[JakilSong]

In her 2006 book, What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat, Harvard professor Louise Richardson describes the strategic policy of the American government as follows:



The declaration of a global war on terrorism has been a terrible mistake and is doomed to failure

….Americans opted to accept al-Qaeda’s language of cosmic warfare at face value and respond

accordingly, rather than respond to al-Qaeda based on an objective assessment of its resources and

capabilities.



In reviewing the book for The New York Review of Books, Max Rodenbeck writes,



In essence, America’s actions radically upgraded Osama bin Laden’s organization from a ragtag

network of plotters to a great enemy worthy of a superpower’s undivided attention. Even as it

successfully shattered the group’s core through the invasion of Afghanistan, America empowered

al-Qaeda politically by its loud triumphalism, whose very excess encouraged others to try the same

terror tactics…. Instead of seizing a uniquely strong opportunity to rally the world behind a positive

vision that would build on the liberal and democratic ideals that made America a great nation, it

adopted a paranoid and bellicose position that dismayed much of the world….Instead of pulling the

rug from under al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations by removing at least some of their causes

for violence, it created new causes.



Write an essay discussing how America’s political leaders and the “experts” who advise them misconceived the

idea of “terror” as represented by al-Qaeda and its allies. Your argument should build upon insights and understandings you have gained during the course of this semester, from our readings, class discussions, films, and critical reviews. Remember, we’re not interested in specific details of diplomacy, policy, or military engagement. Rather, we’re looking at “terror” as an idea, an ideology, and a form of personal realization.



Louise Richardson grew up in Northern Ireland, so her knowledge “terror” is not just academic in nature.


Ironically this is one of the questions for my History of Terror class. I'll post my answer, thought people might be intirested

[nitivearchit]

“Terror” as an idea, an ideology, and a form of personal realization.

Terror - Without the insight of the class I can give you my reflection which I believe is the question posed to this country and the world we live in today.

The battle seems to be a conflict between “new” ideology and insight to the direct reaction to terror and terror threats.

We have on one side of the debate the “old school” time tested direct reaction of force. The other side of the debate suggests reason and rational non-violent, work through type of engagement. Both theories suggest the common end result being the extermination of terror

I will correlate this to what I know in my own experience.

We have several theories in the way we counsel clients to health. One being RET or Rational Emotive Therapy. This is basically the process of defining what is rational healthy behavior and working on establishing this said behavior in clients life. I find this therapy Hog wash in this field. Some of you may refer to this type of therapy as “touchy feely” “how does that make you feel” type therapy. In the world of corrections we are dealing with criminal behavior. This is not effective on individuals that do not have a belief system in place based on ethics and morals so reiterating proper behavior means nothing to said client therefore ineffective in the process of establishing guidelines for mental health.

Another theory of treatment is called Behavior Modification. This is the identifying of negative behavior, identifying is huge due to the fact that if said client doesn’t identify that his behavior is incorrect then his belief system will not change. What we believe will dictate or govern what we think, say and do. Looking through past experiences to gain this information is therapeutic but exploring the why’s is endless and should be avoided. Gaining new information will create new beliefs therefore changing behavior.

How does this correlate? Well Terror attacks on anyone is behavior, bad behavior, a violation of another persons right to exist and using fear as a catalyst to promote their beliefs. Behavior mod is necessary! Can you reason? Hell no! These behaviors are no different than any other criminal mind. Criminals will run the streets getting in and out of trouble building their belief system of how their personal ethical and moral system works. At some point probation stops, community supervision stops and we put you’re your little criminal ass in prison. When you finally take on the police and pick up a weapon because you feel your rights have been violated they will shoot you.

This is not about religion or rights this is simply a case of low life, criminal behavior on a larger scale. When the offender gets to the point where he believes he has a right to violate natural laws such as murder to prove his belief system we have to start behavior modification.

Our military system uses this system and is why most criminal boot camps are built off the military model. Boot camp is the process of breaking down a soldiers (Marine), belief system or in simpler terms developmental years, and then rebuilding them into a unified belief system that is based on the military format of ethics, morals and values. This is done through intense physical, mental and emotional impact. This is why some soldiers do better than some, It just depends on how much your original system of beliefs correlated to the new one. My personal belief is the more we regulate boot camp for soldiers the less effective they are becoming in the effort to mold these young men and women.

Our world is the same process just on a grander scale. If we lived in Utopia this would not be an issue but as long as we have the ability to choose there will always be conflict the boundaries have to be set in a manner that does not violate natural human laws. The ones to do this are civilized - evolved societies. In essence law enforcement on a larger scale. Are we the world police? No but we are the ones they aimed the gun at and took a shot at.

