Barcelona

[marine6357]

14 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

Terrorism is the new way of doing business sadly. 

Unfortunately this isn't true terrorism has been around for much longer then we think. It is only in the last 60 years with the advent of mass media and the availability to report it sooner do we think it is more recent. I believe by the mass media reporting on every time an act of so called terrorism is committed we only feed the terrorist with publicity. And strengthen their resolve to commit more acts. But what we cannot do is restrict the media especially here in the US because of our constitution and the Bill of rights guaranteeing the right to free and open press. Maybe the answer is if we can get all governments to play on the same page then we might have a chance of eradicating this blight on our world.

Just my 2 cents and opinion.

[Jollygoodfellow]

3 hours ago, marine6357 said:

Unfortunately this isn't true terrorism has been around for much longer then we think. It is only in the last 60 years with the advent of mass media and the availability to report it sooner do we think it is more recent.

So you dont think there has been an increase in terrorism on most western solis ?  

[Dave Hounddriver]

8 hours ago, marine6357 said:

I believe by the mass media reporting on every time an act of so called terrorism is committed we only feed the terrorist with publicity

There is something in that.  Ignorance is bliss.  I'm guessing that my parents would have had a much tougher time living through the London Blitz of WWII if current mass media and social media existed to feed panic and frenzy.  It would have convinced the Axis powers that they were winning and may have given them the impetus to succeed.

My point is that its not just Mass media having a feeding frenzy.  Some individuals seem to thrive on sharing the horror on social media or forums.  I don't mean this forum.  This one seems different and its why I spend so much time here.  We discuss things without getting frenzied.  If we could teach the next generation the value of keeping a stiff upper lip, and keeping the lower one from flapping.

Quote

Stiff upper lip. ... The phrase is most commonly heard as part of the idiom "keep a stiff upper lip", and has traditionally been used to describe an attribute of British people in remaining resolute and unemotional in the face of adversity.

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Dave Hounddriver

[marine6357]

5 hours ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

So you dont think there has been an increase in terrorism on most western solis ?  

Oh I absolutely believe there has been an uptick in terrorism. But I also believe that some of the reasons for the increase is due to the media(whether Mass or social). IMHO I think if there was no publicity on the scale we see now and they knew the were not going to get the attention they would scale back some of the attacks. I think there are a lot of copycats that are committing this horrendous acts that really have no ties to terrorist organizations and are only trying to think they are part of it.

[Snowy79]

9 minutes ago, marine6357 said:

Oh I absolutely believe there has been an uptick in terrorism. But I also believe that some of the reasons for the increase is due to the media(whether Mass or social). IMHO I think if there was no publicity on the scale we see now and they knew the were not going to get the attention they would scale back some of the attacks. I think there are a lot of copycats that are committing this horrendous acts that really have no ties to terrorist organizations and are only trying to think they are part of it.

There's certainly a lot of truth in the media at times not helping. One thing that shocks me is the way the media goes into detail about how to carry out attacks. You'd think the government would be using propaganda against them. Point out that it's the peasants that are killing themselves whilst the leaders live in relative safety and wealth. Make them out to be losers for falling for what their leaders tell them. 

[Benington]

On 8/21/2017 at 6:36 AM, mogo51 said:

Gaza certainly, but that is not theirs, they pinched it from the Palestinians.  I see very few reports from inside Israel, maybe we watch different tv stations.

Yes, some emanating from the Hamas controlled Gaza and there were wars with Gaza a few years ago. Gaza is under a severe blockade by Israel..medical supplies, building materials. It's a pressure cooker. Israel is a bit neglected for news. CNN and other US channels report mainly just the worst events, and are somewhat pro-Government. The BBC does more and Al Jazeera does most, focusing on the Palestinians, although Al Jazeera is under threat of being closed down there. One of the few things I admire about Israel is that it is a democracy with fair judicial processes and experts say that that closure might not go through.

On 8/21/2017 at 6:46 AM, mogo51 said:

... The Israili closure of the Al Aqusa mosque did nothing to help their cause and it seems that has really  spiked the 'terrorist attacks' (anything is called a terrorist attack these days).

I just wonder how their family structures are holding up, those that they identified as being responsible at least?

Some many issues there...Jerusalem, the West Bank....the Palestinians are in a desperate situation. Not much hope left of a solution mainly due to Israeli settlement building. Hamas are also pretty intransigent too. Talking about family "structures"...the Israelis routinely level their houses when anyone in a family is identified as a terrorist!

