[Discussion] What is Terrorism?

The world is a dangerous place, and nuclear war isn't the only threat.
hrng
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:15 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia

Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:47 pm

Worldwatcher wrote:
hrng wrote:
Worldwatcher wrote:Question: Once terrorists choose violence to achieve their goals, can they ever repent and switch back?
Look at the case of Nelson Mandela, or more controversially, the Sien Fien, who became a political party.
Is there any difference between them and groups like ISIS?
Why not? They're still people.
Interesting. Do you think someone like al baghdadi can be reformed (at least theoretically)?

I don't think any country, no matter how progressive, will accept someone as dangerous and infamous as him into their society.
Absolutely. Doesn't mean that they should trusted, or even accepted, but there's no reason he can't change his ways. People change their mind all the time.

That said, when we're talking about beliefs so deeply rooted as these, you basically have to tear the person down and destroy them, then build them up again from ground up.

A good example would be rehabilitating people from cults.

jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:47 pm

Worldwatcher wrote:
hrng wrote:
Worldwatcher wrote:Question: Once terrorists choose violence to achieve their goals, can they ever repent and switch back?
Look at the case of Nelson Mandela, or more controversially, the Sien Fien, who became a political party.
Is there any difference between them and groups like ISIS?
Why not? They're still people.
Interesting. Do you think someone like al baghdadi can be reformed (at least theoretically)?

I don't think any country, no matter how progressive, will accept someone as dangerous and infamous as him into their society.
That's why you have surprises occur around the world. We don't know if there are leaders crazy enough to accept someone like him into their society, and by extension, that's what makes it a surprise.

You must expect the unexpected, lest you find yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:50 pm

Very interesting points.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:06 am

"Terrorism and the media are strange bedfellows in a marriage of convenience" - Nacos

Terrorists use their publicity to gain: Attention --> Respect --> Legitimacy --> Power.

Do you think that terrorism is made worse by the media coverage it gathers?
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

statue1
.
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:32 pm

Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:17 am

Worldwatcher wrote:"Terrorism and the media are strange bedfellows in a marriage of convenience" - Nacos

Terrorists use their publicity to gain: Attention --> Respect --> Legitimacy --> Power.

Do you think that terrorism is made worse by the media coverage it gathers?
I think the media coverage is a double edged sword. On one hand, it goes against the terrorists with the idea that it strengthens our resolve and our desire to defeat them, but on the other hand it can strike fear into us, where essentially we destroy our own societal values of freedom and liberty in the name of "security" which then accomplishes the goals of the terrorists, to uproot our way of life.

Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:50 am

statue1 wrote:
Worldwatcher wrote:"Terrorism and the media are strange bedfellows in a marriage of convenience" - Nacos

Terrorists use their publicity to gain: Attention --> Respect --> Legitimacy --> Power.

Do you think that terrorism is made worse by the media coverage it gathers?
I think the media coverage is a double edged sword. On one hand, it goes against the terrorists with the idea that it strengthens our resolve and our desire to defeat them, but on the other hand it can strike fear into us, where essentially we destroy our own societal values of freedom and liberty in the name of "security" which then accomplishes the goals of the terrorists, to uproot our way of life.
I agree with the premise that it is a double edged sword. Many people have put forward the idea to not report terror attacks, but they usually get shut down quickly, because of the whole free speech conundrum. But admittedly, the word "Terrorism" makes millions for media companies, even when it is later found to not be a case of terrorism.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:28 am

Moved from the Terrorism board to discuss:
Zanting wrote:
Worldwatcher wrote:I agree, in well functioning society, terrorism and to a lesser extent crime would be at lower rates, although, there is a fine line having between an "optimal society" and something far more dangerous...
I fear this is getting too off topic though.
I usually do not use metaphors.

If you can imagine society as an engine block, what we used to seek as the highest ideal could be construed as the cylinder bore, but an outside force has struck a defect or fracture in our block so that if we go too far now the engine will stop working entirely. If we keep using this engine we will eventually destroy ourselves as all modifications or temporary fixes do not address the cracked foundation which holds everything together, it is not how we are or were meant to go forward, we need a new engine basically.

There isn't much to discuss with the knife attack though so I don't mind discussing this.
Terrorism in the USA is mainly from internal sources. "Lone Wolves" are the most dangerous, as they work in ones or twos, and don't readily reveal their intentions, although this is a recent change. The most dangerous groups are the Militias, KKK, and Neo-Nazis. That isn't to say there are not other groups, these are just the most prominent.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Wed Aug 31, 2016 2:44 am

Worldwatcher wrote:Terrorism in the USA is mainly from internal sources. "Lone Wolves" are the most dangerous, as they work in ones or twos, and don't readily reveal their intentions, although this is a recent change. The most dangerous groups are the Militias, KKK, and Neo-Nazis. That isn't to say there are not other groups, these are just the most prominent.
One must take serious pause to give thought to the reality, that they even must be or are viewed as radical, if they are for their country & people in their own country & among their own people.

I must reiterate a lesser known fact, that alleged pro-White terrorism in the past, is often instigated by the Feds. Actual groups will either be subverted in one of two ways, they are either progressed towards violence which ensures being shutdown, or toned down to "cut off the pass" and thus render the group inert.

Daily Stormer has a "Book Club", basically gathering together chapters, if you talk about planning violence there you are immediately banned from the group. Contrary to Hollywood or the media, there are multiple reasons that non-violence is prevalent in real organic groups, for one Feds are the most likely to engage in this type of plotting to ensure entrapment -- for two random violence is obviously not seen as a viable method to advancing interests.

