Terrorism Study
-
The root cause of current terrorism in Middle East is Israel regeme well supported by United States. It will only stop when Jews/Zionist will leave Occupied Palestine, and United States will vacate its bases from Arabian Peninsula.:mad: There is a strong connection between democracy and terrorism. Infact democracy promotes terrorism. Democracy is evil system, and should be condemn first to stop terrorism.:mad: There should not be any geographical influence on terrorism, except that United States is biggest promoter of terrorism.:mad: Yes, religous extremism has a strong connection to terrorism, as demonstrated by exteremist Jews/Zionists in Middle East, extremist Hindus in India and extremist Christians world over (current hotspots are Afghanistan and Iraq).:mad:
Ahmed x86 wrote: The root cause of current terrorism in Middle East is People like yourself - bigotted religious cowards who refuse to accept that their whole civilization has decayed into worthlessness due to their penchant for theism and their intolerace of competing views. Please exticate your head from your anus carefully in order to avoid further brain damage.:mad: Why would anyone waste time arguing with an accountant about anything? Their sole function is to record what happenned, and any higher aspirations are mere delusions of grandeur. On the ladder of productive contributions they are the little rubber pads at the bottom that keep the thing from sliding out from under you. - Roger Wright
-
Brit wrote: "Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers, like mountainous terrain in Afghanistan or tropical jungle in Colombia. This study provides empirical evidence of the link between terrorism and geography," Abadie said. This doesn't wash with me. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that Switzerland, Bhutan, Brasil (except Povo Sen Terra) have miserable geographic barriers but nil terrorism. I think it needs to be better defined what coutries are either exuding terrorism and which are victims. Clearly Saudi Arabia is a big exporter of terrorism. And it is a nation where political freedom is quite screwed up. New Zealand on the other hand only has had terrorism when the French went silly once. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
ColinDavies wrote: This doesn't wash with me. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that Switzerland, Bhutan, Brasil (except Povo Sen Terra) have miserable geographic barriers but nil terrorism. Read it again. Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers What this says is that it is more difficult to eliminate terrorism in places with geographical boundaries. Look at it this way: the places were terrorism exists are places where (1) there is a desire to commit terrorism, and (2) law enforcement is unable to eliminate it. What his statement says is that if Switzerland, Bhutan, and Brasil had terrorism, law enforcement would have a hard time eliminating it. What it does not say is that geographical boundaries increase the desire to commit terrorism. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
I would say that lack of political freedom is a major factor in producing the top layer people like OBL and the lack of political freedom combined with poverty is likely to produce the poor sods that are sent out to die. X| Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Brit wrote: "When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said. Correct me if i am wrong, but is it not the intention of the report that the violence and destruction coming from terrorism is not directly linked to money. In plain english "whether you are poor or rich you can become a victim of terrorism". This sentence here clearly states that a country that is trasitioning towards freedom that chances are they will be terrorized not terrorist. The author also uses Russia and Iraq aas examples of places that are "victims" of terrorism not terrorist themselves. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Are you making three separate statements? JimRivera wrote: Correct me if i am wrong, but is it not the intention of the report that the violence and destruction coming from terrorism is not directly linked to money. In plain english "whether you are poor or rich you can become a victim of terrorism". In plain english this is "whether you are poor or rich you can commit terrorism". JimRivera wrote: This sentence here clearly states that a country that is trasitioning towards freedom that chances are they will be terrorized not terrorist. The article states elsewhere that most terrorism is directed towards the same countries where the terrorists are from. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan both have internal terrorism problems. They are sources of terrorism (both national and international) and victims of terrorism. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Okay, I'll write it again: "two Palestinian suicide bombers were children of millionaires". ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Out of how many total? Just because you find an exception, does not mean that you can say poverty and suffering are not determining factors. Also i already posted stating that this study looks at the victims of terrorism not the exporters. Basically, your article has no weight, and by your way of thinking, you are as bad as that other guy in this post; spitting out lies and half-truths so that others may listen. You want to stop terrorism, try being a bit more unbiased and objective, if not you are as detrimental to the effort as the terrorist themselves. The truth is that yeh there will be some rich guys funding the terrorism, but not that money has nothing to do with it. You ever see how these people live, i mean poverty is not the only factor but i will say it probably feeds there anger. If you had to watch your wife and children die cause of hunger, would you still be the peace loving guy you are. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Are you making three separate statements? JimRivera wrote: Correct me if i am wrong, but is it not the intention of the report that the violence and destruction coming from terrorism is not directly linked to money. In plain english "whether you are poor or rich you can become a victim of terrorism". In plain english this is "whether you are poor or rich you can commit terrorism". JimRivera wrote: This sentence here clearly states that a country that is trasitioning towards freedom that chances are they will be terrorized not terrorist. The article states elsewhere that most terrorism is directed towards the same countries where the terrorists are from. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan both have internal terrorism problems. They are sources of terrorism (both national and international) and victims of terrorism. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
I read the whole article and you are really stretching it, in fact most of the article focuses on who is affected by the terrorism and then they speak about the factors that make it harder to stop them. The hatred itself is not from poverty, its usually some asshole propogating his BS to people to poor to know the difference (or feed for that matter). Not all terorism would be stopped if the world was free from poverty, but i bet it would be real hard to find followers. You see my freind you are too close minded to walk in the shoes of your enemy. None of these people have it ass good america does, in fact Afghanistan lost over a million babies to malnutrition before we occupied them. So lets say I just spent the last couple of months watching my ife and children slowly suffer and die for lack of food. Then OBL comes with his BS, i transfer the anger of losing my loved ones to the West. Now say i am here in the US, kids playing PS2, wife out shopping, my family is content and safe. Now OBL comes with his BS, i have no anger to utilize, therefore the chances of joining decrease. To have anger you must have fear and suffering, it does not pop out of thin air. And the fact that you found "one" case out of millions tho prove your point, should show you how wrong you are. I agree money is not the only factor, its more about insuring people hapiness and safety. Open you mind freind and perhaps one day terrorism can be abolished. Discovery consist of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought -- Albert Szent-Györgyi Name the greatest of all the inventors: accident --Mark Twain
-
Wouldn't a true theoretical anarchy aquaint to the same as a true theorectical democracy as in theory the only difference would be that in one there is a nominal leader? pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
That sounds sensible. I'm unsure though, I'll have to think about it. :-( Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Ahmed x86 wrote: The root cause of current terrorism in Middle East is Israel regeme well supported by United States. No one blames Muslims for being angry over Israel, but why don't you try addressing the problem in a civilized fashion?