[Benington]

Interesting discussion here. Three points:

1. If you measure terrorism both by the numbers of victims and incidents then we would expect big increases in modern times due to the wider availability of more lethal means of killing eg more powerful explosives,, new tactics eg suicide bombers..I think first used in India, and the internet to more easily recruit actors.

2. There's a saying, going back Wiki says to the 19th Century...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...a bit silly as the means of terrorism can be used to try to win freedom. However, it does encourage us to differentiate between, say, one section of Islam trying to eliminate another and people like Mandela, aiming to get rid of Apartheid in South Africa. Some would argue even there one shouldn't engage in terrorist acts, but others would take an "ends justifies means approach".

3. With the terrorist campaigns of groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda, if we can steadily reduce their hiding places and territory, then I think there is some hope they will eventually get fed up with mindless terrorist atrocities to try to achieve vague, unachievable aims or just revenge. Even try the political route. But this won't happen if we allow more failed states to be created and encourage authoritarian governments, leading eventually to groups within those countries to take up arms. Interestingly, Trump, against his stated inclinations, is trying to stop the drift to dictatorship in Venezuala, partly because he fears that may happen.

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, Benington said:

If you measure terrorism both by the numbers of victims and incidents then we would expect big increases in modern times due to the wider availability of more lethal means of killing eg more powerful explosives,, new tactics eg suicide bombers..I think first used in India

Now you are confusing me.  It seems you are mentioning "new tactics" such as suicide bombers and then you mention they were first used in India.  Do you refer to:

Quote

To counter the superior numbers of the Chola dynasty empire's army in the 11th century, suicide squads were raised by the Indian Chera rulers

And if those are the suicide squads are what you mean then its not exactly a new tactic. If those were not the ones you meant (perhaps they did not self detonate?) then I notice that this link < click for wiki link refers to

Quote

The first known suicide bomber was Russian.[78] The invention of dynamite in the 1860s presented revolutionary and terrorist groups in Europe with a weapon nearly twenty times more powerful than gunpowder, but with technical challenges to detonating it at the right time. One way around that obstacle was to use a human trigger, and this was the technique that assassinated Tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881.[78] [79] A would-be suicide-bomber killed Vyacheslav von Plehve, the Russian Minister of the Interior, in St Petersburg in 1904.[80]

That statement tells me that suicide bombing is not a new tactic.  It seems to have taken on a new life and a religious connotation since about the 1980's but the religious nuts just copied something that had already been done.

It seems to me that suicide attacks, (remember the kamikazes?) were not previously thought of as terrorism until the extremists started targeting civilians.  That is also strange to me as the bombing blitzes of WWII targeted civilians and yet were never given the title "terrorism", were they?

When I look at the big picture I wonder if "terrorism" as something created by the media to repackage a type of homicide that already existed but needed a new twist to sell advertising. If not that, then what makes terrorism identifiable from hate crime, lunatics shooting up schools, guerrilla warfare,  or just random murder in general?

[Benington]

Oh DH, I stand corrected, the Russians invented suicide bombing first! Or was it the Chinese? They usually claim they invented things first. Just joking!

Anyway, the Indian ( a Tamil, I recall ) suicide attack was the first recent example and now we have large scale, frequent attacks, sometimes even using children. Knocking off a politician is a bit different from blowing up dozens of pilgrims at a shrine. In the Indian example it was again a politician, but yes, it seemed to inspire a new life for this technique, including major widespread use of the suicide belt.

Of course warfare has always generated terror..."rape and pillage" etc. Aiming at civilians does create terror but it's thought of as a part of warfare, one which some parties try to minimize, others don't or even do it deliberately.

Those at the receiving end of terrorist attacks will call them just that. Those doing them see them as part of a war, calling themselves guerillas, freedom fighters, soldier of ISIL etc.

Hate crimes usually produce unease or fear rather than terror, but if they are organized they can get close to terrorism. Mentally deranged people shooting up schools are not included. People murdering randomly etc also don't qualify, unless there is some political aim.

Oh...before I am corrected again. Just checked, to find out from Wiki that the Chinese invented the explosive vest to use in the war between them and Japan, 1937-45!

[Dave Hounddriver]

3 hours ago, Benington said:

Oh...before I am corrected again

OK, I will refrain from commenting.  Were you a teacher at some point?  They also prefer to lecture rather than discuss.