Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Nothing against Muslims, but are there any other motivations by besides meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (through support Israel and Saudi Arabia and the dictatorship we supported in Iran) that would cause one to maliciously attack the United States?

For instance, Patrice Lamumba. The entire crisis in Africa can be attributed to the US ordering his death, leaving Zaire without a leader to stabilize it. that would cause Anti-American views.

Any other instances in US history besides that?

Well there's all those people in the Middle East who aren't Muslim who have had their lives screwed up by the US.

Second on the list is probably "patriot" groups inside the country. I'm sure there are people in South America who still hold a grudge as well.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well there's all those people in the Middle East who aren't Muslim who have had their lives screwed up by the US.

Such as whom?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Such as whom?

Jew, Christians, Hindus, Baha'ists, Zoroastrians, Buddhists.

You don't turn Muslim from living the Middle East. It's an actual religion and stuff.

Indeed. We've gotten past that. What reasons would countries in the Middle East have? What has the US done to phuck them over to a point of animosity?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Indeed. We've gotten past that. What reasons would countries in the Middle East have? What has the US done to phuck them over to a point of animosity?

These days drone strikes are a pretty big reason. I think it's Yemen that has had the US assassinate the most people within its borders.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Indeed. We've gotten past that. What reasons would countries in the Middle East have? What has the US done to phuck them over to a point of animosity?

lol, magnificent satire

Originally posted by Lestov16
Indeed. We've gotten past that. What reasons would countries in the Middle East have? What has the US done to phuck them over to a point of animosity?

Bigger question is what haven't we done. I can't believe people still wonder why half the world hates the US.

Also, try taking a look at domestic terrorism carried out by Americans - things like bombings of government buildings, abortion clinic bombings (often done by Christian extremists), and so on. Events like that are way more common than someone from another country attacking like that.

how had Tim mcveigh not been mentioned yet... or the unibomber...?

the vast majority of domestic terrorist activity comes from environmental groups. I had a prof whose friend did work with rats, an environmental group (this is in the uk) sent his daughter a letter bomb full of aids infected needles.

I'm not sure I understand, is the point to think of reasons why middle easterners may be motivated outside of jihad, or just why people in general
may attack the us?

There was also an environmental terror group that burned a number of car dealerships a few years ago as well as burning down some high-dollar homes. The irony was that the homes were high-efficiency green developments. Terrorists suck donkey balls.

I'm afraid I was not specific. I did not bring up domestic terrorists and ecoterrorists as their terrorism is supposed to provoke "improvements" within US societal structure.

I need a motivation that would want a terrorist to wipe the US and it's innocent citizens, anything having to do with the US off the face of the Earth, which is why I am requesting info about international terrorist groups

Originally posted by inimalist
I had a prof whose friend did work with rats, an environmental group (this is in the uk) sent his daughter a letter bomb full of aids infected needles.


A friend of mine briefly worked for a research lab that worked with mice and rats. They did a heavy background check and apparently any sort of association with PETA was an automatic "not a chance in hell".

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm afraid I was not specific. I did not bring up domestic terrorists and ecoterrorists as their terrorism is supposed to provoke "improvements" within US societal structure.

I need a motivation that would want a terrorist to wipe the US and it's innocent citizens, anything having to do with the US off the face of the Earth, which is why I am requesting info about international terrorist groups

McVeigh killed children.

All terrorism is supposed to provoke improvements in the target society. There aren't really evil brown people thousands of miles who want to kill Americans for no reason. Generally terrorism from the Middle East targeted at American is done either to push America into leaving the area or punish it for more esoteric forms of immorality.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm afraid I was not specific. I did not bring up domestic terrorists and ecoterrorists as their terrorism is supposed to provoke "improvements" within US societal structure.

I need a motivation that would want a terrorist to wipe the US and it's innocent citizens, anything having to do with the US off the face of the Earth, which is why I am requesting info about international terrorist groups
Are you asking for real groups? Or just hypothetical?

