• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

You really can't compare North American teenage angst over pimples, pubic hair, broken hearts, or bad grades causing (temporary, in most cases) suicidal thoughts to the motivators behind Islamic suicide bombers.

I know you can't.  I wasn't suggesting that palestinian teens blow up busses because they have pimples.  I was saying that those who are already suicidal don't have much to lose by giving their lives to a cause.  People commit suicide even in a society which dissaproves of it.  How much more likely would they be to do it in one which glorifies it?

In short, I donlt think that Palestinian kids depressed over normal teenage life would cause him to strap dynamite to his chest and blow up a bus. In fact, is he acts like most other kids who are depressed, he'd be so apathetic you couldn't motivate him to clean his room.
Just my Humble Opinion.

I think the Columbine kids would disagree with your opinion.  Suicidal people in groups can be quite dangerous.
 
If they send troops to Iraq, which I hope they do, I just hope they wait a couple of years so that I'm old enough to deploy with that force. ;D
A nice, light LAV based force would be one hell of a contribution.
 
I think you're comparing apples and oranges.  The mentality of suicide (to escape one's problems) is a completely different then that of martyrdom.  Suicide is an end in itself, whereas suicide bombers view their martyrdom as a means to an end.
 
Infanteer said:
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The mentality of suicide (to escape one's problems) is a completely different then that of martyrdom. Suicide is an end in itself, whereas suicide bombers view their martyrdom as a means to an end.

I'm not sure that they look at it quite as a means to an end. More like a means to a new and better beginning. In their mind, they can only reach that higher plane and paradise through the act of martyrdom. Also, no matter the trangressions of the rest of the family, that would prevent them from reaching paradise, a martyr in the family equates to a get out of jail free card for them all, allowing the whole family entrance.
 
IMO Mr. Martin won't send troops to Iraq. He only made the ambiguous comments to the US media because they are softer than a "No", and its time for softer words.
 
Acorn said:
I would pose that not one of the 9/11 attackers suffered distress or desolation, and any duty was questionable.
I don't think that is necessarily the people at the bottom of Maslow's Pyramid that become the terrorists.  However, such people are certainly a cornerstone for justification within ideologies that support terrorism.  Without these â Å“oppressedâ ? (real or imagined) there is no injustice which needs to be righted.  Without an injustice, there is no â Å“justificationâ ? for the means and no motivating factor for someone to become a terrorist.

An ideology which champions the down-trodden may be able to inspire people in better positions to make sacrifices for â Å“the cause.â ?  I believe we see examples of this in the radicalization of some environmentalists, anti-globalisationists, anti-abortionists, etc. 

In the case of Islamic terrorism, preachers of the ideology use religion as an identifiable link to recruit Muslims that may never have experience the injustice they will fight against.  Specifically, recruits with their own means (money, education, influence, etc) would be sought. 

So, what does this all add up to?  There are three parts of a chain here that the war on terror must address.  Humanitarian injustices must be addressed (this will take away all the terrorist recruiting arguments).  Those who preach (and those that facilitate the preaching of) an ideology of hate and terror must be silenced (through political, legal, financial, and/or military means).  Lastly, those who execute acts of terror must be destroyed (police and military action).
 
Suicide is an end in itself, whereas suicide bombers view their martyrdom as a means to an end. &
a means to a new and better beginning. In their mind, they can only reach that higher plane and paradise through the act of martyrdom.

I think were getting closer to the truth here. It's tough for us to comprehend, living in the most privileged of societies, the 'rationale' behind a young person strapping HE to his chest and killing dozens of strangers indiscriminately in the name of one's religion to acquire a ticket to paradise. To us, suicide is a way to end emotional pain and is considered by most to be an irrational thought, and a tragedy when successful. Usually, the suicidal person views their life in an unrealistically negative light. Small problems and issues become inescapable to these kids. In short, they don't view their life in a realistic manner, and act unreasonably, by our standards.

I don't think suicide bombers are irrational in the same sense. I think they fully understand what is at stake, and are probably not 'bummed out'. Instead of their families being horrified at their act (as in a teen suicide in North America), they likely view it as glorious, and plaster his (or her) face all over town. The suicide bomber is a hero to these people. It is something to aspire to.

Suicidal kids want to end their life, and that's it. Suicide bombers want to go to 'heaven' and kill the enemy at the same time. Ending their life is merely a requirement of the task, not the task itself.