Traditionalist Worker Party not that long ago held a protest which they were legally allowed to & planned for, ANTIFA was caught planning terror against them on camera before the confrontation, technically they committed terrorism by pushing their ideology against the protest group to achieve political goals at least in their own minds even if they are funded by certain individuals.

I must argue that to say they are the most dangerous is in fact wrong.
  1. Context is actually missing & thus does not differentiate the "who" pro-White movements are dangerous to. Are they dangerous to White people, counterpoint, how come they [We] are in this situation in the first place?
  2. Foreign agents cause death & destruction which is excused at an increasing rate by multiple means.
  3. KKK has been heavily infiltrated in the past on numerous occasions.
  4. It doesn't acknowledge the many [Dangerous] negatives pro-White movements stand against.
  5. The ADL & SPLC hold full reign over where you got this information from.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

Worldwatcher
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:22 am

Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:44 am

Zanting wrote:
Worldwatcher wrote:Terrorism in the USA is mainly from internal sources. "Lone Wolves" are the most dangerous, as they work in ones or twos, and don't readily reveal their intentions, although this is a recent change. The most dangerous groups are the Militias, KKK, and Neo-Nazis. That isn't to say there are not other groups, these are just the most prominent.
One must take serious pause to give thought to the reality, that they even must be or are viewed as radical, if they are for their country & people in their own country & among their own people.

I must reiterate a lesser known fact, that alleged pro-White terrorism in the past, is often instigated by the Feds. Actual groups will either be subverted in one of two ways, they are either progressed towards violence which ensures being shutdown, or toned down to "cut off the pass" and thus render the group inert.
Just because a radical group has not committed violent acts themselves, doesn't mean they are exempt. Often, they are the enabler or start of radical ideas and motives. "Planting the seed', if you will.
Daily Stormer has a "Book Club", basically gathering together chapters, if you talk about planning violence there you are immediately banned from the group. Contrary to Hollywood or the media, there are multiple reasons that non-violence is prevalent in real organic groups, for one Feds are the most likely to engage in this type of plotting to ensure entrapment -- for two random violence is obviously not seen as a viable method to advancing interests.
So if the police were not watching these fringe groups, violence would be openly advocated? It is not a crime to have extremist views, it is pretty bad, but not a crime. The crime comes when one acts on those extremist views, whether it be the encouragement of violence, or violence itself. "People can believe what they like, as long as it is not imposing on anyone else's human-rights, safety, or belief system". If the authorities were to shut down easily monitored extremist sites that do not, at least openly, advocate violence, then it pushes it underground, making members more susceptible to commit acts of violence.
Traditionalist Worker Party not that long ago held a protest which they were legally allowed to & planned for, ANTIFA was caught planning terror against them on camera before the confrontation, technically they committed terrorism by pushing their ideology against the protest group to achieve political goals at least in their own minds even if they are funded by certain individuals.
As I said, terror comes from all across society, and appears in "waves" left wing is not as prominent in this time period, as a few decades ago, but that is not to say they are not there.
I must argue that to say they are the most dangerous is in fact wrong.
  1. Context is actually missing & thus does not differentiate the "who" pro-White movements are dangerous to. Are they dangerous to White people, counterpoint, how come they [We] are in this situation in the first place?
The same could be argued for the phrase "middle eastern terrorists".
[*]Foreign agents cause death & destruction which is excused at an increasing rate by multiple means.
That is irrelevant to the topic of homegrown terrorism.
[*]KKK has been heavily infiltrated in the past on numerous occasions.
And there are reasons for that. They still have thousands of members, and are somewhat coordinated. If the groups themselves do not commit as many actions as the past, they are still by broad definition, terrorists. Their ideas spread, forming would-be extremists.
[*]It doesn't acknowledge the many [Dangerous] negatives pro-White movements stand against.
That is not the point, simply saying "the other is worse" doesn't discount the threat of that group. When people think that they have right on their side, they can do an awful lot of damage.
[*]The ADL & SPLC hold full reign over where you got this information from.[/list]
What do you mean by this?

--------------------------------

To address your point as a whole:

Please view this:
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extr ... tacks.html
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extr ... lysis.html

Image

As this data shows, Jihadist terror has the most casualties, but that is not a viable factor, as deaths are circumstantial on the attack themselves. Far right-wing attacks are more widespread. Simply saying that the "other side" does it too doesn't make your point correct.

I will list notable extreme groups / movements that have used violence to attempt to achieve their goals:

Right Wing:

- KKK (the most notable group)
- Christian Identity & Neo Nazi groups
- Patriot & militia movement
- Sovereign Citizens movement
- Islamic Extremism (it is still up for debate whether this is right / left / other)

Left wing:

- Anarchist movement
- Weather Underground
- Black Panthers
- Symbionese Liberation Army

Single Issue:

- Antiabortion violence
- Animal / Earth Liberation Fronts
- Jewish Defense League
- Puerto Rican Nationalists groups

List Source: Bridget L. Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism, 5th edition, pgs: 72 - 99

"Lone-wolves" may align themselves to these movements or others, or none. My argument is that Lone-wolves are the most dangerous form of terror, not right wing groups, but in saying that, they are currently the most active. I (and my Uni lecturer) predict that the next "5th wave" of global terror will shift from religious to nationalist / right wing terror, as the "Waves of Terrorism" tend to work like a pendulum.
"There's a cold war coming,
On the radio I heard
Baby it's a violent world"

- Coldplay, Life In Technicolor II

Zanting
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:11 am
Location: Anta Baka?
Contact:

Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:12 am

Oh, a book, I'll have to write a reply later because I'm wiped from building a gun.
Worldwatcher wrote:- Jewish Defense League
The JDL sent me a death threat in 2005.
☢ It's The Current Year ☢

Post Reply