Ironic Win For Terror
 

Wouldn't it be ironic if through inspiring fear of a biological attack, and having more research into biological weapons, an accident released a biological agent and caused the devastation that was feared in the first place? It's like the ultimate win for terrorism because they have achieved their goal simply through inspiring terror.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ts-the-us.html

Ever hear of Lyme Disease? Off the tip of Long Island, just accross Long Island Sound from Old Lyme, Connecticut is Plumb Island, where it is believed that Lyme Disease originated.

Twelve Monkeys anyone? I thought it was a great movie...as well as a plausible doomsday scenario.

With a little research it's pretty easy to see that harming large populations is a very easy thing to do these days. The only defense we really have is removing peoples reasons to harm each other (and no, I don't mean this in the "The Giver" sort of sense...).

And since people are constantly looking for and finding new reasons to harm each other, the future is looking scary. :(

As I look through history the only thing older than peoples desire to harm each other is peoples ability to believe the world is going to hell in a hand basket. Nothing we go through today can be compared to the waring states period of China or Japan. Nor can it be compared to the 100 years war, Napoleonic Wars, WWI or WWII. Nor do maintain the colonization, and mass murdering, of weaker cultures. People are far more connected than ever, and most people are keenly aware of all the problems the world contains.

With the globalization of culture, people are beginning to understand each other more and more. I honestly think that we can achieve a level of peace never before realized as the world puts it's mind to it. I think many of the world citizens are rapidly headed in that direction.

*step step* --Okay, off my soap box. Back to reality...

And many are determined to stop it. Despite our current wars, it may turn out that we're just experiencing one of those relatively peaceful periods that crop up between big wars. In a few years, the world will reach peak oil production, after which it will slowly but steadily decline while demand (thank you, SUV drivers) continues to rise. Combine that with religious extremists on all sides and you've got big trouble coming.

this might be too far off a tangent...but reading this I'm reminded of an art piece I'm working on. Basically it's an allegory between the Greek's use of steam power, and the developed world's use of the internet.

Forums like this are productive, but sadly the majority of the web is used for gluttony. Remind you of the Greek's steam powered toys?

Projects like folding@home are a step in the right direction. I don't mean to imply that there's a lack of benevolence on-line, it's just overshadowed by porn and snake oil.

Absolutely. I run it as a screen saver in addition to the console, which I keep running as long as the computer is on, unless I really need as much power as I can get. With all the extra processing power we have these days, everyone should be running it or something like it.

Oh good! I'd almost forgotten about this project. I've got an iMac at home that can be hooked up to this and help almost constantly. Are there any other projects that work like this?

These do:
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~cparnot/xg...ord/index.html
http://www.d2ol.com/
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/

Keeping the balance
 

.
Intelligent and balanced input so far.
Let’s keep it that way, as this is a thread topic that could easily slip over the edge...

All right? :)

Thanks for the links cwtnospam, I'll take a look into those.

I think the World Wars may have sobered humanity somewhat. More recently man's inhumanity to man has been ethno-political guerilla warfare between peoples rather than nations per se - Viet Nam, the Balkans, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia, 9/11 et al. That doesn't mean they aren't horrific; it just means that they aren't world encompassing; the British, for example, are not cowering behind blackout curtains while bombs rain down on them; they are getting on with life in the face of a nasty attack by a relatively small group of people just as they did during the "troubles" with the IRA. It is my hope that wars will not get any worse than that and that the west will not continue to believe that they can be won by modern warfare methods. Defend against them, marginalize and isolate their protagonists for sure, but attack them with a modern armed force? - doesn't work.

Hope if you like, but none of the wars you mention have even moderately powerful nations opposing each other yet, but the carnage is already immense. All it will take is a little more nuclear proliferation, and the real fireworks may begin.

I don't want to defend US actions over the last 7 years. We've done some amazingly stupid things. Even without our blunders though, the human race constantly demonstrates a willingness to blow itself up. The problem is that the more we progress technologically, the more people who have the potential to accomplish that.

Hmm as much as I try to be an eternal optimist, and hope that I've shown that in my posts, I do have to agree with one thing: It only takes a small group of very determined, very angry and very intelligent people to really mess things up these days.

I still am of the opinion that major nations will not fight each other. Why? To much interconnectivity economically. China can't attack us, who would they trade with at that point? They'd lose us and all our allies as trading partners. The same goes for most big nations, attacking another nations is a lot like attacking yourself.

