The Manchester Monstrosity.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I read it and it makes some very good pragmatic points. But it also does not (likely because it is focused on a possible solution for the one specific problem of IS) actually address the larger picture and how that might play into what happens if you actually do solve that specific problem. If for example IS would happen to completely dissolve. But none of that larger picture changes, it is a mistake to believe that terrorism will somehow magically stop. The only thing that would stop is IS sponsored terrorism.



In reverse order no rational person thinks we can create a Eutopia and no objectively thinking person would even want that to be possible.
That said:
Man being flawed does not restrict the possibility of progress in reducing the foundational causes for organized terrorism.
Make no mistake organized terrorism does not rise in a vacuum, nor does it only take hold only within religious zealotry . It has and does exists beyond the realm of just extreme religious based fanaticism, historically the word itself was born in a secular uprising attempting to overthrow a monarchy system in favor of a more democratic one.

What hasn't been tried is putting people in positions of power that do not fight to maintain the status quo do not play on fear and insecurity or fantasize and romanticize some rose colored notion of return to the good old days
So yes by extension the larger population definitely plays a role

I believe you are quite incorrect. Documented history reflects just the opposite. That didn't work either, at least not long term.
"people in positions of power" are by their very nature, quite corrupt. There have been some exceptions, but they are eventually replaced by someone who is.
That's the "elephant in the room". That's my opinion and no amount of testimony will convince me otherwise.
Due to Forum Rules, I cannot say what I want to say about it all.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I believe you are quite incorrect. Documented history reflects just the opposite. That didn't work either.

"That" ? Not sure what you think"that" is You are likey mistakenly assuming my statement has some imagined partisan implication, rest assured it is an equal opportunity assessment
Because "actual" history reflects pretty closely my statement.
As far as imaginary history based on alternate facts I suppose anything is possible

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by KevWind

"That" ? Not sure what you think"that" is but
"actual" history reflects pretty closely my statement.
As far as imaginary history based on alternate facts I suppose anything is possible

Ahhh yes, but it was only temporary. Nothing has changed. If it has, I guess I missed it. It is our nature. Maybe not yours or mine to that degree, but it's there in some.

I like the line from the Who's song "Won't Get Fooled Again"
"meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
How very perceptive of them.

[Song Writer]

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb, but doesn't have an air force."

[Nyghthawk]

In 1953 when the US and UK overthrew the parliamentary government in Iran to install the Shah for the next 26 years was that a terrorist act? The Shah darn sure terrorized the population.

When our Air Force bombs a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan is that terrorist? It certainly blew up innocent people.

Not trying to troll, just trying to figure out the definition of terrorism.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I read it and it makes some very good pragmatic points. But it also does not (likely because it is focused on a possible solution for the one specific problem of IS) actually address the larger picture and how that might play into what happens if you actually do solve that specific problem. If for example IS would happen to completely dissolve. But none of that larger picture changes, it is a mistake to believe that terrorism will somehow magically stop. The only thing that would stop is IS sponsored terrorism.

It's true of course, this article is specifically about the nature of ISIS, the reasons why they are doing what they're doing, and what specifically they believe that allows them to commit such atrocities. This gets to the "Why" of the original question, which dealt with this particular incident, very clearly.

It is a long read, but there are lucid nuggets in there and a depth of thinking you'll not find in other places. For me, calling ISIS names (as some in the public sphere seem to offer as a solution) doesn't help answer what I think is a very important question.

As it is said in Sun Tzu, "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be put at risk even in a hundred battles.". Doing otherwise strikes me as folly.

For a broader view on motivations of this and other groups like it, I would suggest searching for "What Do Jihadists Really Want?" and listen to that podcast. Fairly chilling and clear analysis of the phenomenon and how one arrives in a place where they can commit such acts. I won't link it here as it goes into a discussion of topics we can't discuss here, but I think it's a must listen for anyone pondering these issues.

[Gitfiddlemann]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

When our Air Force bombs a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan is that terrorist? It certainly blew up innocent people.

Most definitely not. Unless you believe that our Air Force deliberately targeted a hospital for bombing.

Terrorrism is a planned kill for the sole purpose of terrorrizing. You can lump all the jihadists in that grouping, but also the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. All cowardly acts of murderous violence for no other purpose than to terrorize.
They're all the same.
In Germany recently, some neo-nazis plotted to murder government officials by framing Syrian refugees for the crime.
That's why we have to be vigilant, and keep our eyes and ears open, at all times. It can happen anywhere now, and at any time.
Keep an open mind!

[fazool]

Originally Posted by Nyghthawk

In 1953 when the US and UK overthrew the parliamentary government in Iran to install the Shah for the next 26 years was that a terrorist act? The Shah darn sure terrorized the population.

When our Air Force bombs a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan is that terrorist? It certainly blew up innocent people.

Not trying to troll, just trying to figure out the definition of terrorism.

I understand your point but you are incorrect.

1)When a government was overthrown and a new (even if horrible) leader installed, that is not terrorism. The goal of that action was to have a new leadership.

2)If strategic, the (horrible) bombing was to stop the function of that specific site. If accidental, then it was an accident.

A terrorist attack is one which does not aim to stop the function of something but to incite fear ("terror") in the population as a whole and their fear creates a change.