Huge difference.

Re:I think the Columbine kids


The Columbine kids don't represent the average suicidal teen. They were likely sociopaths, but that is another discussion for another thread.
 
Brilliant article.  Certainly, fighting criminals via accounting doesn't seem as glamorous, but Elliot Ness made it work ... and "The Troubles" flamed out when IRA fund-raising in the US was strangled ...

I remember the Tamil Tiger fund-raising dinner debacle - another classic example of political correctness in Canada running amok.

It will be interesting to see the results when the sights are finally turned upon BOTH sides of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (i.e. and money stops flowing in from safe havens outside the confict zone ...)
 
... and, as if to prove my point ... Leishman's article fizzles in the final sentence
(i.e. it would have been so much more effective if it had simply said "... world war on terrorism ...")

Believe it: Canada is in al-Qaida gunsights

By RORY LEISHMAN

In an address welcoming President George Bush to Halifax last week, Prime Minister Paul Martin said: "The terrible events of Sept. 11 have redefined many realities in the world and on our own continent. We are in a war against terrorism and we are in it together: Americans and Canadians."

Some Canadians would challenge that statement. They suppose that Canada is safe from terrorist attack, because al-Qaida is targeting only members of the United States-led coalition that have taken part in the liberation of Iraq.

Martin, however, is undoubtedly right. In a report released last month, the Integrated National Security Assessment Centre -- the body responsible for collating the information gathered by Canada's various intelligence agencies -- noted that

al-Qaida has ranked Canada as "the fifth most important Christian country to be targeted, following the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Australia."

Al-Qaida especially hates Canada for having dispatched a few hundred crack troops to help free Afghanistan from the Taliban. While most Canadians honour our troops in Afghanistan as brave liberators, Muslim fascists throughout the world denounce them as foreign occupiers.

In an effort to appease al-Qaida, the socialist government of Spain hastily pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq following the terrorist massacre at the Madrid railway station last March. Some Canadians think the Martin government should do the same: Withdraw all Canadian troops from Afghanistan and all other participation in the overseas dimensions of the war against Muslim terror.

Bush noted in his Halifax address that isolationists in the United States advocated much the same approach at the beginning of the Second World War. They insisted that by keeping out of the conflict overseas, the United States could best avoid attack by the Nazi and fascist powers.

In contrast, Canada, under the leadership of Mackenzie King, promptly entered the war in September 1939 and dispatched troops overseas to take the fight to Germany.

Bush recalled that this brave decision was not universally popular in Canada. King warned his critics: "We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for the enemy to attack us. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada."

"Mackenzie King was correct then," Bush said, "and we must always remember the wisdom of his words today."

Martin, for his part, observed that military dominance will not suffice to make the world safe from terrorism. "We believe that security can only be ensured through freedom of choice, education, individual endeavour and equality of opportunity," he said. "That has been the philosophy behind our actions -- in Bosnia, in Afghanistan, in Haiti; and, we hope soon, in elections in the Middle East and Iraq."

Isn't that wonderful: Martin said he supports elections in Iraq. When will he apologize for having opposed the war of liberation that has made these elections possible?

While Martin grandly affirms: "We are in a war against terrorism and we are in it together: Americans and Canadians," he knows full well that thanks to years of neglect by a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments, the Canadian Armed Forces are now so pitifully small and ill-equipped that they cannot effectively defend Canada from terrorists at home, let alone fulfil Canada's responsibilities in helping to fight the enemy overseas.

Altogether, Canada now has a grand total of just 1,400 troops deployed overseas, including 700 in Afghanistan. The United States has almost 258,000 military personnel on active duty in foreign countries, including about 18,000 in Afghanistan and more than 210,000 in and around Iraq.

Under these circumstances, one can only admire Bush's magnanimity in praising Canada's contributions to the war on terror. "Canada's leadership is helping to build a better world," he told his Halifax audience. "Canadian troops are serving bravely in Afghanistan at this hour. Other Canadians stand on guard for peace in the Middle East, in Cyprus, Sudan, and the Congo."

True enough, but Bush was too polite to state the obvious: Canada, having made heroic contributions to the defence of freedom in two earlier world wars, should be contributing a lot more now to the world war on Muslim terrorism.
 