To validate I am not referring to Muslims as a religion but terrorist equivalent to criminal behavior in its finest form. The violation of human rights for the purpose of political and/or religious gain and notoriety

In prison treatment we have a term called “playing the Tape out” this simply means going all the way to the end of the process. If they had been successful in obtaining their goal and had created a utopia as they see it would the terrorism stopped? Would they have hung up their guns and had a party? Don’t think so ….. Much like our gangs when there is no one else to attack they will attack each other. Just my personal thoughts

[Drysnyaty]

Thats awsome Mel
thanks for your imput

[nTDsD0aU]

Thats awsome Mel
thanks for your imput

Your welcome - I like this subject I thik it could use expounding on!

[PersonalLoansBank]

[QUOTE The declaration of a global war on terrorism has been a terrible mistake and is doomed to failure

….Americans opted to accept al-Qaeda’s language of cosmic warfare at face value and respond

accordingly, rather than respond to al-Qaeda based on an objective assessment of its resources and

capabilities.

In reviewing the book for The New York Review of Books, Max Rodenbeck writes,

In essence, America’s actions radically upgraded Osama bin Laden’s organization from a ragtag

network of plotters to a great enemy worthy of a superpower’s undivided attention. Even as it

successfully shattered the group’s core through the invasion of Afghanistan, America empowered

al-Qaeda politically by its loud triumphalism, whose very excess encouraged others to try the same

terror tactics…. Instead of seizing a uniquely strong opportunity to rally the world behind a positive

vision that would build on the liberal and democratic ideals that made America a great nation, it

adopted a paranoid and bellicose position that dismayed much of the world….Instead of pulling the

rug from under al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations by removing at least some of their causes

for violence, it created new causes.[/QUOTE]

To address this writer = I find it fooliosh and unintelligent statement. First if it does not take college educated criminals to be a threat. This so called "Rag Tag" Group successfully carried out the greatest terroist attack in US history, killing thousands.

Our response did not encourage others theirs did. Once a criminal mind sees the vulnerability of a victim they are goaled to repeat said attack - That is criminal behavior ABC's - Liberal umm in what spectrum is she referring to? Christan values (note I didnt say christan behavior).

Removing the causes of violence? Ok so lets correlate this - Lets give the theifs money they wont steel. Lets allow rapist to have little kids and women then they wont prey on people, legalize narcotics (some would like this) then no crime. That just doesnt make any since.

You cant address the unreasonable with reason - that in its self in unreasonable

[KernJetenue]

no one else seems interrested in this thread - I found it to be really interresting- ya'll give your feedback for Sweet she needs it for school
Mel

[vladekad]

haha im on my way to writing said required paper your imput has been amazing mel

[Precturge]

haha im on my way to writing said required paper your imput has been amazing mel

Sorry Sarah - misquote its SARAH YALL not Sweet - geeze I am even bad with names on here an they are spelled and visual - I feel OLD - Your welcome hun - I love writting papers havent don itin a while though glad i could be of some help.

[SobiquYo]

In the beginning terror, as defined by the US government as, "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." This definition of Terror was published in 1984 by the Congress, and fully covered what was considered terror within the United States for many years. But this definition changed in the minds of governmental officials when al-Qaeda became an international threat in 2001.

The war we have waged on terror in this century is a direct reaction to terrorist actions in the United States instituting a ‘new’ ideology of thinking from government officials. The United States has changed its thoughts on terror to help give meaning to a now seven year old long war. Though terror was inflicted on the US the war is not waged on US soil, nor on the soil of the leaders of the terrorist cell. It is waged in a place where President Bush Sr. failed at capturing an old terrorist, and where his son decided he needed to finish the job. Bush Jr. uses the excuse of terror to wage war on a country that did not produce the terrorists who have acted against the US.

The terror enacted on the US was, and could have been taken care of with a series of military strikes but is now a drawn out war thanks to a new warped sense of the definition of terrorist. The US has the thinking that they are the ‘world police’. We are not them, we are simply the country that the terrorists aimed the biggest gun at and took pot shots at. These terrorists were not put there to bring down the US or to disrupt New York’s infrastructure, but to show their dislike of Western culture. The essence of our culture as a whole infuriates the Terrorists and the culture is what they are striking against, not us, not our people, economy or building styles, but our culture. The non-traditional, non-religious culture perpetrated the worst in the United States.

