Reasons why a non-Islamist terrorist would attack America?

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?

[AQIP is much more connected to the former leadership structure of AQ proper in Pakistan]

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 [sic]?

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 [they were foreign Arab fighters]. 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?

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?

[AQIP is much more connected to the former leadership structure of AQ proper in Pakistan]

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 [sic]?

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 [they were foreign Arab fighters]. 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.

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.

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?????

Might as well just make your villains Tolkien orcs.