Because I could envision an apocalyptic group that seeks to destroy the United States and thus ruin the world economy as a means of bringing some kind of global societal collapse.

But as Sym said, terrorists aren't out to kill Americans for the sake of killing Americans, they just think that killing Americans is the best way of attaining their goals.

The Oklahoma City bombing was domestic and was a terrorist act. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are you asking for real groups? Or just hypothetical?

Because I could envision an apocalyptic group that seeks to destroy the United States and thus ruin the world economy as a means of bringing some kind of global societal collapse.

But as Sym said, terrorists aren't out to kill Americans for the sake of killing Americans, they just think that killing Americans is the best way of attaining their goals.

Hypothetical would be fine. Plausible is what I need

Originally posted by Lestov16
I'm afraid I was not specific. I did not bring up domestic terrorists and ecoterrorists as their terrorism is supposed to provoke "improvements" within US societal structure.

I need a motivation that would want a terrorist to wipe the US and it's innocent citizens, anything having to do with the US off the face of the Earth, which is why I am requesting info about international terrorist groups

alright, you are probably more looking for a fictional group then, not because nobody has these types of grievances with America, but that most terrorism is focused on very local issues. Most terrorists are "home grown", and it is just more difficult to get people to fight against more abstract things, like "the great satan America", versus "the-local-ruler-who-oppresses-me".

The question then, as I see it, is why do these groups attack America? Al Qaeda does it for nominally spiritual reasons, they literally believe their god will allow them to not only kill Americans, but threaten America's existence. However, even though this is the case, they still use local conflicts as recruiting tools and as justification.

So, you already mentioned African groups, sure, or any nation in Latin or South America (Haiti springs to mind instantly), but you might have to come up with some motivation for these terrorists that allows them to actually believe they can destroy America.

Terrorism is like a budget version of formal war, most of its "ideological" reasons can be considered propaganda most of the time.

maybe

anti-American terrorism wasn't popular in Afghanistan right after the defeat of the Soviets. Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri were unpopular because they wanted global jihad. It must have meant something to them, at least.

Most of Al Qaeda's motivation really seems to stem from being slighted by the U.S., with them eventually wrapping their hatred in the standard "great satan" ideology. We pitted them against the Soviets as we saw fit after then invasion, then once things were over we, namely the CIA, left them and pretended like we no longer knew who they were. We used them and tossed them aside like a cheap whore, which they found none too pleasing.

Honestly, even when you look a number of situations in which war is formally declared the reasoning isn't much sounder than that, but the winners write the histories. Look no further than the Revolutionary War. The weathly were tired of Britain ruling over them and taxing them more heavily than they thought appropriate. The poor would see almost no difference in living conditions under either side but were incited into seeing the fight as worthwhile so war it is. For all intents and purposes the original attacks by the patriots of the U.S. were terrorist actions against British troops, but we won the war so we were justified in the end, no? That's how it works.

Yes, I'm oversimplifying the conflict a bit, but the situations are similar looking at them from an objective point of view and showing no bias towards one group or the other being right from the outset.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Most of Al Qaeda's motivation really seems to stem from being slighted by the U.S., with them eventually wrapping their hatred in the standard "great satan" ideology.

then why does AQ in the Arab Peninsula attempt to bomb American air-liners, while AQ in the Islamic Maghreb focus on local issues?



Why, then, if it is simply anti-Americanism that drives AQ, does Al Shabab not attack the US directly?

AQ is immensely unique among terrorist groups, in that it has such global motivations. In a way, it resembles massive global crime syndicates or corporations more than a terrorist group, though that comparison does fall apart quickly.

I think it is a bit silly, when AQ tells us they are motivated by spiritual reasons to fight against the great satan, that we might just throw that out, because somehow we know more about their motivations than they do ?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
We pitted them against the Soviets

lol, nono, you don't have to worry, you didn't invent the Mujaheddin. Also, the vast majority of American funds went through Pakistan and the ISI to support the Muj fighters in Afghanistan. Because Pakistan had an interest in controlling the region after the war, they generally only supported local Afghan groups, of which AQ was not a part . AQ, by all accounts, was ineffective, underfunded and undermanned through the whole Afghan war.

