The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[DemonTim]

That analogy doesn't ring true. To say they are mentally deranged is a cop out an simply not true, these are perfectly sane people with extreme belief systems. It's an disturbing fact but still a fact all the same.

It's not a fact at all. A fact is something proven and backed by evidence
Can you prove they are sane? I'd say their actions would fit closer to my analogy than that of a sane person.

 

[bad setanta]

Of course you mean to be condescending.

Guilty as charged on that one.

 

[DemonTim]

I say Charles Manson is mentally deranged. Is that a cop out? Is that excusing his acts? Is his punishment less because of it?
It's not a cop out at all. It excuses nothing. All it does it help understand actions better. I'd rather understand the actual reasons than say "they did it because they're Muslim. End of story"
You don't actually want a solution to terrorism. You just want a scapegoat. That much is clear

 

[bad setanta]

It's not a fact at all. A fact is something proven and backed by evidence
Can you prove they are sane? I'd say their actions would fit closer to my analogy than that of a sane person.

You refuse to acknowledge truth there is no point going further

 

[DemonTim]

Guilty as charged on that one.

And yet you ignore the part about being wrong
Or are Muslims only telling the truth when they blow things up? Not when they expand the Quran?

 

[DemonTim]

You refuse to acknowledge truth there is no point going further

as I though. You have nothing to back your niaive opinion. If something is fact, you should be able to easily support it. You shirk the contest. Maybe change your name to bad Garlett.

 

[bad setanta]

I say Charles Manson is mentally deranged. Is that a cop out? Is that excusing his acts? Is his punishment less because of it?
It's not a cop out at all. It excuses nothing. All it does it help understand actions better. I'd rather understand the actual reasons than say "they did it because they're Muslim. End of story"
You don't actually want a solution to terrorism. You just want a scapegoat. That much is clear

Strawman, wont even waste my time with this.

 

[Big Dix]

From what I understand the Quran forbids suicide. How does that fit in with these theories?

The quran contradicts itself. No one's denying there are good verses in there, but there are also extremely hateful verses which are taken literally by Muslim terrorists.

 

[DemonTim]

Strawman, wont even waste my time with this.

It's a strawman to say terrorists are mentally deranged, like most murderers?
Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
I haven't at all distorted, exaggerated or misrepresents your position. I've posed my own
You don't even know what a strawman is. You're done here kid. Deer with no eyes.

 

[bad setanta]

as I though. You have nothing to back your niaive opinion. If something is fact, you should be able to easily support it. You shirk the contest. Maybe change your name to bad Garlett.

You wont accept evidence your mind is closed.

 

[DemonTim]

The quran contradicts itself. No one's denying there are good verses in there, but there are also extremely hateful verses which are taken literally by Muslim terrorists.

So why do exteremists ignore passages forbidding them from doing things, that they are doing? You didn't answer my question. Just gave a vague review of the Quran.

 

[DemonTim]

You wont accept evidence your mind is closed.

I'll happily review any proof you have of terrorists being sane and not mentally deranged. Please provide.

 

[DemonTim]

So we've got setanta:
Saying terrorists are sane
Saying terrorists are not mentally deranged like other murderers
Saying the Quran doesn't condemn suicide

I'm sure you will provide evidenced for all this so that everyone can see it

 

[bad setanta]

So why do exteremists ignore passages forbidding them from doing things, that they are doing? You didn't answer my question. Just gave a vague review of the Quran.

Oh ffs. Are you even capable of critical thinking

 

[DemonTim]

Oh ffs. Are you even capable of critical thinking

Setanta pls. If you can respond to posts not directed at you, you can prove factually that terrorists have no mental derangement.
Although again, that was a vague response. You're claiming religion is the overriding factor. Why, if this was the case, would they ignore religious passages that condemn them?

Here is your problem. You want to blame Islam, without looking any deeper. You don't actually care about the issues, you care about blaming Islam, that's it. Anyone who disagrees with you (despite them explicitly saying they condemn religion) you claim are Islamic apologists

I detest all religions, but it is shallow to claim religion is the cause here. And it will not provide a solution in doing so.

 

[bad setanta]

So we've got setanta:
Saying terrorists are sane
Saying terrorists are not mentally deranged like other murderers
Saying the Quran doesn't condemn suicide

I'm sure you will provide evidenced for all this so that everyone can see it

A video of Osama bin Laden and two 9/11 hijackers obtained by the Sunday Times of London purportedly shows the men in Afghanistan in 2000. Hijackers Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta are seen smiling and speaking to the camera -- the picture of normalcy, says an expert in the psychology of terrorism.

 

[Big Dix]

So why do exteremists ignore passages forbidding them from doing things, that they are doing? You didn't answer my question. Just gave a vague review of the Quran.

The quran have many verses that contradict each other. If a Muslim was only obeying the good verses, would you ask why they were ignoring the hateful verses? Extremists believe that it is Allah's wish to establish a caliphate, and they use the hateful verses in the Quran to justify this. The religion needs reforming.

 

[bad setanta]

Setanta pls. If you can respond to posts not directed at you, you can prove factually that terrorists have no mental derangement.


What's most striking about the video is how seemingly sane and good-humored the two men appear in the video. Jerrold Post, a psychiatrist and professor at George Washington University, says that's because terrorists arepsychologically normal.

