Point of view is what makes a terrorist. Technically, if you want to get into semantics, any Mafioso is a terrorist, anyone who uses violence as a means of obtaining something- they’re terrorists.[/quote]
Exactly. All these materialist assumptions are just rewarmed Marxism - what “makes” a terrorist is ideology, pure and simple.
They want and crave power and domination over someone else - that isn’t driven by material need. If it was driven my material need, they would stop the moment they got “up to par” materially.
Of course, our well-fed and educated radicals around these parts start with the same assumption over and over and over - that if someone in the world is violent, it must be because someone is exploiting them and it is never their fault.
Such nimrods continue to be the “useful idiots” of the very ideological maniacs who are playing them like a tune.
Point of view is what makes a terrorist. Technically, if you want to get into semantics, any Mafioso is a terrorist, anyone who uses violence as a means of obtaining something- they’re terrorists.
Exactly. All these materialist assumptions are just rewarmed Marxism - what “makes” a terrorist is ideology, pure and simple.
They want and crave power and domination over someone else - that isn’t driven by material need. If it was driven my material need, they would stop the moment they got “up to par” materially.
Of course, our well-fed and educated radicals around these parts start with the same assumption over and over and over - that if someone in the world is violent, it must be because someone is exploiting them and it is never their fault.
Such nimrods continue to be the “useful idiots” of the very ideological maniacs who are playing them like a tune.[/quote]
I was reading an article earlier today where the author contended that polygamy increased the numbers of terrorists in a group. He used that to explain why so many terrorists are muslims.
Since men and women population generally constitute 50%/50% of a general population, if a man has 2, 3 or more wives, then that means that 1, 2 or more men are without any wives.
These men then feel like complete losers for being unable to attract a mate, have no family and are then promised 72 virgins if they martyr themselves. Going from loser in this world to “hero” in the next might become quite attractive to many of those young, mateless males.
I don’t know how valid the whole premise is, but it is certainly an interesting point of view. Would Islam benefit from abandoning polygamy and favoring monogamy as a way of “stabilizing” it’s communities? Would muslim communities established in countries where polygamy is forbidden automatically become more peaceful and less inclined to violence? Most of the violence occurring in Europe is created by terrorists who recently came from Middle Eastern countries. It is a lot rarer to see occurrences where the perpetrators are 2nd or 3rd generations locals of muslim faith.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…
Waiting with baited breath for the answer.[/quote]
I did not think through my post, and wrote it mainly out of frustration.
I am frustrated that in Iraq you have two sides.
One side is doing everything in their power, even to the point of sacrificing the lives of their soldiers, to minimize civilian casualties and limit collateral damage.
The other targets innocent civilians, blows up civilian buildings and does everything possible to incite total chaos among the innocent civilians.
Then, certain people on this site post up examples of American-caused civilian casualties - casualties that, while unavoidable in war, are truthfully few and far between - yet turn a blind eye to the brutal, cold-blooded murders committed by the “terrorists” nearly every single day.
Finally, I come on here only to read that there’s merely a ‘point-of-view’ difference between American soldiers and Al Qaeda, nothing more.
I realize that that wasn’t specifically what was being debated, but that was how I interpreted it. So yes, my post was too general to be considered correct and I wrote it out of frustration.
However, I stand by my statement that not all “resistance movements” are created equal. Some, even those resisting “American” influence, are legitimate. Others are not. There is often more than simply a “point-of-view” difference between them.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I was reading an article earlier today where the author contended that polygamy increased the numbers of terrorists in a group. He used that to explain why so many terrorists are muslims.
Since men and women population generally constitute 50%/50% of a general population, if a man has 2, 3 or more wives, then that means that 1, 2 or more men are without any wives.
These men then feel like complete losers for being unable to attract a mate, have no family and are then promised 72 virgins if they martyr themselves. Going from loser in this world to “hero” in the next might become quite attractive to many of those young, mateless males.
I don’t know how valid the whole premise is, but it is certainly an interesting point of view. Would Islam benefit from abandoning polygamy and favoring monogamy as a way of “stabilizing” it’s communities? Would muslim communities established in countries where polygamy is forbidden automatically become more peaceful and less inclined to violence? Most of the violence occurring in Europe is created by terrorists who recently came from Middle Eastern countries. It is a lot rarer to see occurrences where the perpetrators are 2nd or 3rd generations locals of muslim faith.
[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t know how valid the whole premise is, but it is certainly an interesting point of view. Would Islam benefit from abandoning polygamy and favoring monogamy as a way of “stabilizing” it’s communities? [/quote]
Let me tell you that the premise is rubbish.
First of all, polygamy is not as widespread as they’d have you believe. I personally don’t know a single person that has more than a wife or that doesn’t frown on polygamy. In fact, polygamy was instituted in Islam solely to relieve the burden of war on society. That is, a way to get the widows secured financially and satisfied sexually. Islam put the burden of proof of the necessity of polygamy on the man. In Morocco for example, a man needs the consent of his wife to get a second wife, and the consent of both wives to get a third and so on. While in theory it’s still possible, in practice, it’s almost as good as abolished. Guess what nationality makes up the bulk of terrorists these days? Yeah, you guessed it: Moroccans!
Then, your paper doesn’t take into account the fact that the number of unmarried or without partner females outweighs that of males by a substantial portion.
There are more terrorists in the Arab/Muslim world primarily because of the death of Arab nationalism. Everything else is merely a catalyst.