Might some money have made its way to Bin Laden? Maybe, possibly through some Saudi connection (though, Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden weren't really all buddy-buddy), but this idea that AQ is somehow the brainchild of America is, imho, arrogance and hubris on the American side.

Originally posted by inimalist
some motivation for these terrorists that allows them to actually believe they can destroy America.

I intend to give the fictional terrorists a large slush fund full of money so they will definitely have the means to "believe that they can destroy America". I need a plausible ideology though. Does this sound plausible:..

"The United States are responsible for many of the problems and atrocities of the third world, which they exploit and commit with remorseless impunity because of their military and economic superiority. The only way to save the utilitarian greater good (multiple countries) to to cull the earth of the US (one country) who are threatening it."

Does this sound like a plausible ideology a terrorist could get behind?

It could work, though, you have to really sell why it is these people look to America, rather than their own nation, to do violence. ie: why do they have to attack America, rather than just removing America from their own nations?

Because they are doing the same (drone attacks on civilians, tc.) with other countries and will continue to do so with impunity unless they are stopped at the root. It's a utilitarian ideology. Stop them all now to save millions in the future.

Any good at all?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Because they are doing the same (drone attacks on civilians, tc.) with other countries and will continue to do so with impunity unless they are stopped at the root. It's a utilitarian ideology. Stop them all now to save millions in the future.

Any good at all?
That's not really Utilitarian, not if they intend to accomplish their goals through killing civilians. Utilitarianism doesn't say to stoop to the enemy's perceived level, it says to do that which maximizes pleasure for the greatest number and minimizes pain.

What you're talking about is something more amorphous.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Because they are doing the same (drone attacks on civilians, tc.) with other countries and will continue to do so with impunity unless they are stopped at the root. It's a utilitarian ideology. Stop them all now to save millions in the future.

Any good at all?

for sure, but think of it as if you are a Yemeni civilian, and you literally have American drones over your head every day. statistically speaking, you are more likely to attack your own leaders who allow this, or the Americans living in your nation, rather than spend the resources to attack America directly.

It might even just break down to the intensity of motivation, but if you can get around this, you can really justify their actions by any means. If it makes sense that your organization would reach globally instead of locally, they could be motivated by corn subsidies or anything else.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not really Utilitarian, not if they intend to accomplish their goals through killing civilians. Utilitarianism doesn't say to stoop to the enemy's perceived level, it says to do that which maximizes pleasure for the greatest number and minimizes pain.

What you're talking about is something more amorphous.

Killing a million people to stop the deaths of tens of millions is acceptable in Utilitarianism. Obviously there could be a better way but that doesn't make the thinking non-Utilitarian.

Originally posted by inimalist
then why does AQ in the Arab Peninsula attempt to bomb American air-liners, while AQ in the Islamic Maghreb focus on local issues?



Why, then, if it is simply anti-Americanism that drives AQ, does Al Shabab not attack the US directly?

AQ is immensely unique among terrorist groups, in that it has such global motivations. In a way, it resembles massive global crime syndicates or corporations more than a terrorist group, though that comparison does fall apart quickly.

I think it is a bit silly, when AQ tells us they are motivated by spiritual reasons to fight against the great satan, that we might just throw that out, because somehow we know more about their motivations than they do ?



lol, nono, you don't have to worry, you didn't invent the Mujaheddin. Also, the vast majority of American funds went through Pakistan and the ISI to support the Muj fighters in Afghanistan. Because Pakistan had an interest in controlling the region after the war, they generally only supported local Afghan groups, of which AQ was not a part . AQ, by all accounts, was ineffective, underfunded and undermanned through the whole Afghan war.

Might some money have made its way to Bin Laden? Maybe, possibly through some Saudi connection (though, Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden weren't really all buddy-buddy), but this idea that AQ is somehow the brainchild of America is, imho, arrogance and hubris on the American side.

