The Manchester Monstrosity.

[RedJoker]

Another interesting global terrorism trend is that a vast majority of similar attacks are against other muslims. 75% occur in Muslim majority countries.

A sad reality the world over.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I agree. However, the two questions are clearly very closely related. The part of my post which you didn't quote points to an examination of exactly what you're asking here.

I would agree the two questions are somewhat related . But while the specifics can be very different , perhaps some of the overall reasons are not so very different.


However to actually understand the reasons for ISIS, Al Quaeda and the Taliban, we must first understand there is no single reason , the histories and reasons of how and why they came to exist are specific to each organization and situation that gave rise to to them, and (as per your linked suggested) these specifics must be understood in attempting to craft an effective initial response to that particular threat.

However I think that to progress towards reducing terrorism in the long run, will in fact take a better understanding of the possible general and more universal causes and reasons. I think that if we do not acknowledge and begin to address these more universal reasons then we run the risk of actually doing nothing but eliminating a single terrorist threat say like ISIS only to have a different one arise. Or as some would say continue to nothing but play whack a mole

Just like the notion that an act of terrorism is for the sole purpose of terrorizing.
That is view is widely held but is mistaken, and far to limited to have any value or lead to any understanding. Nor does it offer any insight in how to actually counter terrorism.
In any terrorist action there is alway an underlying reason, usually to effect a change politically or socially or both, the "Terrorizing" is a tactic not a goal .

When the terror is the goal, that would be more correctly labeled an extreme psychopathic tendency or trait .

[blue]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I agree. However, the two questions are clearly very closely related. The part of my post which you didn't quote points to an examination of exactly what you're asking here.

I don't agree.

The experience in Indonesia, is different from the Philippines, which is different from Afghanistan, which is different from Yemen, etc. etc. etc.

The fix is going to have to be at the grass roots level. Starting in the teaching.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I would agree the two questions are somewhat related . But while the specifics can be very different , perhaps some of the overall reasons are not so very different.


However to actually understand the reasons for ISIS, Al Quaeda and the Taliban, we must first understand there is no simplistic single reason , the histories and reasons of how and why they came to exist are specific to each organization and situation that gave rise to to them, and (as per your linked suggested) these specifics must be understood in attempting to craft an effective initial response to that particular threat.

However I think that to progress towards reducing terrorism in the long run, will in fact take a better understanding of the possible general and more universal causes and reasons. I think that if we do not acknowledge and begin to address these more universal reasons then we run the risk of actually doing nothing but eliminating a single terrorist threat say like ISIS only to have a different one arise. Or as some would say continue to nothing but play whack a mole

Just like the notion that an act of terrorism is for the sole purpose of terrorizing.
That is view is widely held but is mistaken, and far to simplistic to have any value or lead to any understanding. Nor does it offer any insight in how to actually counter terrorism.
In any terrorist action there is alway an underlying reason, usually to effect a change politically or socially or both, the "Terrorizing" is a tactic not a goal .

When the terror is the goal, that would be more correctly labeled an extreme psychopathic tendency or trait .

I'm a bit befuddled here. I don't think it's simple, and don't think I've indicated in any way that it is–in fact quite the opposite. Everything I've said or linked to is a fairly complex discussion. I have also said that terrorism is by definition a political act.

Probably no matter, one can't go into the details without getting into violations of the forum rules so I'm happy to let it go and hope people get a chance to read, listen, or think about some of the things i've said or linked.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I'm a bit befuddled here. I don't think it's simple, and don't think I've indicated in any way that it is–in fact quite the opposite. Everything I've said or linked to is a fairly complex discussion. I have also said that terrorism is by definition a political act.

Probably no matter, one can't go into the details without getting into violations of the forum rules so I'm happy to let it go and hope people get a chance to read, listen, or think about some of the things i've said or linked.

Oh sorry "my bad" communication wise ... I was not attempting to infer you were saying it was simple or non political
I was agreeing with the "related" part and immediately (without clarifying) jumping further into the more general discussion and posts of some here, not yours.
I think we pretty much agree and I agree the link is well worth the read

[Dronfield]

Very somber mood here in the UK - terrible situation with no way of understanding why this happened.