Stan Shannon wrote: No one blames Muslims for being angry over Israel Well, the Israelis do. :rolleyes: -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
-
Wouldn't a true theoretical anarchy aquaint to the same as a true theorectical democracy as in theory the only difference would be that in one there is a nominal leader? pseudonym67 My Articles[^] "They say there are strangers who threaten us, In our immigrants and infidels. They say there is strangeness too dangerous In our theaters and bookstore shelves. That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves." Rush
pseudonym67 wrote: Wouldn't a true theoretical anarchy aquaint to the same as a true theorectical democracy as in theory the only difference would be that in one there is a nominal leader? Nope. Democracy works on the premise that the majority of the people reach a consensus for everything (in reality, this is false, but "true" democracy is supposed to work like this, and since we're talking theoretically...), while anarchy works on the premise that you, as an individual, decide without the need for consensus. In an anarchy, you'd end up with leaders too, since such a society would be governed by "the laws of the jungle". So, there's no real difference between democracy in terms of leadership. The choice of leader(s) in a democracy is just more formalized. :) -- Weiter, weiter, ins verderben. Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben. I blog too now[^]
-
Brit wrote: "Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers, like mountainous terrain in Afghanistan or tropical jungle in Colombia. This study provides empirical evidence of the link between terrorism and geography," Abadie said. This doesn't wash with me. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that Switzerland, Bhutan, Brasil (except Povo Sen Terra) have miserable geographic barriers but nil terrorism. I think it needs to be better defined what coutries are either exuding terrorism and which are victims. Clearly Saudi Arabia is a big exporter of terrorism. And it is a nation where political freedom is quite screwed up. New Zealand on the other hand only has had terrorism when the French went silly once. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
ColinDavies wrote: New Zealand on the other hand only has had terrorism when the French went silly once Do you consider the sinking of the Rainbow warrior as a terrorist act? :confused: no, I'm not claiming France did never terrorist actions. Having periods of our history called "The Terror" and "the White Terror" would be sufficient to demonstrate the opposite, without even mentionning some dark episodes of the colonial times, as the crushing of the revolt of Madagascar in 1947 for example.
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
ColinDavies wrote: New Zealand on the other hand only has had terrorism when the French went silly once Do you consider the sinking of the Rainbow warrior as a terrorist act? :confused: no, I'm not claiming France did never terrorist actions. Having periods of our history called "The Terror" and "the White Terror" would be sufficient to demonstrate the opposite, without even mentionning some dark episodes of the colonial times, as the crushing of the revolt of Madagascar in 1947 for example.
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
K(arl) wrote: Do you consider the sinking of the Rainbow warrior as a terrorist act? IMHO: If the NZ population were to be polled on this I believe a significant majority would call it a terrorist attack. It was pretty much a big event in NZ news for years both the bombing and what happened with the handling of the two agents. The bombing is considered as our only terrorist incident, which isn't surprising really for a small nation distantly located from neighbours. Although I'm sure that there are people in France who believe the incident was justified. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
K(arl) wrote: Do you consider the sinking of the Rainbow warrior as a terrorist act? IMHO: If the NZ population were to be polled on this I believe a significant majority would call it a terrorist attack. It was pretty much a big event in NZ news for years both the bombing and what happened with the handling of the two agents. The bombing is considered as our only terrorist incident, which isn't surprising really for a small nation distantly located from neighbours. Although I'm sure that there are people in France who believe the incident was justified. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
Many here condemned the action and a minister lost his position, but I don't know if the condemnation was because of the action or because of the failure to sink this boat properly and without being caught (what a shame!). At that time, I remember being shocked by making such an action in the harbor of a friendly country, moreover failing to do it cleanly. The sinking by itself didn't move me more than that, but regarding to NZ, it was unbearable. IMO, the goal was to stop Greenpeace to mess with our nuclear tests in the Pacific, not to use terror as a political mean. And AFAIK, the killing of the photographer was an unfortunate accident. Anyway he's dead now, may his soul rest in Peace.
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
-
Many here condemned the action and a minister lost his position, but I don't know if the condemnation was because of the action or because of the failure to sink this boat properly and without being caught (what a shame!). At that time, I remember being shocked by making such an action in the harbor of a friendly country, moreover failing to do it cleanly. The sinking by itself didn't move me more than that, but regarding to NZ, it was unbearable. IMO, the goal was to stop Greenpeace to mess with our nuclear tests in the Pacific, not to use terror as a political mean. And AFAIK, the killing of the photographer was an unfortunate accident. Anyway he's dead now, may his soul rest in Peace.
Fold With Us! "Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms - Groucho Marx, 1890 - 1977"
K(arl) wrote: IMO, the goal was to stop Greenpeace to mess with our nuclear tests in the Pacific, not to use terror as a political mean. I don't doubt that for a momemnt in regards to the intention. However the effect did cause minor terror. I for one at the time believed that NZ should have taken a stronger stance against France. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.