Originally posted by Mike Brewer
Terrorists and those concerned with killing in the name of God will indeed always find a reason to justify what they do. Al-Qaeda alone has "adapted" its mission morethan a dozen times throughout its existence in order to capitalize on current fears and issues. At first, they just wanted to free Afghanistan and promote the Islamic government therein. Next, they were anti-Israel, and that became their reason for being. For a while after the Sauds revoked bin Laden's citizenship, al-Qaeda was fighting against the corruption in the Saudi family. Next it was the US.
Like most radicals, they are far less concerned with how much sense their justification makes than they are with carrying on the radical actions that define them. One needs look no further than the anti-war protests of the 1960's in America for evidence of this. There was a hard-core center of that movement, but there was a vast fringe that participated for completely personal reasons. They may have simply liked the "counter-culture" image. They wanted to live the free love and lots-of-drugs lifestyle that went along with the movement. Some just wanted to get out of the draft so they took a stand with a large group that offered them some level of insulation and protection. The point is that while the leaders of that movement may have had an agenda, it was fueled and carried out by people with largely selfish interests in many cases. Not all cases, but many.
Sociologically speaking, I think you'd probably discover that a great many radical muslim terrorists and supporters get and stay involved not because they necessarily agree with the core agenda, but because they desire the image that goes with it. They see it as a road to belonging, to self-respect, and to some sense of honor and respect from a group of people that they may see as "above" them in station and purpose. Like the "hobbyists" that get involved in kung fu because they like the image Bruce Lee or the Shaolin monks give it, or the BJJ hobbyists who just want a gi top filled with patches and the ability to say they do "Gracie Jiujitsu," many of the radicals we're dealing with join their respective movements based on misconceptions and romanticized images. And there's no reasoning with that. No amount of rational discussion will ever convince them, because they are making major life choices based on the emotional attachment they have to their romanticized ideals of what the "cause" actually stands for. They're dealing with feelings, not facts.
Otherwise, they'd see that even the guys at the top don't have a clear picture of what they're after, and that they're far more concerned with keeping tensions high and war in full swing than in finding any kind of peace whatever. After all, without an enemy to blame, they'd have to accept responsibility for their peoples' poverty and abysmal standard of living. But as long as there's a war and an enemy, the guys at the top can continue to gain wealth and power while the little guys at the bottom fight to live the image that's become so important to them.
Like most radicals, they are far less concerned with how much sense their justification makes than they are with carrying on the radical actions that define them. One needs look no further than the anti-war protests of the 1960's in America for evidence of this. There was a hard-core center of that movement, but there was a vast fringe that participated for completely personal reasons. They may have simply liked the "counter-culture" image. They wanted to live the free love and lots-of-drugs lifestyle that went along with the movement. Some just wanted to get out of the draft so they took a stand with a large group that offered them some level of insulation and protection. The point is that while the leaders of that movement may have had an agenda, it was fueled and carried out by people with largely selfish interests in many cases. Not all cases, but many.
Sociologically speaking, I think you'd probably discover that a great many radical muslim terrorists and supporters get and stay involved not because they necessarily agree with the core agenda, but because they desire the image that goes with it. They see it as a road to belonging, to self-respect, and to some sense of honor and respect from a group of people that they may see as "above" them in station and purpose. Like the "hobbyists" that get involved in kung fu because they like the image Bruce Lee or the Shaolin monks give it, or the BJJ hobbyists who just want a gi top filled with patches and the ability to say they do "Gracie Jiujitsu," many of the radicals we're dealing with join their respective movements based on misconceptions and romanticized images. And there's no reasoning with that. No amount of rational discussion will ever convince them, because they are making major life choices based on the emotional attachment they have to their romanticized ideals of what the "cause" actually stands for. They're dealing with feelings, not facts.
Otherwise, they'd see that even the guys at the top don't have a clear picture of what they're after, and that they're far more concerned with keeping tensions high and war in full swing than in finding any kind of peace whatever. After all, without an enemy to blame, they'd have to accept responsibility for their peoples' poverty and abysmal standard of living. But as long as there's a war and an enemy, the guys at the top can continue to gain wealth and power while the little guys at the bottom fight to live the image that's become so important to them.
Not on one side or the other, but on both sides?
P.S. Thank you for the time and consideration in your post.
![Toudiyama[NL]](./core/images/avatars/20/154.gif "Toudiyama[NL]")
Leave a comment: