Something Zagadka said in this thread (about a book outlining the author’s belief that bin Laden has had “suitcase nukes” for at least two years, and plans to use 'em soon in the U.S.) got me thinking…
It’s that last sentence that triggered my thoughts. Suppose Muslim extremist terrorists had the opportunity to do something that would cause widespread damage in the U.S., and assume that same something would cause economic upheaval and chaos in their own lands (not an unreasonable assumption). Would they even think about such a possibility? Would they care? Maybe the rank-and-file wouldn’t, but what about their leaders? How would they explain it? Would they just not say that they anticipated the consequences? It’s not like they could say “yeah, we knew that doing this would ruin the economies of several Muslim countries we consider allies, but hey, it’s a great recruiting tool, isn’t it?”
The impression I get from islamic extremism and specific terrorist acts is that no consideration whatsoever is given to the affect on Islamic countries of the terrorism. It’s as if it doesn’t matter to them about the downfall of civilization in islamic countries as long as they are pleasing Alah by killing lots of Americans (or whatever)
Nothing about Al Qaeda’s process screams out “tremendous amounts of foresight.”
I’m really not sure what their thought process is. They clearly knew (or at least know) that we can utterly lay waste to them in any of a dozen ways. I think they view the loss of their Muslim brothers’ and sisters’ lives purely as political gain for themselves - another evil of the US to use to recruit more people.
In short, complete and utter destruction doesn’t seem to dissuade them (which leaves the “high thinkers” of the US admin at an utter loss for words).
A term that might help you understand this a bit better: Islamist extremist / terrorist. An Islamist is one who seeks to establish a state governed by the law of God, often called shari’a law in the Western media. Al Qaida are Islamist terrorists. It’s a lot more useful in this discussion than “Muslim extremist terrorists”.
Al Qaida’s main goal is not to merely hurt the US, to cause pain and suffering. Lobsang, with respect, has it backwards - this pain and suffering is a means to an end - to get the US and other Western nations out of what they regard as Islamic lands, so they can depose the autocracies with varying degrees of Westernisation and Western support, and establish states governed by the law of God.
In answer to your question, they don’t mind causing chaos and economic disaster in the Middle East. Quite the opposite - they aim to cause chaos and recession since this is likely to bring down the current regimes, especially the Saudis.
To paraphrase Ernest Becker, ‘every society needs a way for its people to become heroes.’ Unfortunately, the pathetic current state of many Muslim countries leaves martyrdom as the only option. Most of these young men just want to be heroic. Too bad that definition includes killing oneself in the service of killing civilians.
Leaper - that is a very thought provoking question, I have in the past, often thought the same. After hearing an author from Northern Ireland talk about growing up in Belfast, it made me think that there must be people for whom terrorism has been a way of life, not unlike gangs. I wonder how many of the IRA during the 70s and 80s actually really cared or understood what they were fighting for?
True, Mel, a lot of ‘freedom fighting’ movements descend into gangsterism, making vast sums of money trhough protection rackets, drugs, prostitution, etc. Some are possibly founded with that latent goal.
But how much do ANY of us care about our fellows when we are put to the test, when for example not lying will see us lose our job?
To give a trivial example of tribal loyalties, consider a football player who is lauded by his club’s fans who is transferred to another club. In most cases he is vilified. That speaks to the “fellows” part of your question.
A consideration of the shenanigans during the Spanish Civil War and all the horse trading that went on, as people hedged their bets with one eye on the Soviet Union, suggests that people, acting in groups especially, don’t do much better when it comes to sticking by their causes.
I forgot about the money making aspect, I was really thinking more about the ‘way of life’. If young boys grow up seeing their fathers, other grown ups doing this killing, bombing stuff, will they not be attracted to that lifestyle because they know no other. There are implications of adrenaline, testostoroney excitement too. I’m not convinced that they have necessarily really thought about the underlying cause - a bit like growing up with religion?
The terrorist is not motivated by the political end; that is a fiction that they may even tell themselves. They are have two main motivations: to punish those who they believe deserve to be punished (even if it costs them a great deal to do it); and loyalty to those percieved as kinship (the perception that fellow cell members are “family” and thus worth dieing for).
The first is basically spite, and is more biologically inate than reciprocal altruism. Bringing the whole house down around them would be worth it if the “guilty” are punished in the process.
The second does not extend to such an abstract group as country or region; it is a small group item. I would die for my child, maybe even for my brother or my sister. Less so for my fourth cousin by mariage once removed. I will be loyal to my father even at some cost. The same for the fictive kinships creatred in terrorist training. The region be damned. Loyalty to my “brothers” (and honor in their eyes) and obedience to “my father” (Osama) - these are who a terrorist cares about.
Is this dissimilar to the “family” created by a gang? Nah. Just the scale.