Constructs

[el nopal]

I have decided to place this subject in religion and philisophy because it deals with both. (Don't ask why).


What is the "Western" construct of a religious terrorists?

How do you think this "Western" imagery, theory, and construct of the religious terrorist developed?

If you compared the constructs: "Religious Nationalism" and
"Religious terrorist organization," what similarities would emerge?

If you are confused, so am I.

[Redratio1]

Yes, I'm confused.

Are you talking about western definitions of terror, or western terrorists?

[el nopal]

I mean religious terrorists. What do you think they are from a US, Europe point of view?

What is the U.S. and European construct ( or idea) of a religious terrorist? Construct is more then the idea, but the whole thing, the whole system, the big picture imposed on the macro.

[Seth928]

Essentially I think the term terrorist is a new term for guerilla fighter or partisan. Those commonly defined as terrorists are doing nothing more with the techno.logy that they have that former freedom fighters did. Now I'm not saying terrorist is a misnomer. The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act as was the attack on 9/11 but I don't see what is going on in Iraq, Afgahnistan and Israel as terrosim.

[el nopal]

Ok, so what is a religious terrorist construct?

Is there a construct at all?

[Albert]

I normally associate the term construct with the invention of a stereotypical model we use to rationalize our actions. A good example would be the welfare mother. I don’t think the Bush Administration has been very successful in using the Islamic Terrorist construct because they are afraid of offending individuals and groups they are attempting to gain support from. I listened to “This American Life” last Sunday on NPR and they had an intriguing piece about the Israeli Defense Minister who interviewed Palestinians who had attempted to act as suicide bombers. The story focused on a young college student who was despondent over the killing of her boyfriend. The startling revelation is that some of the most potentially dangerous “terrorists” are people you would want living next store, they are bright, intelligent and articulate as well as faithful.

[Seth928]

Ok, so what is a religious terrorist construct?

Is there a construct at all?

Essentially the religious construct gets thrown in there when there is no clear unifying factor other than religion. The idea that OBL presents, a religious Jihad, is pretty much the basis for this. There really is no other clear unifying factor for the members of his organization other than they are all fanatical Islamists. There also is really no clear state that they are fighting for or against. "A Jihad against westerners" really does draw clear lines. I would say a terrorist exists when the lines between friend and enemy become extremely blurred. The PLO exists to free Palastine from the influence of Israel while Al Queda exists just to cause as much harm to "the western empire" as possible. I would group the PLO and the IRA in the category of guerilla fighters because even though there are strong religious undertones they have a specific enemy and a specific cause. I would call terrorism essentially random acts of violence against a people not expecting it (9/11, Oklahoma City) with no other intent than to kill.

I think that the constuct of Islamic terrorist has grown to wildly include several different organizations because no one really has taken the time to define what a terrorist is (thats what I tried to do up there). Because Al Queda is well known and has very strong ties with Islam people have developed this idea that any militant group associated with Islam must be fanatically Islamic and a terrorist organization. I would say the construct of Islamic terrorist is any Muslim associated with an unconventional militant group.

[ArabGirl]

Does it really make you hopeless if you can't complete your studies if you wanted to?
[What if you have no brightness future at all?]

Does it really hurt badly when you lose someone you love?
[What if that someone has been killed?]

Does it really make you angry if someone smashed YOUR new car?
[What if that someone bombed YOUR house?]

Answer these three questions honestly, and keep your answers…I don’t need them

I stopped posting threads and I stopped talking to others about what I think for a while because I was thinking…I needed to make a deal with myself…
I asked my self these questions…
Suicidal bombers… Are they right? Are they wrong? And why can anyone give up his life this easy?
I thought about it…
They are having no future at all and there dreams been killed, they are hopeless!
They are watching their families and beloved people being killed
They are having their properties stolen, and you can't afford smashing your car…
They are having all the reasons to be:
Hopeless
Angry
Sad
And usually when these factors came together they don’t make up a normal person!
They are a result of what they went through…
We've seen criminals who killed because they were angry, sad or hopeless at sometime…
terrorism is the same wether religious or not, it has more reasons than religion... i think most "religious terrorists" are a result of the injustice and the result of injustice is one of two ugly results:
Giving up
Or revenge
you can talk about it as revenge not as terrorism… and when we talk about revenge we don’t just blame the one who take the revenge…
and as they say in sicence
For every act there is a react.