The bomber was clearly part of a network and police have so far arrested 6 other suspects, with our country now placed on the highest alert level.

I believe the bomber's father was today arrested overseas - in interview showed no remorse for his son's actions.

A minutes silence will be held across the UK tomorrow at 11.00am.

Rich

[magnawing]

Having been a front line witness to terrorism, I can personally state that terrorists will put their cause ahead of themselves, regardless of how obvious their futility is. I was a helicopter door gunner in the Persian Gulf in the late '80s (pre-Desert Shield). Our mission was to escort tankers from the Northern Gulf out to the Indian Ocean. On one escort, a small boat (32') with three individuals aboard began threatening our escorted vessel. When confronted by a fully armed military helicopter and staring up the barrel of my M-60, one of them chose to pull out a WWI era Russian rifle and attempt to shoot the helo (and me specifically)...needless to say, he didn't get a single shot off before being stopped with greater firepower.

So, how do you combat an evil like that? You can't.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kerbie]

Please, guys... we need to stay away from the subjects of religion and politics. I know sometimes it's a fine line, but the enormity of the event doesn't negate the rules. Thanks...

[cotten]

I understand the need to understand the "why" of a terroristic attack like this - it is so that we can better prevent and defend.

BUT, to me, there is no possible "why" that would make it anything other than what it is: pure evil! There is no explanation of why that will change this evil into good, unless possibly that it leads to such evil ending.

Equivocating, that is, using ambiguous language to conceal the truth, does nothing but muddy the water, throw up a smoke screen, hide the fact that intentional murder of innocents is evil.

We must continue to "whack a mole" whenever possible, but this is but a short range solution, temporary at best. The better, longer range answer is overcome evil with good, one life, one mind at a time.

cotten

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by cotten

I understand the need to understand the "why" of a terroristic attack like this - it is so that we can better prevent and defend.

BUT, to me, there is no possible "why" that would make it anything other than what it is: pure evil! There is no explanation of why that will change this evil into good, unless possibly that it leads to such evil ending.

Equivocating, that is, using ambiguous language to conceal the truth, does nothing but muddy the water, throw up a smoke screen, hide the fact that intentional murder of innocents is evil.

We must continue to "whack a mole" whenever possible, but this is but a short range solution, temporary at best. The better, longer range answer is overcome evil with good, one life, one mind at a time.

cotten

Sorry cotten but I could not honestly disagree more fervently with some of what you have said. Declarations like "pure evil" much like "only for the sake of terror" IMO tends to do the opposite of what you contend, and in fact contribute more, not less, to the ambiguity , and muddy-ness, surrounding the situation.

Such declarations accurate as to feeling as they may be, can ultimately serve to conceal, mask , or misdirect objective observation of the larger reality of the situation. Such notions can actually serve to gloss over or ignore all the varied and complex socio-economic- cultural, factors that can contribute to or directly create the desperation, disconnection and lead to things like embracing the fanatic mind set.
Observing the complex nature of the situation, is actually the exact opposite of "equivocation"

The horrific or evil nature of the results of the terrorist action, should not be confused with the causation, the goal, or the why .

As exemplary of "pure evil" the results such actions may be, "pure evil" is not the functional "why" we need to try to understand before we can even begin to address any long term solution.

Continuing to whack a mole (as necessary as that is) without better understanding the problems and having a long term strategy based on better understanding, also runs the risk of simply contributing to an endless cycle.

I know first hand why this is so, I helped train a Delta Force team and their CIA support operatives, to prepare for incursion into Afghanistan . Where they would assist train and supply the Mujahideen, in their insurgency against the Soviets. Unfortunately the lack of an effective long term strategy for what happens after the Soviets were driven out, contributed to opening the door for the ensuing civil war and the tragic and cruel irony of many of the Mujahideen (that we trained, supplied and supported ) ended up supporting and becoming the Taliban

Simply whacking the Soviet mole to counter the very real threat that posed in the region , while not understanding the complexity of the bigger long term picture and refusing to address that, we unitentionally thru ignorance and short sighted action and lack of continuing action, resulted in the US complicit in giving rise to what we now label as a "terrorist organisation". So in a sense it could be said we aided and abetted the rise of that particular " pure evil" ...

