Root Cause Of Terrorism

[AisA]

In another thread, I posted a link to an article that shows how Muslims in Egypt (and probably throughout the middle east) succumb to the propaganda blaming America and Israel for terrorism.

Go HERE and watch clip 789 for an example of such propaganda.

Apparently, the notion that Sharon staged 9/11 for Bush, so he could carve up the middle east and hand it out to his buddies, is alive and well.

p.s. Where is the fourth member of Bush's quartet?

[Aureus]

The root cause of terrorism is self-righteousness in the sense that a terrorist believes that his ideology justifies the initial use of force. It must also be remembered that government interventionism requires the use of initiatory force, and it is highly probable that those who rightly retaliate against acts of government intervention will be labeled "radical extremists" or "terrorists" by the State.

[The Wrath]

I'm currently in the middle of a thesis on how the media perpetuates terrorism.

Here's my argument:

Terrorism is basically a form of propaganda. Without the media, terrorists could not disperse their propaganda. The media covers terrorist incidents, thus reinforcing terrorism. The best example was the execution of Nicholas Berg...there was quite a media frenzy about that incident, if you'll recall. What you may not know is that, after the execution, there was a huge burst in the number of kidnappings.

That's the quick run-down of what will end up being about 80 pages long.

[mweiss]

Moderator's note: Reader discretion advised:

No particular poster's comments should be assumed to represent "the Objectivist position".

As an oppressed homeowner, threatened by the overbearing burden of confiscatory taxes without any form of redress of grievences, I have come to understand the true root of terrorism: it is the action of last resort, in the face of an indifferent, monolithic government that refuses to accomodate the needs of a particular segment of the population. When that segment meets with frustrated results again and again, while their very survival is threatened by the policies of government, often the only way to get the point across and get everyone's attention is some horrific act of violence directed at the government.

In America, it is a crime to be poor and own a home. When you can't pay thousands of dollars to some government goons who have you at gunpoint, and your option is to die freezing to death on the street, the act of suicide bombing starts to look less insane and more appealing.

Edited December 3, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Moderator's note

Mark, I'm sure many on the forum are deeply sympathetic to the frustration you feel. Whether this is the same root cause as the one behind terrorism is something for a different post. This post is in role of moderator. I just want to make the following clear:

The forum does not sanction the breaking of law, nor the use of the forum as a place to advocate the breaking of the law. Sure we discuss the right and wrong about law. We might discuss whether Intellectual Property rights are valid, whether people can use their neighbors Wi-Fi, the nature of illegal immigration, etc. Discussing whether it is right to harm one's neighbours is in a different league.

Since context is everything, part of the context is not simply the wording of posts that come near laying out a justification for breaking the law; an important part of the context is the seriousness of the breach that one is attempting to justify. It is one thing if someone is trying to justify downloading music illegally; it is far more serious if one is speaking of actually causing harm to someone.

At some point, the posts become unacceptable.

Beyond that point, things can get still more serious.

I'm stating this publicly, because I want to clearly and publicly that the forum does not condone this.

[Inspector]

MWeiss, be careful not to whitewash anyone with your statements.

What percentage of terrorism in the world today do you suppose is righteous self-defense against those who are responsible for the miserable conditions of the oppressed? 0.0000001%? 0.00000000000001%?

People may be reacting to oppression, but are they reacting against those who oppressed them? Or are they reacting against those who did not cause them any harm and in fact offer the only solution to their problems (reason, freedom, and capitalism)?

To say that terrorism is a reaction to poverty or to opression is an oversimplification that I freqently hear from the leftist appeasers. It is more accurate to say it is caused by irrationalism, mysticism, and collectivism (which cause the poverty and oppression).

While you yourself are a victim of those things, you must be careful to avoid, in your desparation, allying with the wrong people. THAT would be the same mistake that a great number of people are making.

Support the good, and never support the bad.

[mweiss]

Understood. The forum must protect and indemnify itself in this "surveillance society" that we live in.

That said, I was speaking purely in principles.

Prior to my embroiled litigation with taxing authorities, I held the position that terrorism was unjustifiable in ANY situation. My experiences have taught me not to be so diametrically-opposed to the concept. While it is a no-win situation, it seems that if one is sentenced to death by homelessness, that perhaps it is not such an evil act if it is done in such a manner as to raise the cost of state-sponsored terrorsm (economic terrorism).

I don't condone nor encourage anyone to commit such acts; I just understand the possible justifications for them now, where I didn't before my brush with the law taught me how helplessly under the boot we Americans really are with respect to taxes and emminent domain laws.

I had hoped that the CONTEXT of my discussion was understood to be based hypothetically, in principles. Since Objectivists are accustomed to speaking in principles, I felt that it was understood that these discussions are not to be taken literally.

In closing, I should note that while we are generally able to cover the scope of a situation intellectually, sometimes the emotional feeling of being caught like a trapped animal can add a perspective that intensifies a situation to beyond mere intellectual understanding. I have come to experience both aspects of my situation.

And finally, I have a wife and daughter that I adore and love very much. I have to look out for their welfare. Much of what I am saying, while meant in principle, is just venting. I am so frustrated to have an understanding of an Objectivist world, but be forced to live in a totally irrational world!

People may be reacting to oppression, but are they reacting against those who oppressed them? Or are they reacting against those who did not cause them any harm and in fact offer the only solution to their problems (reason, freedom, and capitalism)?

In general, I agree. Terrorism of the flavor practiced in the Middle East is evil to the core, because it is directed at the wrong people.

I was speaking more of the act of, say, building a nuclear device and putting in one's attic, to be detonated when the SWAT teams arrive to take the tax delinquent homeowner away. Such an act would put a definate damper on future property takings, don't you agree? The act of retaliation in defense of one's rights is the ONLY act of "terrorism" that I could conceive of being morally-justifiable.

Note: The above example is purely hypothetical for discussion purposes. The writer does not advocate keeping nuclear weapons in one's attic.

[softwareNerd]

I don't condone nor encourage anyone to commit such acts; ...

I had hoped that the CONTEXT of my discussion was understood to be based hypothetically, in principles. ..., I felt that it was understood that these discussions are not to be taken literally.

Thank you for clarifying that.