The "Slave Trade" gambit was, in retrospect, brilliant spinning by Her Majesty's Government of the day.  It allowed the Government to claim the moral high-ground both at home where it could convince war-weary Brits to continue investing taxes in the Royal Navy as well as giving it international cover to board any vessel of any flag any where to verify what they were carrying.  As a result the sea-lanes were made safe, trade prospered and Britannia made a lot of money.

Fast forward to 2003 and America tightens ports to screen out bombs and catches marijuana. It tracks the flow of money and Jerry Adams wants to talk to Ian Paisley about detente in Northern Ireland. It proposes and international Naval construct that would allow America and her Allies to board any vessel on the high seas to verify the lack of nuclear devices on board.  Who knows what they may turn up along with N. Korean drugs being run into Australia.
 
Sociopaths tend not to act in organized groups.  The columbine kids acted together, and while they may have seemed anti-social I wouldn't say they were sociopaths.  Within their own group they functioned just fine, something that sociopaths generaly aren't capable of.  Actually we received a really good briefing this weekend that covered some of the motivation and rationale behind suicide bombers.  The instructor listed all the common reasons that people think influence suicide bombers such as poverty, criminality, religion, and sociopathy amongst others.  He then related the findings of recent studies of suicide bombers which found that the majority of organized suicide bombers/terrorists didn't fit into those categories at all.  That in fact the only time criminality and sociopathy fit into the equation was in instances of individuals acting alone (eg. Oklahoma bomber).  I wish I'd been more awake at the time so I could list some of the specifics here.  It was a fascinating lecture.

Suicidal kids want to end their life, and that's it. Suicide bombers want to go to 'heaven' and kill the enemy at the same time. Ending their life is merely a requirement of the task, not the task itself.

Are you sure about that?  I'm not saying you're wrong...I've certainly never been inside the mind of a suicide bomber...but how can you be so certain of that?  I'd agree that they want to go to heaven and kill the enemy at the same time...that they want to give their lives to a cause which they see as a way of improving the lives of their families and the "downtrodden"....but surely if they weren't suicidal as well, they might at least try to plan bombings which they could walk away from.  Why walk on to a bus and blow yourself up when you can have the bomb on a timer, set to go off after you've dropped it off and left the bus?  As far as I know, Allah gives them 70 virgins for killing their enemies, not for getting themselves killed in the proccess :)
 
48Highlander said:
Sociopaths tend not to act in organized groups. The columbine kids acted together, and while they may have seemed anti-social I wouldn't say they were sociopaths. Within their own group they functioned just fine, something that sociopaths generaly aren't capable of.

Are you sure about this?  I remember seeing something that said that many of the goons of the Nazi death machine were clinical sociopaths, and they got on just fine with eachother.

Are you sure about that? I'm not saying you're wrong...I've certainly never been inside the mind of a suicide bomber...but how can you be so certain of that?

All the interviews I've seen indicates that this is the number 1 reason - hence the relation of suicide bomber with the term martyrdom.

However, I'm sure, like all phenomenon, that there is a whole range of motivations and issues.  But I'd be willing to bet that this one is tops.

Why walk on to a bus and blow yourself up when you can have the bomb on a timer, set to go off after you've dropped it off and left the bus? As far as I know, Allah gives them 70 virgins for killing their enemies, not for getting themselves killed in the proccess :)

See: martyrdom.

They don't call themselves the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade for nothing.
 
Infanteer said:
Are you sure about this?  I remember seeing something that said that many of the goons of the Nazi death machine were clinical sociopaths, and they got on just fine with eachother.

I'm not certain no, but recent studies on terrorism show that very very few of them are sociopaths.  At least that's what the gyst of that briefing was and the numbers seemed pretty solid.  I should probably do a bit more independant research on that.

Infanteer said:
See: martyrdom.
They don't call themselves the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade for nothing.

Might as well be the darwinism-in-action brigade.  I don't know, it just seems to me that non-suicidal people wouldn't intentionaly kill themselves when there's other more effective ways of achieving their goals.  I don't have any studies or facts to back up those beliefs though, so I'll concede that you could be right.
 
thanks Infanteer, you took the words right out of my mouth.

48th: None of us can be sure what is going on in the mind of a suicide bomber, and so we have to go on what we do know (media reports, their own statements, etc). My whole point is that beyond a willingness to kill themselves, suicide bombers and suicidal North American kids have little or nothing in common.

