Terrorism persists because terrorism works. Terrorism works because we let it.

[kpete]

It takes a great deal of violence to wipe out an army. But it only takes a tiny bit of violence to instill a sense of fear in a population. Terrorism is not meant to conquer through force; it is meant to conquer through fear.

How did you feel when you heard that men with machine guns had murdered a dozen people at a French newspaper because they did not like its political content? Angry. Afraid. Those of us in the media felt these twin emotions most of all. "I am shaking with rage at the attack on Charlie Hebdo," wrote the New York Times' Roger Cohen. "It's an attack on the free world. The entire free world should respond, ruthlessly."

Rage and fear. These are the twin goals of terrorists. And terrorism is wonderfully effective at achieving these goals. All of our rhetoric about bravery and freedom and honor and Settled Determination to Push Forward After This Tragedy rarely adds up to anything more than rage and fear. Our responses to terrorism are based on rage and fear. Because of this, terrorism works.

The attacks of September 11 were a spectacular success. Is there any other honest interpretation? They were a success not because of the Americans they killed that day, but because we chose to spend the next decade mired in hopeless, counterproductive global wars that cost us trillions of dollars and killed thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Terrorists wanted to show the world that we were brutal and unjust, and we did our best to help them do that. Terrorists wanted a war, and we gave them one. And we lost. We lost by giving them the stupid, fearful, angry response that they wanted.


the rest:
http://gawker.com/terrorism-works-1678049997

[politicman]

1. are we really having this conversation again?

What really irks me is that the same conversation gets repeated every time an attack happens somewhere in the world.

The truth of the matter is that there are bad people in the world who having no problem doing bad things.

This time its a couple of brothers who killed 12 people because they took exception to what the magazine published, but how much more heinous of an act is that than some serial killer in a western country who has killed 12 women, etc?

Why when a white person commits an unspeakable crime such as being a serial killer or being a mass shooter, do we label it as a crime of one individual that doesn't portray a whole religion or society?
Whilst when its some Muslim who kills 12 people under his mis-interpretation of the religion, we seem to always label it as terrorism and him killing 12 people is so much worse than a mass shooter in America killing 12 children in a school?



Here is an exercise for everyone:

Think of what is said when you see a Muslim man who oppresses his wife. Everyone wants to blame the religion.

Now think of what is said when a women is oppressed or hurt or killed by her husband in the western world. It is only ever referred to as domestic violence.


See what I am getting at, every bad thing that a Muslim does is made out like its a problem with the religion when in fact it is only a problem with the person who is mis-interpreting the religion for his own gain.
Yet every bad thing that is done by someone who is not a Muslim is always made out as a crime that is attributed to his upbringing or hi mental state of mind, etc.

[elias49]

2. I think your argument is flawed.

Consider Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza wasn't driven by religion.
And as far as "its some Muslim who kills 12 people under his mis-interpretation of the religion"...those Muslims might disagree that they are misinterpreting. They murder because of what they believe.
Newtown, the Aurora Theater, Jarod Loughner in Tucson - none had anything to do with interpretation of religious doctrine.

In short, I think there IS a difference. Whether we need "..that same conversation.." as you lament is arguable.

[politicman]

3. They believe it because they interpret it that way, other muslims have their own interpretation

Every bad person that does something bad in the world does it for a reason.
Whether it is some Muslim who has interpreted the religion in his own way and uses this to justify his actions, or whether it is some young guy in America who slaughters women in a sorority house because he has a grievance against women not giving him attention and sex.


Why do many people label an entire religion as bad because some guys decide to interpret that religion to suit their own needs, yet not do the same thing to an entire gender when a guy kills a bunch of women because he hates them for not giving him sex?



Some Muslims are very good people who practice Islam in a very peaceful way because they interpret the the religion in a good way, whilst some others are very bad people who do violent things because they interpret the very same religion in a bad way.


What do you think will happen if every one keeps hating on Islam? Do you think that suddenly 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world will just wake up one morning and decide to abandon their beliefs to make the western world happy?


Or do you think it more likely that the disaffected good Muslims will eventually move towards the extremists as a way to combat the hate they and their religion are getting?


Keep in mind, that the goal of the extremists isn't to cause 12 deaths here and there, the goal of the extremists is to create a bigger divide between us and people of Muslim faith, that way they extremists can have a plethora of new volunteers to swell their numbers.