You really typed a lot for nothing. I'm referring to the motivations of the original heads of AQ, more specifically Bin Laden. He felt slighted and he used his money. influence, and intelligence to turn Al Qaeda into a machine for his and a few other's vengeance . Whatever idealogical difference are spouted as justification, it was for get backs at the core.

You also misunderstood what I was saying about the CIA pitting Afghani forces against the Soviets. I know that they were already fighting, I am speaking to the fact that we gave them intelligence to send them where we thought best to cause harm to Soviet armies regardless of the cost to those who were at the time freedom fighters. We weren't there because we believed in them, we simply saw a means to an end and the way that we abandoned them once they had played their part settles that completely.

I am in no way saying that the CIA created Al Qaeda, only that we used them as we saw fit and then tossed them aside. There may be plenty within the organization now who truly are religious zealots, but that was not the impetus for starting all of this. I feel as though you read what you like into statements and ignore the total picture just so that you have something to argue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Killing a million people to stop the deaths of tens of millions is acceptable in Utilitarianism. Obviously there could be a better way but that doesn't make the thinking non-Utilitarian.
It makes it a kind of sloppy Utilitarianism, if it's any kind of Utilitarianism at all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It makes it a kind of sloppy Utilitarianism, if it's any kind of Utilitarianism at all.

Speed is a relevant concern for a Utilitarian. The enemy is constantly killing people with no sign of stopping. Every day you delay costs lives.

Yeah, I think sloppy is the operative word there, because it is the most amount of happiness possible that a Utilitarian society, and I don't think wiping out a million people for the good of others creates a very happy state. I don't recall too many smiles being flashed by anyone after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Utilitarianism might allow for death in certain instances but there's nothing in it that speaks to making war against a civilian population.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
You really typed a lot for nothing. I'm referring to the motivations of the original heads of AQ, more specifically Bin Laden. He felt slighted and he used his money. influence, and intelligence to turn Al Qaeda into a machine for his and a few other's vengeance . Whatever idealogical difference are spouted as justification, it was for get backs at the core.

ok

if this is true, it should be easy to answer this question:

Why does Al Shabab not attack America then?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
You also misunderstood what I was saying about the CIA pitting Afghani forces against the Soviets. I know that they were already fighting, I am speaking to the fact that we gave them intelligence to send them where we thought best to cause harm to Soviet armies regardless of the cost to those who were at the time freedom fighters. We weren't there because we believed in them, we simply saw a means to an end and the way that we abandoned them once they had played their part settles that completely.

I am in no way saying that the CIA created Al Qaeda, only that we used them as we saw fit and then tossed them aside. There may be plenty within the organization now who truly are religious zealots, but that was not the impetus for starting all of this. I feel as though you read what you like into statements and ignore the total picture just so that you have something to argue.

you have confused the Afghan Mujaheddin with Al Qaeda

EDIT: also, I'd direct you toward Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" for more about the "impetus" for starting Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yeah, I think sloppy is the operative word there, because it is the most amount of happiness possible that a Utilitarian society, and I don't think wiping out a million people for the good of others creates a very happy state. I don't recall too many smiles being flashed by anyone after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Utilitarianism might allow for death in certain instances but there's nothing in it that speaks to making war against a civilian population.

there are forms of Utilitarianism that aren't Hedonism

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yeah, I think sloppy is the operative word there, because it is the most amount of happiness possible that a Utilitarian society, and I don't think wiping out a million people for the good of others creates a very happy state. I don't recall too many smiles being flashed by anyone after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Utilitarianism might allow for death in certain instances but there's nothing in it that speaks to making war against a civilian population.

There is nothing in Utilitarianism that says "Don't kill millions of people."