[Senor Herberto]

a terrorist who fights for religion is not called something different than a terrorist who fights for political or social or economic or other change.

a terrorist is someone who uses massive acts of violence or disruption to force or effect a change through the terror that they generate.

in a way, the 9/11 terrorists succeeded masterfully because they forced america to change its gears and shift dramatically. they have indeed degraded our nation and our reaction has aided them.

the most holy action is not violence. violence is poorly understood and often senseless. they are promoting no theocracy with their acts of violence to call it holy. they are fighting for social change, which in a democracy is spread by social activity rather than anti-social activity.

[Michele]

arab girl your post gave me goosebumps really right now all the hair on my arms is standing up on end. beyond that I am not sure what I could possible add to this thread. the definition of terrorism as defined by the ethnocentrism of the european or the american be it political terrorism or so called religious terrorism in general and IMO many times refuses to factor the equation in terms of cause and effect, let alone the regional differences or historical differences that gave rise to the various conflicts we observe.

that NPR does a segment on an educated Palestinian and believes it has told us something about "terorrism" without referencing the conflict itself makes me shake my head in sadness... for it takes the terrorism out of all known context within that particular example.

there are people here that speak up on what defines a terrorist in the levant emphatically (but not just here everywhere I hear them regularly in real life)... t hey think they have said something important or real....only to come to find out they haven't even an elementary understanding of the conflict itself... if one did the word religion wouldn't come to bare as often as it does.

And than look at the terrorism of the Oklahoma city bombing which can hardly be compared to what is termed terrorism within the IP conflict (which is most any violent action, reprisal or defensive retaliation)... or a better analogy would be the bombing of abortion clinics (which stems from a religious fervor having little to do with socio economics) .... and I believe to be so much more a heinous terrorist act than the reactionary violence of a people whose whole existence, home, livelihood, land, family legacy has been destroyed... the destruction not admitted, only to be sanctioned and then repeated to once again be denied.

I think labeling some of the violence we see in terms of terrorism vs measured response does a disservice to everyones intelligence and most certainly does no good in terms of inspiring the needed understanding to deal with the causes and effects not as they pertain to us on solid ground but as they apply to those we label from this distance.

[Senor Herberto]

terrorism may be a response to political situations in specific, but it is a response which is generally disordered. the correct way to apply the feelings that terrorists pent up and release suddenly and violently is a democratic or sociological response.

this is true regardless of where or why the terrorist chooses to strike with violence.

the best way to respond is within society. unfortunately society has become badly twisted. more than being attacked, it needs to be untwisted.this can adequately be done with the correct information dispensed to the right amount of people. there are bad problems with corporatism, politics and the way we move money, to begin with. this is the most far reaching problem because of global trade and multinationalism, and the quest for oil found in remote locations. therefore, i believe it should be addressed first.

bombing the WTC is a poor way of doing this. it draws attention to the inside of the society and hopefully therefore to the ways it is wrong, but it also has strong negative reactionary effects, like the political and military BS that followed/follows.

if bin laden had used his fortune to advertise and promote the truths he knew instead of attacking silently, he might have been a positive source of change instead of a negative notation on things that need changing.

[ArabGirl]

well yes and im totally not with terrorism, but since we "Arabs" were labled terrorists i wanted to explain it from a terrorism point of view..!

[Larani]

well yes and im totally not with terrorism, but since we "Arabs" were labled terrorists i wanted to explain it from a terrorism point of view..!

Arabgirl Arabs have not been labeled terrorists and if by chance you run into some deluded individual who does think this way all you got to say is. I have terrorized nobody so you are wrong and walk away with a grin on your face because you after all would be right. :lol:

[el nopal]

In reading the previous posts about this subject, there is a definite pattern of description. The general themes, if I have interpreted them correctly are:


The individual's feelings and ideology are extremely important in defining the construct.
There is a (constructed) individual who stands out from the group or faction through this action.
The construct is described through the actions and profile of the individual.
The construct as a general group or stereotype (which is a construct itself) this being -ALQ, IRA.