When you think about it, why have people always blown each other up? There are a lot of religious and political justifications. But, more often than not, it comes down to economic motivations. People are after land and resources. These days trade allows you to grab resources far more effectively than war (IMHO). So, the basic reasoning behind human action remains the same, we've just found that peace is more effective, that's all.

But, what of the small angry groups? That I have no answer to, does anyone have an idea?

The problem really is that we don't really know how to respond to these "very determined, very angry and very intelligent people". I'm far from convinced that the draconian security measures and significant invasions of privacy and security of person that has characterized the west's responses to date are anywhere near commensurate with the real risks.

I agree completely with this point. I think the world has become much too interdependent to consider attacking a valued customer for exports or source of imports. Aside from the "very determined, very angry and very intelligent people", where are the problems areas -- they are usually in places that are NOT connected with the world economy or who barely have an economy beyond the local market for produce and cottage industries, or whose major market is one we don't approve of (Cocaine, Opium) even though the locals depend on it for an income.

I'm not sure land and resources were really at the base of Somalia, Rwanda or the Balkans. In each case the objective seemed to be to eliminate the other guy for racial or religious ends - "cleansing".

That the "Irish Problem" persisted for nearly a century in spite of the sophistication, intelligence, level of education, and relative prosperity (in a global sense) of the peoples involved tells us that we haven't a clue how to deal with "very determined, very angry and very intelligent people".

Trade doesn't much help impoverished groups with the same effectiveness and efficiency as wealthy nations. When these impoverished groups feel wronged, for legitimate reasons or otherwise, war is a more effective option than trade to correct the wrongs.

As long as there is a large economic disparity between wealthy nations and poor nations, there will be war in the world.

I think the problem lies in the fact that our technological knowledge grows at a much more rapid rate than our wisdom to use that technology responsibly. I don't see any correlation between developed nations and technological wisdom. I don't believe selectively limiting access to nuclear technologies decreases the potential for war. IMO, it accomplishes exactly the opposite.

I don't see any correlation either. In fact I'm always amazed at the assumption that the benefits we've seen from the industrial revolution will continue on indefinitely. Somehow it's become conventional wisdom that the enormous impact we have on our environment will not come back to bite us.

As for limiting access, the more chances you have for something to go wrong, the more likely it will.

Generally true. However, mutually assured destruction is a better deterrent when it comes to nuclear war, unless we find a way to close Pandora's box and get rid of ALL the nuclear weapons.

If we can't get rid of all the weapons, allowing development minimizes the advantage of using the weapons by any given nation.

Not in a world with suicide bombers, Christians looking to bring about the Rapture, and religious leaders of all types trying to enhance their own political power. MAD only works with reasonable people.

One does not acquire power in even a "rogue state" by being irrational. This is especially true in non-domocratic states. Mind you, being rational does not imply benevolence, but it does imply an extent of predictability.

The nations that seem most likely, to me, to use nuclear weapons already have them. Some of their enemies, however, do not, which increases the likelihood of a nuclear attack.

I like this notion, very astute. What I wonder is where the tipping point is. Surely some countries have more to gain from war than trade (yes, I'm going back on a former point, I like to think I can still learn). Otherwise Africa would make no sense what-so-ever. What draws the line between war being more advantageous and trade being more advantages.

As for you comment on social cleansing, I agree to an extent. But I tend to think that those are overlying excuses for an underlying resource insecurities. It's still a competition for resources in my mind. It's just that when your in the same country you can't use the oh-so-convenient "the other country is the enemy" excuse. So you draw lines across other boundaries.

Yet, there are truly hateful people, that cannot be denied. I suppose the real question becomes, what allows hateful people to get in charge? Do people under stress simply yearn for the simplicity of black and white hatred? I don't know, honestly. But I think that's headed in the right direction. Thoughts?

Africa makes sense to me for the same reason that Al Qaeda makes sense, or street gangs make sense to me. You have poorly educated, but slightly more ambitious than average people at the top inciting uneducated, highly indoctrinated young men to commit murder on their behalf. They do it in the name of patriotism or religion, but it's all the same, really. It's the way these things have always been, and when one of these groups gets a hold of nuclear weapons, they're going to use them.

The recent bombings in Great Britain were attempted by a group of MDs. Hardly poorly educated!

The real key to terrorism is this: without a huge organized army, a group of fanatics of any stripe engage instead in psychological warfare. Their acts are really directed at the audience (the general public) - not at the victims (who by the norms of a conventional war are relatively few in number).

Democracies in which freedom of the press reigns supreme are terrorist's best targets because fear sells newspapers and puts bums in seats in front of TV sets, so the media will hype every incident and fan the flames of fear in the general population. We get round-the-clock coverage of every public detail repeated day after day, and in these days of cell phone cameras there is always video to show of every incident.

