"What's your motivation, dude"

[Mephistopheles]

Some odd phrase used in some TV-crap, this came to my mind after seeing the 9/11 attacks and the beheadings and all on the news. Just a couple of minutes ago I saw an interview with some obviously (his accent was really funny) Australian reporter or something. He spoke about Iraq and he's the first one I ever saw on a US TV-channel who actually pondered what the drive of those terrorists was. "Know your enemy" he said, and he could not have been more clear imo.

Hundreds of times you hear about terrorists and bad-guys and stuff, but does anyone here actually know WHY they actually do what they do?

[Haltickling]

The problem with this approach is rather obvious, IMO: Terrorists don't follow rational logic. They plan logically and quite efficiently, but their motivation is completely outside any logic we know of.

Islam condemns terrorism attacks. The "Jihad" has nothing to do with what the extremists are making of it. This so-called "Holy War" was declared by people who are radical extremists, not by the legal religious authorities. Like in practically all religious wars, religion serves as a brainwashing motor for totally mundane causes: Greed, hatred, power-lust, politics, psychopathic personality.

Certain political and economic circumstances further the vulnerability to fall under extremist manipulation; the poorer, the more downtrodden, and the less educated the people are, the easier they are manipulated. That's the only angle we can influence, but only on a long-term basis. Meanwhile, we need to catch the existing heads of terrorism movements, but we should be aware that two new heads will appear for each destroyed one. Without the long-term approach, simply chasing current terrorists is futile.

[Mephistopheles]

It's obvious that people == sheep, that's not the point

but what drives a man to blow himself up? Why are those sheikh's so anti-american to begin with? Why do the masses listen to them?

[Haltickling]

Actually, I tried to explain the suicide attack motivation from the historic viewpoint several years ago:

"Even the word 'assassin' is of Arabian origin. A political leader (I think during the Baghdad Caliphate of early Islam) used to abduct young, strong men to his mountain fortress. There he treated them all as if they were in paradise, with all the pomp and luxury the ancient oriental world knew. Like in Mohammed's description, there were fountains of wine (which is only forbidden for living muslims), the finest food hanging from trees, beautiful women (prostitutes actually) ready for as much sex as they wanted, and lots of hashish (cannabis).

From time to time he sent one of them out to attack an opposing ruler, and they all were told they could only return to this paradise if they died in the attack themselves. Because of the excessive hashish consume, these suicidal attackers were called 'hashishin', which became 'assassin' in most European languages. And it's exactly this legend what makes Arabian terrorists the most dangerous ones in the world, because it lives on in their minds."

Seen from a fanatical POV, blowing oneself up in a suicide attack during a "Jihad" results in direct entry into paradise. A place that is infinitely better than the current life.

Much of the hatred towards America is caused by the American support for Israel. The rest is an indefinable conglomerate of political and pseudo-religious motives. America attacked Iraq twice, so America must be anti-Arabic. America stands for alcohol, pornography, and sin, all completely anti-Islamic values. America is a symbol for the entire Western lifestyle, which is anathema to fundamentalist Islam. These motivations can't be defeated by force of weapons or by rational argumentation.

[Mephistopheles]

Very nice story Hal, but it's not the prospect of paradise what drives most of them. Of course, it's a cure for the anticipation and fear of death but it is certainly not the main motivation. Seeing the fact muslims have been prosecuted in China for years and I have never witnessed any massive bombing on a Chinese embassy it must be something else.

Thing I know is that the Israely conflict is a pain in the ass for every Arab. Most Westeners don't realise this.

[MrMacphisto]

Terrorists are nutcases, but the aristocrats that often fund them have more clear agendas. They don't like our foreign policy decisions. They don't like Western influence in the Middle East either. Once they funnel the money toward poor, desperate, uneducated saps that are willing to blow things up in the name of Allah, they spout out religious dogma to get them motivated. So, to be more specific, you could say that religious extremism is what drives these fools. And to think how much better the world would be if these people were secular, educated, and prosperous.... Maybe then, you'd only have the Tim McVeigh types trying to kill us, instead of the Islamic ones...

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by Mephistopheles
Seeing the fact muslims have been prosecuted in China for years and I have never witnessed any massive bombing on a Chinese embassy it must be something else.
You can hardly compare the Chinese Muslims like the Hoei to the Arab Muslims. Arabia is the home of Islam, the Qur'an is written in Arabic, and all holy sites of the Islamic faith are in Arab countries (with the exception of Jerusalem, but that's Arab country in the Arabs' view, too). The Arabs have been fighting against the West ever since the crusades, because the West always tried to conquer their land. The Islam was custom-made for Arabic traditions, and the radical sheikhs/mullahs want to restore the original Islamic values of the Qur'an (written in the 7th century AD). That's just not compatible with a modern society, and therefore not accessible to Western logic.