I feel I have missed details. Can anyone help in filling them in?

[Michele]

well yes and im totally not with terrorism, but since we "Arabs" were labled terrorists i wanted to explain it from a terrorism point of view..!


I am not sure who this post is responding too... but I didn't interpret your post from a terrorist point of view... you aptly made the point about cause and effect... to blanketly believe (not that you do but I know people do) that all the violence from the Palestinian side is terrorism is just plain ignorant. I agree with the poster from chicago to a degree... I don't view the IP conflict in terms of solely terrorism, I certainly do not believe religion is the main cause of the conflict ... it isn't a conflict about suicide bombers as the conflict predates suicide bombing....and terrorism was not invented by the Palestinians that is for damn sure... not a conflict about judenhaus as so many would like us to believe either.... and w hile the west focuses myopically on suicide bombings it has lost site of morality in terms of violence in our own country and in general is completely oblivious to the harms caused by the dominant side of the IP conflict.

all that is the mislabeling of causes and to believe that there is only terrorism from the Palestinian side also stems from ignorance. In essense we sanction one sides use of terrorism while we condemn the use of all violence or struggle of the other side one of the leasts defined factors of that conflict being the Palestine cause... what they are resisting while so obvious rendered invisible.

NOW if I take the IP conflict within its proper context and then I compare a suicide bombing to the bombing of an abortion clinic. While clearly an unabashed assault on innocent civilians is by definition terrorism, I would have to say the bombing of the abortion clinic is far more hienous for there is nothing not one thing I can name in the way of understanding it let alone justifying it. Which isn't to say I would encourage any further suicide bombings I most certainly would not... but it stems from a harm that is real... while the bombing of abortion clinics which kill innocent people inside them stems from a dogma based on a belief that has yet proven scientifically meritious.

ALQ is a whole other category... it is more like nazi.org who exploits real struggles (and even might list legitmate issues) but manipulates those recruited to do harms outside of conflict areas that will never serve to address in any real way any solution to problems that stem from legitimate and warranted grievances... and even this is to broad an assessment.

[Michele]

In reading the previous posts about this subject, there is a definite pattern of description. The general themes, if I have interpreted them correctly are:


The individual's feelings and ideology are extremely important in defining the construct.
There is a (constructed) individual who stands out from the group or faction through this action.
The construct is described through the actions and profile of the individual.
The construct as a general group or stereotype (which is a construct itself) this being -ALQ, IRA.

I feel I have missed details. Can anyone help in filling them in?

I don't know it seems I am missing the boat on this entirely. Let's see... I really don't think a construct has very much to do with let's say the terrorism utilized with IP conflict as it manifested on the ground there, for they are indeed struggling against an actual harm caused by the side that the terrorism is aimed at.

while ideology might define the construct that forms groups that organize the bombing of an abortion clinic ...or a school shooting and or random violence aimed at civilians completely outside of the regions specific to any one of a number of conflicts operations that might typify ALQ I can not say the terrorism used within the Iraqi war or within the IP (which I wouldn't necessarily compare to each other either) is not solely ideology driven.

The ideolgoy that manifests the bombing of an abortion clinic is aimed at fighting a preceived or misprecieved harm not out of revenge or a harm caused any of those who will participate in the operation ... as was the Oklahoma city bombing. it seems moreso purely ideology driven.

Now ALQ is a bit but not too much different (perhaps a bit of both). as OBL's cause hinges itself onto a number of conflicts all where harms against the people that he seems to believe he is defending can be observed... however.... once taken from outside of those conflicts .... it becomes most purely a matter of ideology as it exploits a wide variety of societal maladies. remember his group can recruit from france and spain people (and even Am erica) living in muslim ghetto's (and not even just muslims) that never experienced the harms the Palestinians did... and most certainly ALQ can not be cited as speaking for or even on behalf of all Iraqi's or Palestinians... but they preceive a threat upon Islam... again there is a believeable perception of harm or threat...

whereas suicide bombers from within Palestine are not recruits from anywhere but those on the ground within that struggle.