As this happens, a culture of fear develops among the general population that permits, even encourages, the loss of and threat to our normal freedoms. We all take our shoes off before boarding an airplane, and feel, quite unreasonably, safer instead of indignant. Bear in mind that we do this because one deranged person crossing the Atlantic on a scheduled airline flight (Richard Colvin Reid (aka Abdul Raheem)) tried to ignite a bomb carried in his shoe!

Terrorists with causes that are based on religion or ethnicity (or both) have a further leg up in the West as well, because of the overwhelming surge of political correctness in our cultures in the last two decades. Profiling of any kind is a major no-no, so 80-year old grandmothers must suffer the same indignities as much more likely suspects in spite of the fact that virtually all of the terrorists identified to date were young, single men. The terrorist's message touches and terrifies us all, inconveniences us all, gets our names on no-fly lists, etc. And this happens in spite of the overwhelming probability that no act of terror will ever involve you. Fear is enumerate, and terror is irrational - that's what this "war" is about.

Since we are unwilling (and rightly so, in my view) to muzzle the press, our own free press institutions are working for the terrorist cause, and defense against terror is an excuse for all kinds of indignities. We find ourselves in nasty conundrum; hoist, as it were, by our own petard.

An exception that proves the rule. Most acts of terror are not committed by doctors, and I have no doubt that these particular doctors were not well respected in their field.

Some may not even be doctors. There's a tendency in the press to label people as more than they are to sell the story. The Taliban for example is routinely referred to as "students" but how many of them could solve a simple algebraic equation, understand basic high school physics beyond bomb making, read or write music, or intelligently discuss any history not directly related to the Quran?

I'll grant you that -- one (or perhaps it was two) of them were refused admission to Australia before entering England.

But if you think the leaders of that movement are uneducated or unintelligent you're sadly underestimating them - it's the peons who die for sure, but they were urged to that by folks who are neither stupid nor uneducated. bin Laden certainly went to university and his number one guy was educated as well. To become a fanatic is not a left-brain logical decision; it's an emotional committment. One does not become a fanatic by reading a holy book either; one has to be convinced by a respected teacher that certain phrases in it mean certain things and are to be taken literally.

Yes, the top guys are educated, but that's not to say that they're well educated. They're educated well enough to be dangerous, but not well enough to make reasonable arguments in favor of their views. That's why they need to use terrorism. It's the only tool they know. Combine that with Religion's (ALL of them) tendency towards intolerance of any opposing viewpoints (forcing creationism into science class for example) and you've got a perfect recipe for use of the bomb. All that's left is for them to get it.

I think it's easy to think of this as an Extremists vs the West situation, when really, these guys want to kill you because you don't believe as they do, and it doesn't matter to them whether you're a westerner or an arab muslim from a different sect. They aren't reasonable, they're not going to be reasonable, and they have taken over a country before: Afghanistan.

Just for some flavor, I would like to note that you can be awfully intelligent and completely insane at the same time. Well educated is also a relative term. I think I can see where you're coming from cwtnospam, but I wonder what well educated means to you. What would a well educated person know that stops them from terrorism?

For starters, a well educated person would know that there are much better ways to accomplish their goals. They would also know that terrorism is counter productive in the long run.

What have the efforts of Muslim extremists from the early 1970s until now accomplished for their side? Sure, they've gotten us to take airport security more seriously, but what about the Muslim world? Have they achieved anything? Remember, they're goals are not to erode our freedoms but to increase their power. So far, they can't even manage to repeat 9/11 in even a small fashion, despite the fact that we've done a very poor job of securing our borders.

I don't want to imply that it's just Muslims who go off the deep end though. I think that there's really no difference between them and Christian fundamentalists who kill doctors at women's clinics, and only a small difference between them and people who try to change school science curriculums to include religious beliefs taught as fact.

Here's what really worries me: Muslim extremists are not unique, and people aren't moving in one direction or the other. They're the same now as they've always been, and they've always used whatever weapons are available, and most often without thinking about the consequences.

I disagree entirely with both of these statements. Intelligence, religious ferver, and common sense are completely uncorrelated in my rather long experience. I had a very intelligent [PhD engineering] colleague who is an extremely gifted machine designer and a Creationist at the same time. Our working relationship was based on leaving religion out of our interactions: he would eschew preaching at me, and I would eschew whacking him upside the head (figuratively, for sure, but that was how I put it to him).