Many Muslims find solace from their economical misery in Islam and the old Arab traditions. Family and the community means so much more to them than individual freedom, so they are much more motivated to kill and die for their brothers. That's also the main reason why they're not too keen on our style of democracy, because this principle contradicts many of their traditional values, like belonging to a clan. Most people in the West have no idea how disgusting Western lifestyle is to Arab traditionalism.

I've learnt a little Arabic and spoke to the average people on the streets of Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. You'll see a lot of things in a different light once you've actually done that.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally posted by Haltickling
You can hardly compare the Chinese Muslims like the Hoei to the Arab Muslims. Arabia is the home of Islam, the Qur'an is written in Arabic, and all holy sites of the Islamic faith are in Arab countries (with the exception of Jerusalem, but that's Arab country in the Arabs' view, too). The Arabs have been fighting against the West ever since the crusades, because the West always tried to conquer their land. The Islam was custom-made for Arabic traditions, and the radical sheikhs/mullahs want to restore the original Islamic values of the Qur'an (written in the 7th century AD). That's just not compatible with a modern society, and therefore not accessible to Western logic.

Many Muslims find solace from their economical misery in Islam and the old Arab traditions. Family and the community means so much more to them than individual freedom, so they are much more motivated to kill and die for their brothers. That's also the main reason why they're not too keen on our style of democracy, because this principle contradicts many of their traditional values, like belonging to a clan. Most people in the West have no idea how disgusting Western lifestyle is to Arab traditionalism.

True, but the spirit of Jihad is not actually killing people, it's purifiying the inner-self. The word itself is being abused. Furthermore the argument of anti-westernism does not apply on the Chechnya-war/jihad.


I've learnt a little Arabic and spoke to the average people on the streets of Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. You'll see a lot of things in a different light once you've actually done that.

uhm, I'm half egyptian so I know quite well what I'm talking about...

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by Mephistopheles
True, but the spirit of Jihad is not actually killing people, it's purifiying the inner-self. The word itself is being abused. Furthermore the argument of anti-westernism does not apply on the Chechnya-war/jihad.
I agree wholeheartedly! Killing is not a part of Islam, and many (originally religious) terms become distorted and twisted by extremists. The same has happened in Christianity as well. Islam is being abused as a vehicle to influence people to follow their leaders like sheep. The leaders themselves practically never participate in any of the terrorist attacks, they keep their hands clean.

The Chechnya conflict can't be compared with the Middle East conflict, it has a different background. Many of the small republics in the Caucasus mountains strive for independence after centuries of Russian oppression. Here, Russia plays the role of the "West" as a foreign occupant. Many Chechen Muslims fought as Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, they were trained in guerilla warfare there, and they had easy access to weapons. After the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan had ended, those Chechen fighters returned home to continue their fight against their arch enemies, the Russians. Of course, Islam provides a strong bond among them, and it provides the motivation for suicide attacks.

Unlike in the Arab/West conflict, Palestine/Israel plays only a minor role in Chechnya, but they, too, fight against oppression from a superior power. And the Jihad is abused there for political reasons as well, just like in Arabia.

[august spies]

seems to me the root cause is opression, since capitalism is a system of opressors and opressed, it seems we will always have terrorism as long as we have capitalism

[Haltickling]

Sorry august, that doesn't wash. Communist regimes all over the world have oppressed their own people and other nations at least as much as "capitalist" countries (probably much more so!)... Take a look at the different nationalities within the former Soviet Union, at the former COMECON, Yugoslavia, Albania, China (especially Tibet), etc. No, wherever there's some power, there's abuse of power, and there will be discontent people, some of whom are violent. Terrorism has existed as long as history, probably longer. Sorry, there is no simple answer to a complicated issue, even if some people would like to believe that... :rolleyes:

Oh BTW: Many terrorists in history considered themselves "anarchists"!

