force attacking a military target to gain a strategic advantage.

Modern terrorism is more about using CNN as a tool to influence democratic politics than Sun Tzu. Or it could be said that terrorists are attempting to affect public opinion which in a democracy is the well-spring from which government policy flows. Without the juxtaposition between military technology, mass instantaneous worldwide communications, and representative democracy, there could be no useful terrorism...or at least not terrorism as it exists today.

If George Washington had ordered English restraunts blown up during the revolution it would have had no tangible effect on anything other than his enhanced status as a war criminal. In fact such an action by Geo Washington would have shown him to be amoral and unfit to be the "Father of his Country". Nowadays such basic morality seems to have little meaning among our terrorist enemies.

-z

 

[Jon_in_london]

Are you saying there was no military purpose whatsoever in those attacks, and that the entire sole reason for them being carried out was to cause terror in the civilian population?

Inasmuch as there was no military purpose to attacking the pentagon and world trade center.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Any such label has to be in the context of the standards and capabilities of the day. To win they had to destroy the opponent's economies. That this involved targeting "civilian" industry was perfectly rational, as was demoralizing it. I don't think the British thought even Hitler was a terrorist for bombing them.

An Islamist extremist could simply argue that their actions are within the context of the standards and capabilities available to them. To win they have to destroy the US (and therefore Israel's) economy. I'm sure targeting and demoralizing enemy civillians is perfectly rational to them.

And the Germans frequently and justifiably refered to British raids as "Terror Bombing" while the British would certainly have refered to German raids in a similar fashion if the word 'terrorist' was used in the same context then as it was used now.

 

[brodski]

The word revenge has more meaning if they did it "after" they won the war.
The objective was certainly to harm the civilian population as that is how one destroys a nation's ability to wage war at all, particularly given that the industry of Germany had been dispersed as much as possible within their cities. If they had conveniently placed all their tank factories in fields miles from the cities (perhaps with bulleyes on the roofs) and had people commute to work, then probably bombing the cities would have been considered a waste of time.

Those who can't see a difference between this and Islamic terrorism simply think the world has always been as it is today, or last week, are...... Well why stir anything up unnecessarily?

demoralising and "terrorizing" the population of Germany was an aim of the allied bombing, just as it was an aim of the Nazi bombing, a secondary aim, but still an aim. destroying industry and communications lines were also aims.

The bombing of Dresden was order for several reasons, firstly it was an important communications hub for supplies to the east, secondly it was an industrial center and thirdly it was in revenge for Coventry. Churchill was particularly angry about the levelling of Coventry, because he knew it was coming, but could take no major defensive actions as that would alert the Germans that their codes had been broken. The revenge angle was also a propaganda tool for the British.

I am not saying that Dresden was not justified, and I am not saying that modern terrorism is justified.

terrorism is a specific weapon of warfare, but its use is not moral justifiable in many cases.
The fact that some nations have historically used terrorism in a justifiable manner no more excuses modern Islamic terrorism (for example), than the fact that the allies in WWII used guns excuses a punishment shooting in Belfast.

I can see a difference between allied bombing campaigns and modern Islamic terrorism, but I can also see that some their methods where similar, this similarity however has no bearing on the morality of either group.

 

[Elind]

I can see a difference between allied bombing campaigns and modern Islamic terrorism, but I can also see that some their methods where similar, this similarity however has no bearing on the morality of either group.

Yes, I agree in principle, but there is also a difference, the way our planet is divided up, between how nations behave and how individuals behave.

What we normally call terrorism these days is ascribed essentially to individuals, or groups of them. We can hardly call Al Qaeda a nation. The difference is in the goals. Nations do unpleasant things, and sometimes dishonorable things too, but in the examples here, they are a matter of national survival.

Our terrorists today could take the approach of lobbying and campaigning for support for their beliefs, but instead they choose to kill all opposition.

Certainly there are some here who say that, for example, the USA (and others) kills in the name of democracy. That may or may not be right in all circumstances, but there is nevertheless in my mind a very obvious difference between those goals and the "terrorist" ones, and I have no hesitation in choosing sides, and that includes accepting certain unpleasantness. Some think we have to pretend that terrorists are no more than common criminal with all the rights we give ourselves.

Of course if we all felt that way there would be nothing left to debate here, would there?

 

[Elind]

An Islamist extremist could simply argue that their actions are within the context of the standards and capabilities available to them.

The key word being standards. Based on your commentary I think you see no difference between theirs and ours, and you confuse actions with standards in a manner that is purely subjective.

You don't want to win, you just want to appear better.

 

[cbish]

Could you've been a terrorist yourself ?

Naw, way too lazy! Plus I don't give a sh$t about enough stuff to bother.

Except, we need more diapers on horses! That, I'd blow myself up for!