Well for just one thing, they've substantially altered the way "the rest of us" behave in many more ways than doffing shoes at airports. If any of them utters a word, the whole world listens. They've got our attention. Just as small children often do, misbehaving gets attention, and any attention is better than none. Happens every day.

Careful here - I've carefully avoided this slant or the thread will end.

You keep coming back to A-Bombs. This thread is about more than that.

So he was more intelligent than a terrorist then!

That wasn't my question. Getting us to alter behavior for security purposes does nothing to benefit them. How have they benefitted from their actions?

Scientists are always looking for the one equation that explains everything because they believe that everything is connected. I believe they're right. I don't believe you can separate like actions and behaviors simply because the people performing them are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

A-Bombs are only part of it. If you look back at the last 40 years, terrorism has gotten steadily more vicious. That isn't because of us, but because it isn't working, and the frustration leads to more anger. More anger leads to more desperate acts, and that doesn't bode well for the future, with or without A-Bombs. Technology provides lots of other nasties that can be just as deadly.

Thanks. I wish I knew where that tipping point is.

I suspect that it comes down to the relative costs of war versus trade and the relative benefits. I don't think there is a static line, but rather a dynamic relationship that changes with the various nations.

Also, different cultures can place different values on the resources. For example, let's say nation A has a need for a certain kind of lumber but possesses few of the trees, and nation B has rainforests with a relative abundance of the tree from which the lumber is harvested. If nation B values the trees over the lumber and steadfastly refuses to offer them for trade, nation A might feel obligated to obtain the wood by force, invading nation B and taking control of the real estate.

To be honest, I don't remember commenting on social cleansing (for the record, I'm personally against it.) Could you please point me to that post?

I agree. Here in the US, I've known people to rationalize theft because they were stealing from a corporation or company. Or they might use race as justification to try and cheat someone out of something that they coveted.

I think most leaders are hateful in one capacity or another. Unfortunately, leaders like Gandhi are exceptions rather than the rule (no pun intended). People tend to fear what they do not understand. From there it is fairly easy to manipulate people into hating what they fear. It's easier to lead people into ethnocentrism than it is to lead them out of such a mindset.

We become appalled by such hatred when we cannot relate to the motivation behind it. Whether we see someone as a freedom fighter or a terrorist depends more on whether we agree with their politics than anything else. The US has tacitly approved terrorism against our "enemies" or by our allies for years. This approval has been to varying degrees, of course, ranging from active (albeit covert) approval (anti-Castro) to toleration as a political concession (Chechnya). Yet, the US claim to lead the "Global War On Terror," and have spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to that end. Are we (USA) fighting hatred or promoting it? Or both?

I think if Gandhi had been US president (yes, I realize he's long dead) on September 11, 2001, far more effort would have been made to understand the mindset of the groups that attacked the WTC/Pentagon, and less on vengeance. As it was, many Americans lashed out at anybody of Middle Eastern descent, despite the attacks originating from a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the world's Muslim population. Even today, almost six years later, it is not uncommon to hear, at least here in Florida, anti-Muslim rhetoric espousing hatred for all things Islam.

Of course Islam is not the only recipient of widespread hatred in my country. Many hate homosexuality and homosexuals, promoting their treatment as second class citizens. Race based hatred, while declining in the past fifty years, is still very real. Some Americans even have an irrational hatred of science, fighting to have Intelligent Design taught as a "credible alternative" to evolution in Science classes, despite a complete and total lack of even the first shred of scientific evidence to support ID as a valid scientific theory. Still others hate communism and socialism for no reason other than prolonged exposure to Cold War era propaganda. Some hate the rich because they believe they exploit the lower classes. Some hate the poor because they believe they are lazy leeches trying to get a free ride through life with a welfare check. There's also Democrats that hate all things Republican, and Republicans that hate all things Democrat. There's even libertarians, who hate all things government related. Many Americans passionately hate Bush, who, it's safe to say, has a very, very low level of fondness for "liberals."

It's very easy to hate but much more difficult to understand.

Our leaders do little to rectify, stop or condemn such hatred. Many actually condone and promote some of it for political gain. Why promote understanding when it's so much easier to exploit hatred? The citizenry isn't generally appalled by this hatred because we are used to living with it, having seen it most, if not all, of our lives.

Hateful people come to be in charge because most people, in some capacity, hate. It's simple probability.

I don't think you will find many educated people that can do all of the above. I'm gigged by the read and write music criteria. I know many students that, while having passed College Algebra by the skin of their teeth, could not apply the information to a simple algebraic equation. A surprising number of them are even incapable of performing long division. Bomb making is a bit beyond the level of high school Physics.

