originally posted in:Secular Sevens
The point of terrorism is the intention of fear. What you are saying is called an "act of war." Attacking specific locations with the intention of bringing down something that stands as a symbol, such as the Twin Towers, they strive to incite fear.
English
-
This guy gets the concept.
-
Well, I'm pretty sure they failed in that. They mainly managed to piss us off.
-
The whole point of terrorism, like edableshoe pointed out, is coercion through fear. The ideology behind terrorism is that it is a justifiable tactic in order to bring about an intended goal. Using the 9/11 attacks specifically, the goal of the attacks was to provoke a US invasion of a Muslim country. They specifically targeted the Twin Towers because, again like edableshoe pointed out, they stood as a symbol of the power of our economy. A goal of al-Qaeda is to cause an economic catastrophe in the United States, so that the world's economy will also collapse. The Twin Towers were highly symbolic of that goal. It's not for attention. It's not grandstanding. It's not even begging for the world to notice them. It's all part of their plan, some elaborate, very complex plan. They aren't attention whores, they are and were terrorists.
-
[quote] the goal of the attacks was to provoke a US invasion of a Muslim country. [/quote] Now why do they want that? What do they gain?
-
Mags explained it very well. The intention was to bog us down and provide ammunition to recruit more jihadists to their cause.
-
So the US can invoke those countries getting more muslims to fight for their cause? And spreading the fight all over?
-
Edited by Mags: 12/3/2013 1:38:00 AMThe overall goal of al-Qaeda and like minded organizations is the complete destruction of the world's economy in order to establish a world-wide Caliphate. I can't find the original link on The Jamestown Foundation nor can I find it on al-Quds al-Arabi but [url=http://www.turkishweekly.net/op-ed/472/al-qaeda-039-s-strategy-until-2020.html]here is their "strategy"[/url] as composed by Sayf al-Adel. Sayf is, of course, regarded as al-Qaeda's military commander. Essentially, what they wanted to happen is for the US to invade a Muslim country in order to incite the locals to an armed opposition. While that is going on, they wanted to spread the fighting elsewhere--essentially globally--to begin a war of attrition with the US and the West. With the West bogged down fighting in two countries (at the time), they could garner sympathetic supporters for their cause and try to make it a fight against the Ummah (Muslim world) against the West. I mean, obviously they have not achieved the goal of making every Muslim fight against the West (whom they regard as "crusaders") but they have succeeded making us invade a Muslim country, spreading the fighting elsewhere and inciting local insurgencies. That's about as watered-down of an answer I can give. I feel like to truly understand what they want and what they gain, one must understand what al-Qaeda is and how they operate--which ironically, US public officials and media still have a hard time figuring that out.
-
I'm learning! Interesting but uh that plan sounds ridiculous. The entire world under a caliphate?
-
It's all part of the "global jihad" movement. To save time, [url=http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/07/global_al_qaeda_affi.php]here is a transcript of a testimony to Congress[/url]. Thomas Joscelyn, the one presenting the testimony, is a respected expert on al-Qaeda.
-
Stupid nigger faggot, always being a cunt.
-
Okay?
-
Exactly what a Jew would say. Fucking nigger faggot.
-
You're gonna have to try harder to troll me, dude.
-
True, but think about it from a broader standpoint. It might have incited anger, but it has also become a part of our history as a country. They wanted to do something that made us point and say "They are our enemy" because to have an enemy means to fear the outcome of refusing to engage. We didn't brush off the 9/11 attacks as nothing, though they were a travesty so I can't imagine a country that would, but we have taken them into a new light, where we embrace our country, and (tried to) spawn patriotism.
-
I don't quite understand what you mean, here. Of course an attack on our nation spawned patriotism, it's a natural reaction to aggression. When a threat arises, people are more willing to band together for security. Hence, why patriotism and war generally go hand-in-hand. Are you trying to misconstrue this as being bad?
-
I wasn't all that clear I guess, but my point was that the intention of the 9/11 attacks was to strike fear in our hearts. But as a nation, we stood together and turned to patriotism. With that being said, the terrorist are used to detonating a bomb, and having the people they attack assimilating without question due to fear. But that only works because these people have no protection, whereas the US has an unmatched military force. The patriotism was not the intention of the attacks, but it is a result. This result, however, can be seen in different viewpoints. For us, it means we stand together and are strongly united against any other attacks, but for the terrorist this means they have caused enough damage to force our hand in retaliation, which means we regard them as an actual threat. Nonetheless, I think the patriotism is great, though sometimes it feels like the American people forget what it means to be one nation, instead of two (Democrats versus Republicans).