For example, a terrorist bombs a rail line. Their goal is not to stop the B-train from reaching Philadelphia. Their goal is to frighten people away from the rail lines.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

How is the "larger population" complicit? Just what do you suggest we do that hasn't been tried over and over again for 2000 years and discussed ad nauseum? I'm not being "catty", just asking.
Here is reality:
Man is flawed, flawed men will continue to do evil. You can't stop it.
I'm not suggesting to give up trying, but there is no utopia here.

I'm not sure. Men will continue to do evil as they have for thousands of years. But that doesn't stop the frustration of wanting it to stop.

When we look back in history we can say

"I wish the rest of the Catholics had stood up and stopped the splinter group of fanatics that became the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Catholicism"


"I wish the rest of the German people had stood up and stopped the splinter group of fanatics that became the Nazi party in the name of German superiority"

Etcetera.

This is not a political or religious topic (on my part). I feel that mankind should have learned that just sitting by and letting evil happen is evil itself.

You can be evil by your complicit inaction toward evil-doers.

[aknow]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Last night Jane went to bed as the news came on (10.00) and I said that I'd be up after then news.

I must have dozed off immediately, because I awoke at 1.30 a.m. to see the after effects of the happenings in Manchester.

One man, one crazy, misguided zealot decided that a jolly good thing to do would be to go to a large venue, where there was a pop concert in process, and to detonate his IED as hundreds, thousands of young girls left the theatre and gathered in the foyer.

Thus far his ridiculous action has killed 19 and seriously wounded 59 people - mostly teen and pre-teen girls.

Apparently the so called IS have claimed responsibility. Well, I guess they would wouldn't they?

But ...the question remains..... Why.

What possible benefit would killing and maiming young people do to further their, or any, cause?

This is of course just one of a series of outrages. France, Belgium, Germany, and now Britain.
(Yes it's been going on for ages - London 7.7.05 etc.)

Why?

Raising 3 teen daughters alone, I am sad beyond words. I'm glad the bomb didn't go off inside the arena.

[amyFB]

Originally Posted by AndreF

Most definitely not. Unless you believe that our Air Force deliberately targeted a hospital for bombing.

Terrorrism is a planned kill for the sole purpose of terrorrizing. You can lump all the jihadists in that grouping, but also the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. All cowardly acts of murderous violence for no other purpose than to terrorize.
They're all the same.
In Germany recently, some neo-nazis plotted to murder government officials by framing Syrian refugees for the crime.
That's why we have to be vigilant, and keep our eyes and ears open, at all times. It can happen anywhere now, and at any time.
Keep an open mind!

merriam webster defines terrorism:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion (my bold)

- systematic = ongoing, all the team, regularly occuring
- use of terror = execution or application of frightening and often fatal actions
- a means of coercion = to force someone to do something they refuse to do voluntarily.

The point of interest to me is the terrorist refusal to consider the lack of loyalty they can expect from people who are forced to do something against their wish.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Song Writer

"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb, but doesn't have an air force."

There's some truth in that. Still, terrorism has a fairly clear and concise definition:

Terrorism:
The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

"Unlawful" and "in the pursuit of political aims" are particularly instructive.

[blue]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

It's true of course, this article is specifically about the nature of ISIS, the reasons why they are doing what they're doing, and what specifically they believe that allows them to commit such atrocities. This gets to the "Why" of the original question, which dealt with this particular incident, very clearly.

As somebody says earlier spending time understanding ISIS is playing whack a mole.

The real "Why" is why organizations like Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS take root so easily.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by fazool

I'm not sure. Men will continue to do evil as they have for thousands of years. But that doesn't stop the frustration of wanting it to stop.

When we look back in history we can say

"I wish the rest of the Catholics had stood up and stopped the splinter group of fanatics that became the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Catholicism"


"I wish the rest of the German people had stood up and stopped the splinter group of fanatics that became the Nazi party in the name of German superiority"

Etcetera.



This is not a political or religious topic (on my part). I feel that mankind should have learned that just sitting by and letting evil happen is evil itself.

You can be evil by your complicit inaction toward evil-doers.

Yes, you certainly can be complicit IF you have some form of direct influence in a specific situation such as in making an attempt to stop someone from getting beat up right in front of you and you don't. That's complicity.
There is nothing I can do to stop Jihadists from suicide bombings or anything of the sort. There is nothing anyone can do. That is not being complicit to evil in my book. Talking about it does nothing, absolutely nothing. Wishing the peaceful Muslims would stand up to it does nothing, it's a fantasy. I have no ability to exert any influence in any of those acts of evil. I understand people whose hearts tell them they can affect these outcomes. It's just not reality and I just don't agree with them.
Folks can talk all they want here or anywhere and at the end of the day, it will still go on. Am I cynical? You bet I am. I have seen these horrible evils going on for decades in many forms. I have talked about it, done my civic duty and hoped, all in vain.
Still, here we are in 2017 and the insanity of men continues.
I certainly don't expect other folks to share my feelings.
Maybe someone can tell me what I'm supposed to do about it besides what I've already done.
Please refrain from telling me to "keep trying". I think I adhere to Einstein's line: "The definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results."

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by blue

As somebody says earlier spending time understanding ISIS is playing whack a mole.

The real "Why" is why organizations like Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS take root so easily.

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.