Some of the Muslim students I've known have Biblical knowledge far exceeding even some Biblical scholars, and are in no way ignorant of non-religious history. These folks aren't Taliban, but I seriously doubt we can accurately describe Taliban with such a broad brush, either. I would expect that for every one as ignorant as you claim, there's another that could make most any of us "educated folk" feel like ignorant fools.

Fighting to the death for something you believe in, regardless of how those beliefs came to be, does not imply ignorance. As a former soldier, I would describe it as courage, quite admirable even as I disagree with the underlying beliefs and the violence itself.

You don't think it requires a reasonable argument to convince someone to strap on a suicide belt?

I've only read The Art Of War a dozen times or so, but I'm pretty certain than Sun Tzu would consider the modern use of terrorism against much larger, more capable enemies to be very, very smart and effective warfare tactics. The cost:effectiveness ratio is extremely low, especially compared to US tactics.

I don't believe terrorism is the only tool they know, I think it's the only strategy they can afford to sustain. I don't judge the intelligence of a soldier by his army's budget. Civilian casualties of a car bomb aren't any less fortunate than civilian casualties of a "smart" bomb.

I agree (with your whole post, not just the part I quoted), but would add that offensive violence, not just terrorism, is counter productive in the long run. Unfortunately, there's a lot of "educated" people who do not understand this, some of which hold important positions of power.

And really, this is the question I was trying to ask before. What is it that a person needs to know to be an effective, non-violent leader of a country (or people) that desperately needs to be saved. (And try not to flame each other, I like this thread, I don't want it shut down.)

I think the most important thing they need to know is that if you're the one starting the violence, you've already lost. Iraq aside, it takes a great deal of provocation to get a Democracy united enough to fight you, and if you've managed to do that, you've made some major mistakes. Even Iraq had spent a dozen years trying to shoot down American planes before the invasion.

The second thing you need to know is that you will never get everybody to think as you think they should, and the idea that you can kill them for not following your theology is ridiculous.

I think it requires deception (72 virgins) and moral bankruptcy to send a kid off with the express purpose of killing himself and innocent people. I don't see that as warfare with collateral damage, just thugs trying to convince themselves they are men.

There are lots of tools that are much more sustainable. Civil disobedience for one. Boycotts for another. If they don't want western ways, no one is forcing them to adopt them. The reality is that these guys can't use any tactic but terrorism because they don't have the support they need to accomplish their goals. Terrorism won't let them win, but it does delay their defeat for as long as they can keep killing innocent people.

Which UNSC resolution authorized the US to maintain No Fly Zones in Iraq? I'm fairly certain there was no such authorization. In other words, The US planes were flying in sovereign Iraqi airspace. Iraq had every right to fire upon them (assuming there was no UNSC resolution).

Agreed. I don't know of any country that's killing people off due to their religion, at least not in recent years. Saddam was a secular leader, despite being a Sunni. He may have ruled with an iron fist, but he was able to maintain stability, and quell uprisings far far better, and with a lower cost in terms of both money and lives, than the occupying forces that removed him from power. He was rational and predictable.

Iran, on the other hand is a theocracy, but it is a theocracy that was voted in by the people.

I've always been curious as to where the 72 virgins promise came from. I've never, ever heard a Muslim mention it (and I often go out of my way to discuss religion with non-Christians, especially Muslims). Does anyone know where in the Quran I can find mention of this?

These are options when you are fighting your present government, and not when fighting an armed occupying force. Having an armed occupying force forces your hand to violence. Iraq did not have a terrorism problem until they were invaded.

If they did not have local support, they would be easy to crush. They have all the support they need. Terrorism already allowed them to "win," in the sense that they have not been and almost certainly won't be defeated by the foreign occupiers. However, "win" is not a very accurate term, since, as Sun Tzu said, "No nation has benefited from a prolonged conflict."

I'm not sure what goals they have other than getting the US out of Iraq, and out of Iraqi government. Until those two things happen, there's sadly little hope for peace in Iraq.

I think the first and foremost requirement is a non-apathetic citizenry. It's not enough for people to need to be saved. They have to want to be saved. If the underlying desire for change isn't there, no leader, no matter how charismatic, no matter how intelligent, no matter how well educated, no matter how well meaning, can thrust that change upon them.

If a leader has such popular support for change, then I think it would come down to having the vision and wisdom to always see the non-violent option, and the fortitude to maintain the struggle through the inevitable hard and difficult times.