[Michele]

Arabgirl Arabs have not been labeled terrorists and if by chance you run into some deluded individual who does think this way all you got to say is. I have terrorized nobody so you are wrong and walk away with a grin on your face because you after all would be right. :lol:


that may well be true Larani, but it negates the reality that indeed the Arab and Muslim world did feel blamed and or labelled and targeted by some of the rhetoric that arose from 9/11... regardless of what distinctions were or were not made...

and afterall there are quite a few deluded individuals out there some of them happened to have found their way to this forum ... you know the nuke them all crowd. who finds it so difficult to take the time to make needed distinctions and couldn't tell the difference between an islamic movement and an islamist movement, let along how each factors into the teachings of Islam.

[Larani]

that may well be true Larani, but it negates the reality that indeed the Arab and Muslim world did feel blamed and or labelled and targeted by some of the rhetoric that arose from 9/11... regardless of what distinctions were or were not made...

but that is my point Michele if Arabs or Muslims for that matter felt blamed they did themsleves a diservice even if their were those delusional enough to blame them all.

Let me make an example occasionally I get some who I will hear talk about whites and (being mostly caucasion that would include me) supressing the African Americans. Now while I would never deny such suppression has happened and even some still does I myself have never partaken in it. Thus no matter what they say none of it applies to me even though I am white.

Does that explain what I meant?

[Michele]

yes yes but of course however, I initially understood what you said... I was just pointing out how the delusion can be internalized by those that are a target of it.


And I am not sure it is good necessarily to play down (as if purely that of isolated delusionalists) the anti-arab buzz words however subtle they may be that are intrinsic to how the ME has been framed by the West who has muddled all Arab together as one since sykes picot. It isn't a matter of solely the presence of delusions. There is terminology intrinsic to some of the rhetoric within our very policies particularly the more hawkish rhetoric as expressed outside a full context of history.

[Michele]

as clarification Larani, has come up discussion of many forms of racisms and will ensue debate and discussion in an attempt to clarify what forms these various racisms may take, even to the precise accounting of particular phrases and their uses so that they may be identified for the purposes of proactively raising awareness for the purposes of monitoring it within society as well as on the various forums (and indeed we also have discussion aimed out outing racists and naming most anything that dares to criticize forms of racism but let's leave that aside for the moment it being a whole other kettle of fish).

but on this forum the one form of discrimination so poorly elucidated by members of this forum as a collective is anti arab discrimination... that it is poorly elucidated goes hand in hand with the decided lack of ability or even desire to list what constitutes the Palestinian cause which always takes a back seat to derisions regarding needed condemnation of suicide bombing as if definitions are needed to identify the harms they cause. With hardly ever any of the needed condemnations of those militant actions of our friendly ally within this paradigm. IMO, we are obsessed with the Arab terrorist to a fault, and that obsessions I would guess is wholly most obvious moreso to Arabs in this country and worldwide.

As to the question concerning what is it that the Palestinians resist. this is a question I have posed many times more than once asking many of our said to be more objective posters to simply list what constitutes the Palestinian cause and or what is it the Palestinians are resisting or more importantly what constitutes anti-palestinian sentiment which can and has run rampant on forum at times passing itself off as viable discourse. It seems to me if one wishes to discuss this conflict one should easily be able to answer these simple questions for it is not hardly as complex as the mess we have going now in Iraq. Which makes the IP conflict look like childs play in comparison.

so...what I mean to communicate is while what you say indeed is good advice for those the target of any cruelty and or racism ... it is also as important to point out what defines this form of discrimination.

considering the lack of participation in this thread

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28145

me thinks america as a collective may not be yet ready to monitor its own arabophobia let alone begin to delineate which aspects of it do indeed cross over into what is discrimination plain and simple. Is seems to me we remain most concerned with understanding and or singling out only the Arab or Muslim Terrorist which to a degree can also be construed as a form of discrimination. note I said to a degree. We are hardly as fixated upon understanding muslim or arab culture and how many do you see on the board obsessed by understanding Islam? I mean amongst those who have shown little restraint here when it has arisen an opportunity to attack it.