[august spies]

no capitalists declare some anarchists terrorists. terrorist is just a label thrown around when it can benifit others. unfortunatley it has lost meaning.

and i dont think any of those nations you mentioned, especially china are or were communist, more like state capitalist.

so i withdraw my statement anywhere and say the problem instead is concentrated power, whereas those in power have an ideology of greed and imperialism

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by august spies
and i dont think any of those nations you mentioned, especially china are or were communist, more like state capitalist.

so i withdraw my statement anywhere and say the problem instead is concentrated power, whereas those in power have an ideology of greed and imperialism
We can easily agree on that one! ;)

[MikeMike]

Osama bin Laden's "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," is publically available:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

His cause is imperialistic and fascist. He wants to reestablish a Muslim Caliphate, and for those outside, he wants assimilation or annihilation. I assert that we are at war with the forces of reaction.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by MikeMike
...and for those outside, he wants assimilation or annihilation.
Reminds me of Startrek: "We are Borg. We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile."

[august spies]

mike no one is saying that osama bin ladens cause isnt imperialist. people are quick to jump to conclusions that if you dont support bush you support bin laden. believe me bush's your "either with us or against us" is horrible imperialist propaganda.

those who say 2+2=5 are just as wrong as those who say 2+2=3. there is an entire anti imperialist movement out there opposing both.

Also there is good evidence to show those two imperialist movements are feeding off each other. supporting one is not going to get rid of the other.

[MrMacphisto]

"Are you such a dreamer?
To put the world to rights?
I'll stay home forever
Where two & two always
makes up five"

...an anthem of intellectual isolation leads to a world of imperialistic oppression. The people with the "big ideas" want to control the rest of us for their twisted goals. Personally, I think trusting Bush or Bin Laden is a serious mistake, because the more you learn about each of them, the more they begin to look very similar. The question is... who will change this reality? Who will actually take charge and push us in the right direction for once? We need another Gandhi....

[august spies]

right macp but all the gandhis are being assasinated by the state, from palestine to colombia, turkey to indonesia.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally posted by Flatfoot
making us look like the "evil empire" Well, you can't convince me that securing the ministry of oil when the rest of Baghdad is looted is an act of compassion... :rolleyes:

The US only acts when it's got a way to benefit from it. If that means giving the all-powerful armsmanufacturing-lobby what they want or a shitload of oil, doesn't matter. Anyway around, especially with a republican administration the US does what the large corporations want.

[Flatfoot]

Originally posted by Mephistopheles
Well, you can't convince me that securing the ministry of oil when the rest of Baghdad is looted is an act of compassion... :rolleyes:

The US only acts when it's got a way to benefit from it. If that means giving the all-powerful armsmanufacturing-lobby what they want or a shitload of oil, doesn't matter. Anyway around, especially with a republican administration the US does what the large corporations want.

Sooo.... because it would benefit us, we just ignore the fact that oil is their primary source of income, and let oil refineries be the target of psychotic insurgents who will will destroy it and say it's the fault of the United States? Securing the oil's for their benefit, as well. It's a sort of both sides win thing. Whether or not it's compassionate, it's practical, and a little more practical (when looking at the big picture) than worrying about looting riots. Lesser of two evils.

However, this is getting off the topic "Why do terrorists do what they do?" which brings another question to mind for me:

If these psychos care so much about the well-being of their nation, why target your primary source of income for destruction? I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what Allah had in mind.

[august spies]

flat you seem to lack understanding of the fundamental concepts of international capitalism. Iraqis oil is not for iraq, its for a small gang of iraqi capitalists who collude with american capitalists who than set up oil for consumption in the US.

Its my position that the oil belongs to the iraqi people, all of them.

If you havent noticed, most of the worlds resources are in the global south (as are most of its people) however most of the worlds rich are in the global north and most of the poor are in the global south. Well thats what resources extraction and imperialism is and thats what it does, quite brutaly.

If you look at recent history most of those nations were run by thugs and military dictators who in collusion with US capitalist interests proceded to supress democracy and rape the nation of resources. Iraq will be no different.

The last leader of the Middle East who actually had my crazy idea, that is use the oil of your land to benifit the people of your land, was overthrown with the colusion of the cia and foriegn capitalists (oil). His name was mohammad mossedeq and he ran the first and last democractic government of iran.

Here is the capitalist press reports of that operation:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

And here is a commentary on it by a progressive, tariq ali.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030818&s=ali (http://)


If you were an iraqi your oil consumption would be about 100 times less than an american, Imperialists come to take your oil, which they do very brutally through war and repression, guess what your going to sabatoge just what they want.