Leaders like this are usually shot, but once in a while, the seeds they plant live on.

I think Einstein would have been such a leader, had he chosen to accept the Presidency of Israel when it was offered to him. I believe the Middle East would be a much different place today.

If the Iraqi military wasn't killing their own people, there wouldn't have been a no fly zone. In any case, there was a cease fire, not an end to the war, so if you want to be technical, the US was free to do whatever it liked.
I wasn't talking about countries. These terrorists are killing more Afghanis and Iraqis than they are Americans.
Then why are those people resisting that theocracy?
Iraq is just a side show, and a recent one at that. Terrorists have been killing people for at least the last 40 years, invading army or not. It's been unnecessary and unproductive.
Sure, they have enough support to mount a terrorism campaign, but no more than that. They produce nothing, and help no one. Not even themselves.

And what were their goals before 2003? I doubt they know.

I don't want to make this about Iraq. Clearly that was a huge blunder, but it's still just a side show to the real war.

The Quran doesn't mention 72 virgins. What the actual Quran says is translated roughly as "Verily, for the Muttaqun [righteous], there will be a success (paradise); gardens and grapeyards; and young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; and a full cup (of wine)" That's in An-Naba 78:31-34.

To find mention of 72 of something (not virgins), you have to look in the hadith. Hadith number 2,562 in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi can be translated something like, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

The hadith are traditional sayings that some people trace to Mohammed, but they are not considered to be as reliable as the Quran.

Trevor

And Iraq was free to defend herself.

And they're there because the US is there.
Do we know that the majority of them are?

Agreed. The same can be said for pretty much every act of violent aggression for even longer. Small minds create big wars.
I'm not a local in the sandbox, so I won't claim to know just how much support they have from the locals. I do know that without a significant amount of local support they would be completely ineffective. We're discussing them halfway around the globe, so they're doing something right from a tactical perspective.

Peaceful life with the family? What are most young adults' goals before they find themselves defending their lives, families, homes, cities and neighbors? Hopefully you and I will never know what it's like for someone to come along and instigate a civil war in our own country. However, we can't really understand their perspective until we at least understand that that is their perspective.

They can't very well take on the world's best budgeted military (by a large, large, large margin) in head to head, toe to toe battle. Nor would any competent military leader lead them into such. They fight the way they can with the resources they have. Apparently their military leaders feel that attacking locals who cooperate with Americans is an effective strategy.

They'll keep it up until the US leaves. They're soldiers, just like our guys, only without the budget and the luxury that goes with it.

What is the "real" war? Anyone who decides the US is the enemy (or decides to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars) is a terrorist or a member of the "Axis of Evil." Anywhere the US sends troops will end up being a huge "terrorist training camp," just like Iraq, because anyone resisting will be labeled a terrorist. It's easier to demonize them if we don't have to think of them as soldiers who have families back home that love them and miss them, but are proud that they would fight a much larger and better equipped army in defense of their homeland.

Remember, US soldiers have not always had uniform uniforms and a single central command. US soldiers have also relied on guerilla tactics. Their budget was limited, but they were still soldiers.

Interesting. Thank you.

Agreed. Let’s not make it about Iraq, nor the policy of single countries or regimes -- Western or non-Western. Because that is likely to overheat this thread in a hurry, and that will definitely make it history.

-- ArcticStones

A few thoughts come to mind. Costa Rica is a country not much in the news because there is hardly any trouble there -- at least not compared to their neighbours. Interestingly, Costa Rica has no military! In fact it was the first country in the world to constitutionally abolish its army.

The current President of Costa Rica is Óscar Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to bring more peace to the region. It is worth noting that the constitutional provision limiting the president to one term was changed due to popular demand. Mr Arias was reelected in 2006.


I have often thought about the following: The list of permanent members of the UN Security Council is virtually identical to the list of the world’s arms exporters:

The USA
Russia
China
France
The United Kingdom

Consider how the work of the United Nations might be different if no arms exporters could take a seat in the Security Council, or even that only avowed non-militaristic countries were allowed represented there. (That would, by the way, exclude Norway, which is also a major arms exporter.)

Would not the United Nations find it easier to contribute to world peace, and regional peace, if it was easier to ignore the "legitimate interests" of the superpowers/major powers/major arms exporters?

In other words USA, Russia, China, France and the UK might be replaced by -- Iceland, Costa Rica, Botswana, perhaps Bhutan and the Vatican.


It’s a nice dream! :)


With best regards,
ArcticStones

on that note... I dont see any reason why there shouldn't be a world wide ban of guns... and explosives... (except the military)

Really.... WHO needs a gun.. or explosives? unless you want to kill someone?..