 

[bad setanta]

“One of the most striking aspects about the psychology of terrorist is that as individuals, this is normal behavior,” Dr. Post said in an interview. “In fact, terrorist groups make it a point to expel, or not to admit, emotionally unstable people. After all, they'd be a security risk. You wouldn't want an emotionally unstable person in the Green Berets; you wouldn't want an emotionally unstable person in a terrorist operation or cell. So, the issue is not individual psychology. The issue is the collective, the group psychology. And as we've come to understand, the terrorists involved in 9/11 had subordinated their individuality to the group. And whatever their destructive, charismatic leader, Osama bin Ladin said was the right thing to do for the sake of the cause was what they would do, even if -- indeed, especially because -- it meant giving up their lives for the cause."

 

[bad setanta]

I'll happily review any proof you have of terrorists being sane and not mentally deranged. Please provide.

Have at it.

 

[DemonTim]

A video of Osama bin Laden and two 9/11 hijackers obtained by the Sunday Times of London purportedly shows the men in Afghanistan in 2000. Hijackers Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta are seen smiling and speaking to the camera -- the picture of normalcy, says an expert in the psychology of terrorism.

Interesting article. Basically a suggestion of not individual psychological issues, but a deep social normality amongst the youth that they believe the behaviour as normal, and it is normal amongst their group, but normalcy in the group is not normalcy as compared to the standard. A kind of group derangement as opposed to individual.
I'm hoping you read the entire article. And not just the initial paragraph

 

[DemonTim]

http://serendip.neuro/neuro03/web1/shabelow.html
Good (albeit wordy) read on the topic. Suggests both sides are correct (sounds stupid but makes sense if you read it)

 

[VineyIsLORD]

I'll happily review any proof you have of terrorists being sane and not mentally deranged. Please provide.

Some terrorists are perfectly sane. Usually those at the high level who dont personally carry out any attacks.

One major factor in the spread of Wahabbi mosques is that KSA wants to export its young devout men to other countries where they will either succesfully control territory (and stay there) or die. In fact Saudi and Emirati domestic politics is one of the primary causes of islamic terrorism.

They are acting perfectly rationally with limited religious motivation in doing this. They would rather the blood is spilled in Bangladesh or southern Yemen or Syria, rather than at home. So they spend a fortune in creating Wahabbi enclaves in other nations, then another fortune in paying fighters a huge monthly stipend to go there and fight.

The fighters themselves are very devout and religion absolutely plays a critical role in recruitment and establishing a beachhead for jihad. But the royals pulling the strings are acting out of rational self interest.

I agree with the gist of your argument though. And while it would be silly to ignore the role religion plays, domestic and international politics are by far the bigger factor.

A lot of it comes down to the geopolitics of the two biggest nations in the middle east (Saudi and Iran) wanting to assert themselves over nations that never should have existed (Iraq and Syria) after the west created a huge power vacuum in its bullshit war on terror, which led to mass genocide.

Take for example ISIL. They have committed some serious atrocities, but far more civilians have been killed by Iranian backed death squads than ISIS could ever hope to reach.

If i was ranking the factors:

1. Geopolitics between Iran and Saudi
2. Western intervention gone bad leading to a power vacuum in now failed states (resulting in ethnic nationalism)
3. Emirati domestic politics
4. Sykes Picot
5. Iranian domestic politics
6. Economics (it pays well to be a jihadi or a militia fighter)
7. Religion

 

[DemonTim]

Some terrorists are perfectly sane. Usually those at the high level who dont personally carry out any attacks.

One major factor in the spread of Wahabbi mosques is that KSA wants to export its young devout men to other countries where they will either succesfully control territory (and stay there) or die. In fact Saudi and Emirati domestic politics is one of the primary causes of islamic terrorism.

They are acting perfectly rationally with limited religious motivation in doing this. They would rather the blood is spilled in Bangladesh or southern Yemen or Syria, rather than at home. So they spend a fortune in creating Wahabbi enclaves in other nations, then another fortune in paying fighters a huge monthly stipend to go there and fight.

The fighters themselves are very devout and religion absolutely plays a critical role in recruitment and establishing a beachhead for jihad. But the royals pulling the strings are acting out of rational self interest.

I agree with the gist of your argument though. And while it would be silly to ignore the role religion plays, domestic and international politics are by far the bigger factor.

A lot of it comes down to the geopolitics of the two biggest nations in the middle east (Saudi and Iran) wanting to assert themselves over nations that never should have existed (Iraq and Syria) after the west created a huge power vacuum in its bullshit war on terror, which led to mass genocide.

Take for example ISIL. They have committed some serious atrocities, but far more civilians have been killed by Iranian backed death squads than ISIS could ever hope to reach.

If i was ranking the factors:

1. Geopolitics between Iran and Saudi
2. Western intervention gone bad leading to a power vacuum in now failed states (resulting in ethnic nationalism)
3. Emirati domestic politics
4. Sykes Picot
5. Iranian domestic politics
6. Economics (it pays well to be a jihadi or a militia fighter)
7. Religion

I think you're ranking factors for the conflict as a whole, we are more discussing motivation of the individuals and group.
I'd have group psychology/social psychology well up near the top

 

[VineyIsLORD]

I think you're ranking factors for the conflict as a whole, we are more discussing motivation of the individuals and group.
I'd have group psychology/social psychology well up near the top

Oh as in "what makes someone become a terrorist?" type thing?

Yeah you would be pretty close to the mark. But when talking about young Arab youth living in Wahabbi communities the religion itself is the vessel of their insanity, so to speak. It gives a sort of approval to their group think, a legitimisation. They are raised to think of wealthy Arabs as the best race on earth by far, they look down on their other Sunni, even the other Wahabbis like the Pashto (which is why ISIS and the Taliban are fighting eachother).

Pay is still a huge factor as well as the group psychological damage the Israelis inflicted on the Arab world in the 1960s and 1970s by kicking their arse all over the middle east.