[Flatfoot]

I'm not gonna lie. Economics was never my strongpoint, but I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I checked your links, and all that (by the way, you should fix the second link so others won't have to cut and paste.), but when checking here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html), I'm reading that Iraq's primary export is crude oil. If I understand what you're saying, you think Iraq should nationalize their crude oil products, right? How is this more beneficial than exporting it? I know the information on this website requires a lot of transitional changes, due to what's been going on there, and it's been a while since I've studied world economics, but I don't understand how the U.S. protecting the primary export of Iraq, something that should be beneficial to both countries, makes us an evil empire. Are you telling me that we're stealing the oil from them like Imperialist bullies? If so, why am I paying about 2 bucks a gallon for gas? I'm told the majority of that goes to taxes, but where does the money go? Like I said, I was never an economics expert, so please enlighten me. Also, why do oil refineries become the target of terrorist attacks? How does screwing with the economy benefit them? Do these insurgents want to nationalize the oil, and because that's not happening, they decide to destroy it so nobody can use it? That just sounds psychotic, foolish, and childish.

[august spies]

i dont think you understand what is ment by nationalization.

nationlization does not mean do not export. nationalization has nothing to do with the resource itself, it has to do with the wealth created by it. Since most resources are owned by US corporations in the global south, all of the wealth goes to US corporations and not the people of the region.

BP and other oil giants owned irans oil prior to mossedeqs nationalization. What that nationlization did, was take control of the oil and make it more democratic, so western and iranian capitalists didnt solely control it. The reason for this was to basically spread the wealth to the people who deserved it.

The US is not protecting the primary export of iraq, its protecting the primary export for itself and handful of rich iraqis.

Am i telling you your stealing the oil like a bunch of imperialist bullies? absolutely they have been doing it for a 100 years the world over. Here is a favorite speech of mine by a Marine commander from 1933: http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm (http://)

nothing has changed.

Where does the money go for your gas? Well if you add on the war tax your basically paying about 10$ a gallon for gas. Most of the money is going to some very rich people in the oil, government, and arms buisness.

Oil becomes a target of guerilla attacks because most iraqis realize that the US is here for their Oil. They realize they suffered long and hard when the US was supporting saddam, the realize the US dumped the most fuel on the fire to support Saddams brutal and pointless war with iran in which 1millioin people died, and they are smart enough to realize that the US only turned on Saddam when he began to disoby (or misunderstand) orders from the US.

So yes in my opinion i would say most iraqis want us corporate and state hands off iraqi oil and they want iraqi capitalists who want to make shady deals with us oil corporatoins out of the picture. Can you blame them? These people are poor.

destroying infrastructure as a tactic is something im not going to try and judge. But since i believe all people long for freedom, that makes all empires inherently evil.

[august spies]

Link: http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm (http://)

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm


sorry about the links, i think im getting the hang of it

[august spies]

i guess another point that i really should make is that Saddam Hussien was no Mohammad Mossedeq. Saddam did not believe in democracy and helping the people of iraq. HOwever, this doesnt in any way change the goals and ideology of US imperialism. Its going after the resources no matter who has them and what their ideology is.

Most iraqis support neither saddam nor bush and thats the way to go.

[Mephistopheles]

Originally posted by Flatfoot
If these psychos care so much about the well-being of their nation, why target your primary source of income for destruction? I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what Allah had in mind.

Because by far the most money made by the oil producing stuff in Iraq goes to Halliburton and other US corps, pretty much like in Saudi Arabia, the average guy on the street never sees the oil-money.

[Flatfoot]

Alright, now things are starting to make more sense. Wow, it's funny to hear all that coming from a two-time Medal of Honor recipient. He's got some pretty good points. One of the few things I DO remember about Economics is that war is almost ALWAYS good for the economy, and the fact of the matter is the military is basically an enforcer for what comes from the Commander in Chief, nothing more. This is why I normally don't get into politics and debates about the candidates, and whatnot. Regardless of whoever is in office, they're going to be the highest person in my chain of command whether I like it or not. However, I still have no sympathy for terrorist actions. Whatever this war's about or whatever their "cause" is, it's American troops that are shedding the blood, so I'm a bit of a biased audience.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Flatfoot
One of the few things I DO remember about Economics is that war is almost ALWAYS good for the economy...

This is only true assuming that you win the war, and that the repercussions of the war are beneficial to your economy. WWII fit this description well for us, but neither Vietnam nor this second Iraq war fit this. Never assume that war is a good thing. A wise man once said, "The next worst thing to losing a war is winning one." I'm not saying war should always be avoided, but most of the veterans I've spoken with regard war as a last resort.