As per Mr. Rodenbeck’s review he states that “pulling the rug from under al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations by removing at least some of their causes for violence…” This as a whole is a foolish statement. Giving a terrorist organization money and weapons so it won’t attack makes about as much sense as giving a rapist women and children so they won’t attack the populous. Although bin Laden’s group started as ‘rag tag’ it has grown into one of the most complex and strongest terrorist organizations in history thanks to American money. We, the US, are fighting against people we, at one time, were paying and arming. So this ‘rag tag’ group is no longer rag tag but a strong fighting force dedicated to the destruction of Western values and nothing we can give them will change their thirst for the next jihad. Terrorists of this kind use a kind of military training for their members. Thus changing their brain patterns, successfully making them forever a damaged people intent on destruction and murder. This theory of treatment is called Behavior Modification. During Behavior Modification undesirable behaviors are identified and corrected. This correction is through a series of training, belittling, and emotional impact. These corrections then seemingly create a ‘new person’ intent on terroristic thought and processes.

Terrorism, although based on religion is not completely about religion. Terrorist leaders use extreamist religion to further control and suck in more and more members. But Terrorism is simply criminal behavior exhibited on a large scale. Terrorists begin to believe, thanks to the religious extremism, that they have the right to violate natural law to expound their belief system.

As someone once stated “you can’t address the unreasonable with reason-that in its self is unreasonable.

Thanks for all your help Mel

[weO1bVp1]

Interesting interpretation seen from a bird-eye's view. From the ground-pounder and civilians who have been there and witnessed this first hand; have a totally different take on this. Either way, we took offense and they took defense. Hooah

I can still see the IED blowing up in front of me to this day and it seems like yesterday even though it was more than 2 years ago.

I even as a boy still remember the terrorist acts at the Munich Olympics. Amazing at how it (terrorism) has evolved.

I got to know some amazing Muslims while I served in Iraq. My interpreter was one of them and he was killed after I re-deployed. May "Sammy" rest in peace.

[Karinochka]

In the beginning terror, as defined by the US government as, "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." This definition of Terror was published in 1984 by the Congress, and fully covered what was considered terror within the United States for many years. But this definition changed in the minds of governmental officials when al-Qaeda became an international threat in 2001.

The war we have waged on terror in this century is a direct reaction to terrorist actions in the United States instituting a ‘new’ ideology of thinking from government officials. The United States has changed its thoughts on terror to help give meaning to a now seven year old long war. Though terror was inflicted on the US the war is not waged on US soil, nor on the soil of the leaders of the terrorist cell. It is waged in a place where President Bush Sr. failed at capturing an old terrorist, and where his son decided he needed to finish the job. Bush Jr. uses the excuse of terror to wage war on a country that did not produce the terrorists who have acted against the US.

The terror enacted on the US was, and could have been taken care of with a series of military strikes but is now a drawn out war thanks to a new warped sense of the definition of terrorist. The US has the thinking that they are the ‘world police’. We are not them, we are simply the country that the terrorists aimed the biggest gun at and took pot shots at. These terrorists were not put there to bring down the US or to disrupt New York’s infrastructure, but to show their dislike of Western culture. The essence of our culture as a whole infuriates the Terrorists and the culture is what they are striking against, not us, not our people, economy or building styles, but our culture. The non-traditional, non-religious culture perpetrated the worst in the United States.

As per Mr. Rodenbeck’s review he states that “pulling the rug from under al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations by removing at least some of their causes for violence…” This as a whole is a foolish statement. Giving a terrorist organization money and weapons so it won’t attack makes about as much sense as giving a rapist women and children so they won’t attack the populous. Although bin Laden’s group started as ‘rag tag’ it has grown into one of the most complex and strongest terrorist organizations in history thanks to American money. We, the US, are fighting against people we, at one time, were paying and arming. So this ‘rag tag’ group is no longer rag tag but a strong fighting force dedicated to the destruction of Western values and nothing we can give them will change their thirst for the next jihad. Terrorists of this kind use a kind of military training for their members. Thus changing their brain patterns, successfully making them forever a damaged people intent on destruction and murder. This theory of treatment is called Behavior Modification. During Behavior Modification undesirable behaviors are identified and corrected. This correction is through a series of training, belittling, and emotional impact. These corrections then seemingly create a ‘new person’ intent on terroristic thought and processes.

Terrorism, although based on religion is not completely about religion. Terrorist leaders use extreamist religion to further control and suck in more and more members. But Terrorism is simply criminal behavior exhibited on a large scale. Terrorists begin to believe, thanks to the religious extremism, that they have the right to violate natural law to expound their belief system.

As someone once stated “you can’t address the unreasonable with reason-that in its self is unreasonable.

Thanks for all your help Mel

GREAT Paper Grasshopper!

[rushiddink]

.

haha im on my way to writing said required paper your imput has been amazing mel

Michele, Shrike, TJ, VW, ring, MM, Machine, Crusty, SgtAllen3381,USMC8156,DAG48…bombsquadron6 dang… me forgets all em…you all hiding, chicken....

ok ok ok,

Sarah... when is paper due?

I can't believe with the great minds we have here on this board no one has posted.

