Are Terrorists Really Optimists?

Post Reply New Topic

I ask the question after reading a lot of very cynical posts bemoaning the current state of world affairs and the futility of trying to change them. A "terrorist", on the other hand, almost by nature has to believe that change is not only possible but achievable by the actions of a relative few, and not the usual relative few, by which I mean the wealthy. I'm not taking any particular side in any particular struggle here, but more addressing the general idea of terrorism as we know it, though I'm increasingly in favor of jettisoning that word entirely, as it's become far too politicized for my tastes and applied indiscriminately to any armed conflict that the speaker wishes to de-legitimize. For the record, I think of true "terrorism" as being defined by the targeting of uninvolved parties for the purpose of making a political statement or to otherwise pressure the actual target of the perpetrators, as opposed to being a catch-all term for unconventional warfare. To me, the interesting question is whether the people involved in such activities actually think they are going to accomplish the change they wish to see (optimists); or are they simply angry and lashing out however they can? Needless to say I'm generalizing a bit here on terrorists and their motivations/philosophies, but any thoughts?

I'd actually agree with your analysis.

That being said, I don't separate unconventional warfare from terrorism too much, if only because gang warfare isn't literally warfare as we normally think of the term.

Terrorists are the people who believe they can change the world and who are so willing to act to change the world that they are willing to violate societal rules and go to their deaths to achieve their ends. On some level, I almost regard them as deeply moral despite how often their views likely include intellectual dishonesty.

I mean, let's look at it this way: if something was terribly wrong in your eyes, then would you be willing to defy the norms of society and to go forward to what may very well be your death and dishonor so that you may face this in hopes of changing it?

I know I am not emphasizing the same things you are, but I still think this is a good question. It is one I have asked myself.

I think a better understanding of the terrorist's psychology can be gleaned by reading about the psychodynamics of the sadistic (dogmatic, aggressive, authoritarian) personality. They're not necessarily optimistic about change; they're simply rigid and dogmatic, believing that what they believe should be forced upon others. I guess a better question is what separates people who are willing to use political violence (terrorism) to enforce this rather than a similar mindset that stops short of it (we have plenty of dogmatic people in the United States, and most of them don't go violent).

Or, perhaps they are so mentally anguished at the helplessness of their side that they wish merely to have revenge against their oppressors. When brutal aggression is committed as national policy it is not labeled in the same way as terrorists or considered pathological.

That's only if they are Islamic. There are a lot of different terrorists though historically, and some of them have been left-wing extremists as well, although less have been that way in modern times.

Many terrorist a just nihilistic and suicidal.

In fact I suspect that the columbine shooters were essentially terrorists without a cause.

I often wonder if the ranks of terrorism arent filled with twisted young men who may have the same syndrome as our Columbine/virginia tech mass murderers, but have the added luxury of having a holy cause to latch onto to glority their deeds that the columbine killers lacked-a cause like Islam.

But even if some terrorists are "optimists" so what?
So is every criminal. You dont embark on a crime unless you're optimistic that you're gonna profit from it and get away with it.

Maybe "optimist" is the wrong word for what you mean.

Maybe what you really mean is that terrorists are "idealistic"- free of cynicism, and defeatism, apathy, negativity, etc.

That might be true of many terrorists but again -so what? Are you saying that terrorists are a shinning beacon that we should all look to for inspiration? Or What?

Some of the anguished who sympathize with terrorists may be so enraged, but the actual leaders of terrorist organizations tend to be pure condemning hatred and dogmatism. Bin Laden, for example, is motivated by an ideal of re-establishing the Caliphate. He sees Americans, Jews, and other infidels as enroaching on sacred land. The terrorist can gain popular support from imperialist missteps, but grief over the death of a loved one probably is not the core for their leaders.

Regular crime isn't so much precipitated by optimism as opportunism and/or laziness, the crime is considered easier than acquiring whatever the criminal's desire is legitimately. Terrorism however, seems to presuppose that the desired change in not only possible, but likely to be achieved by the actions of a relative few. This outlook stands in sharp contrast to that of many of the posters here, who some of whom view even voting as a futility, and I find that fascinating. I'm not condoning or condemning any particular group or actions here, I'm simply remarking on what I see as an interesting point.

The last presidential campaign in the US was driven to a reasonable extent by the fury at the monstrous incompetence and corruption and total lack of integrity and criminal violation of the Constitution of the G.W.Bush administration and the open promises of Obama to reverse this horrifying direction of the government. Obama has consistently either been unable to substantiate his promises or actually continues to enthusiastically endorse the Bush policies. To indicate that voting was a viable means to restore the integrity and the meaningful ideals of the USA is to be totally blind to reality.

Well I for one aren't quite ready to put down my ballot and pick up a bomb, but I acknowledge that the US political system is severely damaged and in urgent need of reform, I'm just not quite sure what that reform should look like at the moment. As my alter-ego I've been quite vocal about Instant Run-Off Voting lately, and though I don't see it as a panacea for the problems of the American system, I do think it would be a good start. Maybe some congressional term limits to limit political dynasties, or some system of public finance for campaigning with some real teeth behind it, whatever was done would have to start small and work as incremental reforms. If there's one thing we've learned from the Obama presidency thus far, it's that biting off more than you can chew is often disastrous, and trying to ram through a "big fix" for any issue is more likely to stall than a series of smaller fixes would.

I totally agree that the angry disposition to murder indiscriminately is insanity at its worst. But to expect the congressional nincompoops to remedy their own greedy stupidities is straight out of la-la land. The punishment starting to hit the country may be incitement to make people understand where their interests lie but I am dismayed that it takes this kind of economic and social flagellation to move things politically.

So are you suggesting discriminate murder as a viable solution? Personally I have far less of a problem with targeted violence than I do with random violence, but it's still pretty far down on my possible solutions list, though I suppose I'm more physically able than most if it really came down to it. This sort of gets back to the original question; is someone who's willing to commit violence and possibly condemn themselves to to death and/or dishonor for what they see as the greater political good intrinsically optimistic in outlook?

As to the country at large, I wonder if there could be devised a process for something along the lines of a national referendum, for as you say it's lunacy to expect congress to impose the needed changes on itself. I'm not aware of any existing procedure, and I think even a Constitutional Amendment would require congressional cooperation.

As someone who advocates wider distribution of firearms I am surprised that you find violence so dismaying. I do not advocate violence under any circumstances except self defense and as a political instrument it is almost always disastrous. I frankly have no solution to the mess the US is in. Nothing to do with the current legislative system seems to be effective.

We aren't going to go through this again are we? It's a common, though fallacious assumption that someone who likes weaponry in general and firearms in particular must be violent themselves or otherwise in favor of violence, completely ignoring all the other reasons one may have for the interest. I'll spare you my life story where my mother forbade me even toy guns causing me (as a child under 5) to play with the other children by making little "guns" with my index finger and thumb, but suffice it to say that it's been a lifelong interest of mine that is wholly independent of my greater disposition and personality. Just as I'm certain the curators of medieval museums don't long to try out their instruments of torture on people, I have no desire to use my guns, blades, or other instruments on others unless forced to. To use a gun to "win" an argument is to me the lowest form of cheating, and my attitude towards authority in general precludes that course of action in all but the most dire of circumstances, e.g. when force is brought to bear on me. That is far from saying I'm a pacifist, I prefer the self coined knuckle dragging intellectual. I view being well versed in the methods of violence the same way I'd view learning a foreign language that I find fascinating but that I'd not choose to speak, if others insist I wouldn't be at a disadvantage in replying in kind.



Nor do I, but I haven't given up on it quite yet. Incremental reform is the best I can come up with to date, and I'm increasingly thinking this will have to start at the local level. Here in Washington we have a prolific local writer of populist initiatives that is loathed in the statehouse due to his success at getting measures passed that force them to take tax increases to the voters and limit what they can do without a 2/3 vote, every two years (the legal minimum) the state legislature finds an excuse to suspend his initiatives, and he passes another. Maybe something like that on a national level would be a start.

I'm terribly sorry, but if you believe most of the people interested in firearms merely admire their workmanship and are loathe to use them for threatening and killing people, I can only judge you as naive.

So, care to explain your qualifications in pronouncing that judgment? Need I remind you that I'm thoroughly immersed in the American firearms scene, and spent several years of my life in gunsmithing school literally surrounded by gun culture, where as to my knowledge you haven't even lived in this country in decades, meaning one of us has much more in depth and recent knowledge on the subject, and it isn't you. Need I also point out that if you'd made similar blanket statements concerning say, Muslims and a tendency to violence you'd most likely be on the receiving end of a mod warning and/or some pretty angry responses from other members here decrying your bigotry. You don't get to make a baldfaced assumption based on your own internal bias, and then call anyone who disagrees naive, that's not how debate works, and frankly I'd expected better of you.