I bet it would save a lot of lives!


and isn't it odd that the UK export a lot of guns... but you would struggle to get one in the UK (thanks god)... not like America where they give them away as incentives to open a bank account!

Yes, with the full knowledge that firing on US planes might bring a full scale invasion at any time.
They were killing people in soccer stadiums in Afghanistan long before the US arrived.

As I said, they do have some support, and as you have said, terrorism is the only thing that support can sustain, so it can't be very great.

If that were true, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan.

They wouldn't need to if they truly had the support of the people. Even in Iraq, the majority of people don't ask for the US to leave, even though they don't like having us there.

They're thugs who kill women and children for not believing in the Quran in the exact same way that they do. They're most angry because they get no respect, yet they deserve none.

The US has troops in much of Europe, parts of Asia, and other countries in the Middle East. None of them have been labeled terrorists. It's easy to demonize people who act like demons. People who travel to a foreign country like Afghanistan to fight the US for trying to improve the lives of people in that country are acting like demons.

US guerilla tactics never included murdering innocent civilians.

Somehow, for example, Mustafa Kemal, Ataturk managed to organize and secularize Turkey which does not take part in the Jihad. Turkey has it's problems, but rampant extremism doesn't seem to be one of them.

Please...!
 

.
Please step back from this duel on Iraq!
Appropriate PM notifications have been sent.

See also my Post 45.

Would it be ironic that we are trying to discuss ways to create a peaceful society and people are already arguing with each other?

My other question is this: how does one make the populace ready to accept a message of peace? It's not enough to have a peaceful leader, as was mentioned before. The people need to be ready to hear the message.

As an example, Ghandi's drive for non-violent protest was greatly enhanced by the non-violent Hindu tradition (at least Hindu has precedent for non-violence) But there are nations that lack this kind of precedence, how do you infuse it into a society, that's the question.

But we're not trying to kill each other. ;) Debate is a good thing. It's how we arrive at consensus.

Interesting article, I wonder how true it really is. I know that we have always had a biological warfare department even though we tend to not talk about and deny its existence at times. A friend of mine, his father has worked for various government agencies, and he is a bio chemist. The things he would talk about were pretty scary.

I recently read how staph infections are up like 500% (just pulled that number out of my head, but they are up) because of how much the staph and staph-like bacteria are spreading so rapidly.

then comes in the human factor. I am actually reading the Quran right now as we speak. Really it preaches peace more than anything and a lot of it can be paralleled to christianity. The problem is, that people exploit and interpret certain parts in a way that differ from others, and they use that to exploit people's minds. This is done through every and all religions, it's nothing new.

Now factor in economy, capital, money, and power, because all of these things tend to go hand in hand. War has always been fought over something other than religion, be it land, resources, whatever. Religion has just been a tool to motivate the masses to the cause.

We need to stop becoming consumers, and always wanting what we don't need to survive. If everyone stopped consuming as much gas as we did on a daily basis would the world be a better place? When was the last time you walked to the store? When was the last time you walked to do anything? When was the last time you were like, I don't really need to buy this so I won't. I still don't own a large, or even HD TV. I don't have cable TV. In fact I don't even watch TV. My TV plays movies and video games that is it. I have blockbuster online and I use that. If I have to watch something on TV I just go to my neighbors house who has all the channels.

Regardless though, human beings are just flawed, and I have accepted that. Terrorism is nothing new, and it is definitely not new to the US either.

Not arguing, discussing! :-) I've actually been impressed that the discussion has remained civil.

I'm not sure it's possible to actively accomplish this. Often it's little things that snowball, resulting in huge effects, far beyond anything intended by the initial action. In Chaos Theory, this is often referred to as the butterfly effect.

Yes. The decrease in pollution would be worth it.

I walk to the store once or twice each day. I walk most places. I put so few miles on my vehicle lately that my insurance costs me about $.75 per mile, maybe more, with relatively inexpensive premiums. I've driven significantly less in the past eight months than I used to drive per week.

Of course, I don't walk for altruistic reasons. I just prefer not to drive when it's not necessary.

Yeah I live in the city so I can walk most places, and do so when its nice out. Mainly to save money and wear and tear on my car, plus getting a little exercise never killed anyone.

We have this "dependency" on foreign oil which is really a farce if you think about it. We could work with countries like Venezuela, Iran, Kuwait, Canada, Russia, etc to help make a stable steady market of oil to drive down the price and take that money and do better things with it than line the pockets of rich men and politicians.

here is an interesting article of how oil determines a relationship between US and them.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2005/619/35164

There was another interesting article on group dynamics. You have to be a subscriber to see the full article so I have tried to summise it.