Now, I make a idiot out of my self here... he he he
Tonight I do some study and try to post something that follows along with my thoughts.


have you received the below yet?
idea of “terror” as represented by al-Qaeda and its allies. Your argument should build upon insights and understandings you have gained during the course of this semester, from our readings, class discussions, films, and critical reviews. Remember, we’re not interested in specific details of diplomacy, policy, or military engagement. Rather, we’re looking at “terror” as an idea, an ideology, and a form of personal realization. .

[BaselBimbooooo]

Excellent that this is posted in an IRAQ thread. Any of my fellow brothers and sisters that served in that combat zone can reflect on the topic in hand? I was in Kirkuk, Hawijah and Riyahd. Anyone familiar with that area?

[Frdsdx26]

one of the sad days when I dealt with situations like this. click to the video to watch. My interpreter and I

[awagsFare]

i would love imput from anyone, anyone that served or otherwise. Perception is always different from differnt vantage points.

[Daruhuw]

The war we have waged on terror in this century is a direct reaction to terrorist actions in the United States instituting a ‘new’ ideology of thinking from government officials. The United States has changed its thoughts on terror to help give meaning to a now seven year old long war. Though terror was inflicted on the US the war is not waged on US soil, nor on the soil of the leaders of the terrorist cell. It is waged in a place where President Bush Sr. failed at capturing an old terrorist, and where his son decided he needed to finish the job. Bush Jr. uses the excuse of terror to wage war on a country that did not produce the terrorists who have acted against the US.

The terror enacted on the US was, and could have been taken care of with a series of military strikes but is now a drawn out war thanks to a new warped sense of the definition of terrorist. The US has the thinking that they are the ‘world police’. We are not them, we are simply the country that the terrorists aimed the biggest gun at and took pot shots at. These terrorists were not put there to bring down the US or to disrupt New York’s infrastructure, but to show their dislike of Western culture. The essence of our culture as a whole infuriates the Terrorists and the culture is what they are striking against, not us, not our people, economy or building styles, but our culture. The non-traditional, non-religious culture perpetrated the worst in the United States.

Might I suggest that when writing articles it is not favored to show bias. Especially when opinions are so very strong along political lines. Bill Clinton, for example had a huge role in the Saddam issue...if folks remember correctly there was WMD being made by Saddam in the 90's. Clinton had the opportunity to finish Bush Sr's job too...rather he threw a few bombs at Saddam and let him continue his tyranny and genocide. But of course the UN is as much to blame as anyone...anyways... All in all, it becomes a political crapshoot. My suggestion is to omit all the bias...it isn't easy but bias can lead to lots of scrutiny to your paper. Professor or colleagues...unless of course you attend a very liberal university LOL.

Otherwise well done, you write very well

I may say more later..if I have some time..I am going out of town tomorrow for the weekend..need to pack..and take nap!

[SOgLak]

Might I suggest that when writing articles it is not favored to show bias. Especially when opinions are so very strong along political lines. Bill Clinton, for example had a huge role in the Saddam issue...if folks remember correctly there was WMD being made by Saddam in the 90's. Clinton had the opportunity to finish Bush Sr's job too...rather he threw a few bombs at Saddam and let him continue his tyranny and genocide. But of course the UN is as much to blame as anyone...anyways... All in all, it becomes a political crapshoot. My suggestion is to omit all the bias...it isn't easy but bias can lead to lots of scrutiny to your paper. Professor or colleagues...unless of course you attend a very liberal university LOL.

Otherwise well done, you write very well

I may say more later..if I have some time..I am going out of town tomorrow for the weekend..need to pack..and take nap!

I am surprised the word extremism or extremists havent been used in this paper yet? Name a University that isnt liberal which doesnt have a religious focus to it? I cant think of any at this time but would like to know.

[WenPyclenoWex]

I am surprised the word extremism or extremists havent been used in this paper yet? Name a University that isnt liberal which doesnt have a religious focus to it? I cant think of any at this time but would like to know.

*whistles* Hmm what a good point....I guess more of the reality would be professor preference. Depending on the department you are in...sociology vrs. business....politics..etc.....It varies..but the universities as a whole seem to be more liberal. But there are professors on the other side..and those who are really open to discuss both sides of the issues...........now I go nap

[comprar-espana]

Wow guys thanks so much for anything. I'll work on a re-write and post it again

And if u mean up north as in NY its cold, rainy, icy, and snowy blahhh
welcome to winter.

[Franchise]

Sarah - remember your paper is on your insights and beliefs. It is well written and articulates your interpretation of the information you have. As you correct your draft dont digress from your original opinion or it cease to be your paper reflecting you, and just another cookie cutter bore. You will find that most professors, reguardless the political view, will be positive towards your essays if they demonstrate insightfulness and a fresh point of view making them engaging to read. I find yours very much so