Sociopaths don't always 'work alone'. They can work with others, they just tend not to. The predominant reason I referred to the Columbine kids as Sociopaths was due to their overwhelming desire to cause pain and death to others, with little or no mercy. If they had survived and displayed no remorse (real remorse, not the kind seen in a courtroom), this would also point towards sociopathy.......another argument, however.

I agree with Infanteer. The suicide bomber SEEMS to have a strong desire to go to paradise (don't we all?), believes that Martyrdom is a sure bet to get there, and hates the Jews and more specifically Israeli Jews, ergo, he straps 25 lbs of C4 chest and blows up a bus full of mums and kids. Ending his life is merely a requirement of this task.

they want to give their lives to a cause which they see as a way of improving the lives of their families and the "downtrodden"....

I never said this, and totally disagree. Were talking about hatred, pure and simple. Did Himmler want to exterminate the Jews to better the lives of Germans? No (I think), he hated Jews and wanted to kill as many as possible. He was also a raving sadist, but that's another discussion. Same thing with the average Palestinian bomber (again, IMHO). I'll bet he can spout the latest rhetoric, but would he have a real grasp of the conflict? Would he care? Or would he know all about the issues, as long as it centred around hatred of Jew/Israelis and Martyrdom? I think you'd find that suicide bombers would use this conflict as an excuse to kill Jews/Israelis and martryr themselves at the same time. It's convenient.

Oh, and again with the Columbine kids, as I stated they don't represent the average suicidal teen (thank God). A typical suicidal teen wants to kill himslef, is apathetic to the world, and has little or no motivation beyond suicide. A year planning an assualt on a school and their inhabitants doesn't fall in line with those characteristics. They have little in common with the average suicidal teen as well.
 
Caesar said:
they want to give their lives to a cause which they see as a way of improving the lives of their families and the "downtrodden"....

I never said this, and totally disagree. Were talking about hatred, pure and simple.
But why does a terrorist hate?  It is because he has bought into an ideology that identifies the hated group as the cause of some injustice (real or not). 
 
Caesar said:
The predominant reason I referred to the Columbine kids as Sociopaths was due to their overwhelming desire to cause pain and death to others, with little or no mercy. If they had survived and displayed no remorse (real remorse, not the kind seen in a courtroom), this would also point towards sociopathy.......another argument, however.

By that definition, all muslim terrorists are sociopaths.  Causing pain to others and having no remorse do not make you a sociopath.

Caesar said:
I never said this, and totally disagree. Were talking about hatred, pure and simple. Did Himmler want to exterminate the Jews to better the lives of Germans? No (I think), he hated Jews and wanted to kill as many as possible. He was also a raving sadist, but that's another discussion. Same thing with the average Palestinian bomber (again, IMHO). I'll bet he can spout the latest rhetoric, but would he have a real grasp of the conflict? Would he care? Or would he know all about the issues, as long as it centred around hatred of Jew/Israelis and Martyrdom? I think you'd find that suicide bombers would use this conflict as an excuse to kill Jews/Israelis and martryr themselves at the same time. It's convenient.

Be careful there.  That's the type of argument people use when they're looking to demonize their opponents instead of accepting that there are multiple motivating factors for every side in a conflict.  It's like the lefties insisting that Bush only invaded Iraq because of the oil.

Yes Himmler hated jews and wanted to exterminate as many as possible.  Does that mean that every single German foot soldier felt the same way?  Or did they fight (at least initialy) because they saw their war as a struggle to return the German people to their rightful place in the world?  As has been pointed out on these forums in the past, people in middle eastern countries seem to have dificulty accepting responsibility for their actions and failiures.  It's much easier for them to blame their problems on Israel than it is to say "yeah guys, ok, we're poor because we screwed up somewhere, let's try and fix this".  Because of that, those who attack Israel, and even the bombers who attacked the US, all see themselves as fighting for their people.  Some of them are doubtless unbalanced and would like nothing better than to wipe out all Jews and Americans, but there aren't many groups which have that as their stated goal.  Most of them like to think that they're fighting their opressors in order to bring prosperity back to their people.  They're absolutely wrong ofcourse, but acusing them of doing it out of pure hatred is a little shallow.
 
Re:"Yes Himmler hated jews and wanted to exterminate as many as possible.   Does that mean that every single German foot soldier felt the same way?"