They made me do it

They made me do it
11 April 2007
Michael Bond

"... any environment in which an individual is subsumed into a group or is reacting to what others are doing... a group mentality can easily take over, leading people to act out of character or adopt extreme or risky positions... an analysis that considered 25,000 social psychology studies... concluded that almost everyone is capable of torture and other evil acts if placed in the wrong social context... if we don't understand the power of group psychology we can never hope to combat evils such as torture, suicide bombings and genocide, or indeed avoid making bad decisions or committing despicable acts of our own."

"... Groups can create environments that diminish individual responsibility, but they can also exert their hold in another way. "There is a significant difference between mob behaviour, in which anonymity and imitation are the important factors, and the direct influence of a group, which involves personal allegiance to leaders and comrades,"... Groups that recruit suicide bombers are among those that use the latter approach, building a sense of community and encouraging feelings of responsibility towards other group members: the "brotherhood mentality". Here, individuals take responsibility for their own actions within a culture where suicide bombing is seen as glorious. Then, by recording farewell messages to family and friends either on videotape or in writing, they make a commitment to their own martyrdom that they cannot renege on without losing face."

"... It is not surprising that people should be so susceptible to the dynamics of their social environment. After all, we evolved as social animals in environments where cooperation and group cohesion were key survival tools... the peer pressure associated with being part of a group can lead people to deny the evidence of their own senses."

"... Another situation in which we are all prone to assuming a strong group mentality is at times of crisis... It is understandable that people look to their own group when they feel threatened, but the result can be an escalation of tension... Iranian college students who were prompted to think about their own death showed greater support for suicide attacks against the US than they would have otherwise... Pyszczynski found that he could change the attitudes of his Iranian students by convincing them that public opinion in their country was opposed to suicide attacks. What's more, in similar studies with US students he first increased their appetite for conflict with Arabs by getting them to think of their own death, and then found he could reduce it simply by showing them photos of family life from many different cultures or reminding them of their own group values, such as compassion, and of what they have in common with others."

Oh yeah I totally agree with that. I am very grateful that I live in a nation where I am allowed and encouraged by some to question everything I know. Even though I have many problems with the US government and I do not agree with lots of people about politics, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I am sure if I were born on the other side of the world into a Buddhist or a Muslim nation I could totally be a different person.

Persecution comes into play though as well. I think in some areas it could be considered instinct to conform to the popular belief just on survival alone. I mean when someone strikes us our immediate instinct is to cover up.

Group dynamics definitely are a part of it. Not to make this discussion into a flame war, but a lot of religious people I know are religious just on the fact they were raised that way. They were always around a group of people who in a sense, to put in a nice way, "passed their beliefs down."

I write this from a male perspective, because men wage and cause wars -- testosterone related, I'm fairly certain. From a survival of the species point of view, men are expendable; women are definitely not.

Now imagine yourself, if you are not, between the ages of 16 and 25, say, and admit to yourself (if you're male) that sex plays (or played) a major role in your thoughts, aspirations, and dreams at that age. Perfectly natural.

Now further imagine, if you are not, that you are heterosexual, but that the only women you are permitted to see, spend time with, speak to privately, and even know are your immediate relatives: sisters, mother, grand mothers, and that you are forbidden to so much as touch, let alone see any part of, any other female of your age or older. You have no female acquaintances, and are not permitted to have any.

If you live at the lower margins of a polygamous society, you may never marry, never have your dreams fulfilled - there is a shortage of eligible women and you have very little to offer. Young women will always choose the security of a multiple marriage to a wealthy man before they'll choose you.

Finally, imagine that your religion assures you that, in certain very special circumstances, it is not only permissible to kill, but is indeed commendable; a duty to your religion. Should you be killed while trying to fulfill that duty, it is still very commendable, and in fact, even then you will enter heaven and have free and full access to all the beautiful women you ever imagined in your wildest dreams.

Now all it takes to trip the normal balance between self-preservation and martyrdom is the firm conviction that the cause is just, that the circumstances demand your participation, that your fundamental beliefs are in danger. "They" didn't have to make you do it; it sounds like a dream fulfilled. All you had to know were two things: that the cause is just and commendable, and that all your sexual frustrations would be evermore banished from your existence.

It appears that we urgently need to open as many McDonalds as possible, in the shortest amount of time, in order to defuse tensions around the world.

Heh, talk about biological weapons!