[Bob Womack]

'Tis the classic problem of the Aristotelian mindset verses the Platonic:

The Platonic mindset feels that "plenty of evidence" is good enough to form a working hypothesis; that one can come near to understanding a subject and can categorize it without absolutely complete knowledge of every specific case. If necessary, the categorization can be altered at a later date.

The Aristotelian mindset says you can't even begin to categorize without first having access to EVERY SINGLE particular case, and even then there may be one you miss so it is better to leave all categories open because they simply cloud any consideration.

The Platonist sees the Aristotelian as forever sitting on his hands, unable to take a step forward, forever dithering, unwilling to consent to a classification. The Aristotelian sees the Platonist as hasty, hasty, woefully hasty, always willing to go off half-cocked and jump to conclusions, too simple a thinker. Interestingly, that last categorization is one that an Aristotelian is very comfortable with.

Think about it: much of our political debate is colored by this difference in perception. Next time you enter a discussion, consider which type of thinker you are and which type of thinker your audience is. Is it possible that both types of thinking are necessary to the world?* And consider that perhaps speaking ill of another mindset isn't going to convince anyone else or add to the discussion.

Bob

* An hilarious and extreme typification of these two mindsets is shown in the police characters from the Bad Boys movies: Marcus Burnett has anger issues for which he has gotten counsel. He is always trying to understand the motivations of the drug dealer perps he deals with. With the bad guys' gun pointed at him he is still apologetically trying to understand them. Woooo-sah! Mike Lowrey is too busy returning the bad boys' fire and surviving. He'll wait to later to deal with motivations and get his questions answered because he feels you have to have a later to get a chance to ask those questions when someone is shooting at you.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

'Tis the classic problem of the Aristotelian mindset verses the Platonic:

The Platonic mindset feels that "plenty of evidence" is good enough to form a working hypothesis; that one can come near to understanding a subject and can categorize it without absolutely complete knowledge of every specific case. If necessary, the categorization can be altered at a later date.

The Aristotelian mindset says you can't even begin to categorize without first having access to EVERY SINGLE particular case, and even then there may be one you miss so it is better to leave all categories open because they simply cloud any consideration.

The Platonist sees the Aristotelian as forever sitting on his hands, unable to take a step forward, forever dithering, unwilling to consent to a classification. The Aristotelian sees the Platonist as hasty, hasty, woefully hasty, always willing to go off half-cocked and jump to conclusions, too simple a thinker. Interestingly, that last categorization is one that an Aristotelian is very comfortable with.

Think about it: much of our political debate is colored by this difference in perception. Next time you enter a discussion, consider which type of thinker you are and which type of thinker your audience is. Is it possible that both types of thinking are necessary to the world?* And consider that perhaps speaking ill of another mindset isn't going to convince anyone else or add to the discussion.

Bob

* An hilarious and extreme typification of these two mindsets is shown in the police characters from the Bad Boys movies: Marcus Burnett has anger issues for which he has gotten counsel. He is always trying to understand the motivations of the drug dealer perps he deals with. With the bad guys' gun pointed at him he is still apologetically trying to understand them. Woooo-sah! Mike Lowrey is too busy returning the bad boys' fire and surviving. He'll wait to later to deal with motivations and get his questions answered because he feels you have to have a later to get a chance to ask those questions when someone is shooting at you.

After carefully reading your interesting mix of objective and biased interpretation of the two mindsets and realizing the extremes of which are not representative of most of this discussion .
Assuming some of your post was directed at parts of my reply to cotton. I did take the relevant portions about speaking ill, under consideration and will edit my post accordingly.
The rather humorous irony being of course the platonian concept of remaking society into a utopian world, ruled by an elite class where the common man has no say in governance is pretty much ISIS 101