That is why I said 'Himmler', and not 'German soldiers in WW2' or even 'Nazis'. There was a clear difference between the Whermacht and the SS. And within the SS, there was also a difference between individual soldiers, Junior Officers, and Senior Officers. I was very cafefull to indicate an obvious racist/biggot, and not paint the entire German Army with one brush.


They're absolutely wrong ofcourse, but acusing them of doing it out of pure hatred is a little shallow.

So accusing suicide bombers of being racist hate-mongers who's primary goal is the extermination of an entire race is shallow? I guess I'm shallow then. Only a moron would think that suicide bombing furthers the cause of Palestinians struggling for independance. So either every single suicide bomber is a moron, or they know it sets back the cause of the Palestinians but want to kill Jews anyway.

Some of them are doubtless unbalanced and would like nothing better than to wipe out all Jews and Americans, but there aren't many groups which have that as their stated goal.

That IS the stated goal of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and was obviously the goal of the PLO in days past (and probably still is to some within that group). Do you actually believe that Hamas wants peace with Israel, with or without Palestinian independance?

By that definition, all muslim terrorists are sociopaths.   Causing pain to others and having no remorse do not make you a sociopath

I will address this later...once I consult my old Psych texts for the definition of sociopathy so we can move past the Columbine thing.

 
An excellent deifnition of Sociopathy:

By definition these people are at least temporarily very successful in society. They achieve their success by socially unacceptable means and at the expense of the community and its citizens. As Robertson et al pointed out in 1996 a number of entrepreneurs seem to have these characteristics.

These people tend to embrace a particular and often limited belief system to the exclusion of others. They have no doubts. Typically these belief systems have an internal logic. Actions based on the belief system often produces the desired and predicted outcomes. Their views do not stand up to criticism when alternative understandings are used. Views applicable to some activities in society may be given universal relevance and applied to activities where they are clearly inappropriate. These views or their application should not be acceptable to society but society frequently identifies uncritically with their logic and fails to challenge them.

Sociopathic individuals are extremely self-confidant, intelligent, charismatic and persuasive of others as well as themselves. They inspire those around them and create a dysfunctional culture, - often dizzy and disoriented by its success. Success is proof of the accuracy of any claim they make. Words and sometimes bizarre ideas become a substitute for reality. They surround themselves by supporters who worship them and believe they can do no wrong. These loyalties persist even when their world collapses around them. The community admires them. The system of justice seldom pursues them.

They have enormous drive and ambition but few qualms about how they accomplish their objectives. They are focussed. They deal with conflicting evidence, by selective perception, compartmentalising, rationalising, by attacking its credibility, or by demonising the messenger. They are more likely to develop patterns of thought which allow them to indulge in criminal activity or to disregard the interests of others. They can be very successful entrepreneurs.

They surround themselves with admirers. When a group identifies with dysfunctional ideas and adopts these patterns of thinking then they reinforce each other. Dissenters leave or are ostracised. A subculture or even a culture forms. When this culture is very successful, when there are adverse outcomes for individuals or for sections of society as a consequence of beliefs and actions, and when the culture is deaf to reason or facts then I call this process successful sociopathy. We have ready examples in apartheid and the holocaust. Once a successful culture is established it assumes an independent momentum and spreads rapidly. Its acquires a legitimacy and an unquestioned and self evident correctness, which few dare challenge. Nothing is as convincing as success.

The nature of these sociopaths make the empires which they create extremely fragile and vulnerable - a spectacular house of cards which at times comes tumbling down amidst revelations of misconduct.

When these people hold the floor they are persuasive but their ideas do not stand up to critical scrutiny or questioning. They talk only to the converted. They seldom engage in open debate or give press interviews where they are confronted by critics. They employ trained PR firms to present their point of view.


While I wouldn't say that all killers, terrorists, or suicide bombers are sociopaths, I would argue that a far greater percentage of them are than in regular society, and certainly people with sociopathic tendancies would be far more attracted to these kinds of extremism than your average Joe. Were the Columbine kids clinical sociopaths? Perhaps, perhaps not, but they certainly displayed a lot of the textbook signs of sociopathy.
 
It seems that many organized criminal gangs would be filled with sociopaths as well.
 
combat_medic said:
While I wouldn't say that all killers, terrorists, or suicide bombers are sociopaths, ...
Based on your description, I would suspect that the terrorist leadership is likely sociopaths.
 
Back
Top