One can argue, quite reasonably, that a protracted conventional war against the Japanese would have killed more people and created greater suffering. Remember it is maximize happiness and minimize pain.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Speed is a relevant concern for a Utilitarian. The enemy is constantly killing people with no sign of stopping. Every day you delay costs lives.
But you'd have to substantiate that killing American civilians would stop that, when all evidence of previous attacks shows the exact opposite is true.

What I'm trying to say is that anyone claiming to be a Utilitarian and advocating this kind of activity is either a myopic idiot or being disingenuous.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What I'm trying to say is that anyone claiming to be a Utilitarian and advocating this kind of activity is either a myopic idiot or being disingenuous.

possibly a.... terrorist?????

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But you'd have to substantiate that killing American civilians would stop that, when all evidence of previous attacks shows the exact opposite is true.




They are going to the root to invoke the change. One plotline has them holding cities hostage if the US doesn't withdraw from NATO, the UN, etc.

Well, there's a lot of people that hate American imperialism, as well as some of the things the US does, or in their opinion, stands for, like consumerism, capitalism, corporatism, war mongering, anti-science and education stances, etc.

Is that what you are wondering about?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is nothing in Utilitarianism that says "Don't kill millions of people."

One can argue, quite reasonably, that a protracted conventional war against the Japanese would have killed more people and created greater suffering. Remember it is maximize happiness and minimize pain.

That was the main militaristic argument for the weapons being used, I'm just saying that I think most Utilitarians would have found even that situation to be too much to bear.

Originally posted by inimalist
possibly a.... terrorist?????
Well, I guess I'm thinking about it from a writer's perspective...where one dimensional villains with myopic motives are boring and unoriginal.

Might as well just make your villains Tolkien orcs.

Well, let's come up with a list of non-Muslim domestic terrorist organizations or other terror groups acting in the US and think of possible reasons they would attack America...
Army Of God
Church of Jesus Christ Christian
Aryan Nations
Jewish Defense League
American Nazi Party
American Third Position
Hammerskins
Blood and Honor
Black Hebrew Israelites
Republican Party (yeah I'll include them)
Tea Party (them too, brandishing rifles, spitting, swastikas and threats are forms of violent intimidation)
National Socialist Movement
Elohim City
Creativity Movement
NAAWP
Kahane Chai
World Church of the Creator
Victory Outreach
Minutemen
Maricopa County Sheriff's Department
Church of Scientology
Westboro Baptist Church (they crossed that line when one of them started sending death threats to Kevin Smith's Daughter)

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well, let's come up with a list of non-Muslim domestic terrorist organizations or other terror groups acting in the US and think of possible reasons they would attack America...
Army Of God
Church of Jesus Christ Christian
Aryan Nations
Jewish Defense League
American Nazi Party
American Third Position
Hammerskins
Blood and Honor
Black Hebrew Israelites
Republican Party (yeah I'll include them)
Tea Party (them too, brandishing rifles, spitting, swastikas and threats are forms of violent intimidation)
National Socialist Movement
Elohim City
Creativity Movement
NAAWP
Kahane Chai
World Church of the Creator
Victory Outreach
Minutemen
Maricopa County Sheriff's Department
Church of Scientology
Westboro Baptist Church (they crossed that line when one of them started sending death threats to Kevin Smith's Daughter)

That sounds more like a list of why YOU would attack America.

My point is it's all about affecting political and social change through violence or threat of violence due to political, philosophical or religious extremism. That's never been exclusive to Muslims and quite frankly, I think some crazy Nazi with a makeshift army and friends in the military stockpiling nerve gas and rocket launchers in Texas scares me a hell of a lot more than some cave fanatics in afghanistan trying to piece together a nuke with lodestone and chicken wire.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Nothing against Muslims, but are there any other motivations by besides meddling in Middle Eastern affairs (through support Israel and Saudi Arabia and the dictatorship we supported in Iran) that would cause one to maliciously attack the United States?

For instance, Patrice Lamumba. The entire crisis in Africa can be attributed to the US ordering his death, leaving Zaire without a leader to stabilize it. that would cause Anti-American views.

Any other instances in US history besides that?




American people!