The verbose version. If I had more time to make it shorter I would do so.
Although I have been working on this for 50 years or so, this is a new approach to handling it. Starting over again, So
everthing appears incomplete and nonsensical? The fate of all new and controversial knowledge. For now I will say no
more than what is rightRight
That which is based on true premises, valid and logical thought processes, and is corroborated by history and the laws of nature. And the resulting action—if any—is moral.. Can not be wrong. As it is consistent with the laws of nature and history. That we have a very serious societal problem that needs solving, Else we will continue inexorably on our way to non–viability as a specie. That you should therefore bear with, read and learn. And not practice intellectual dishonesty.
I am 80 years old and have been writing essentially the same thing for 40 years or so. Revising it a little when no one reads it. But I am tried of that and I think losing my imagination and memory. But I hate to give up on Homo sapiens. It has been an increadible 3+ billion year journey. Hate to see it having been for naught. So, here goes again…
I think we need a definition of terrorism, yes? And something useful and right, not like the 65 page definition of the UN.
A new, somewhat absolute, true and useful definition of terror and its result, terrorism, and those who are terrorist, is needed. The one I prefer is:
“ A feeling of intense fear”.
“Any act that creates a feeling of intense fear in the individual”.
I should not need to define terrorist. You should now be able to do that.
Please, I have had some new, very important thoughts that I think should be considered before continuing. If you would jump to those thoughts, there will be a link to return here.
You should see that we do not need something like the purported or alleged 65 page definition of the
UN. Or any other political definitions. They are not helpful, and do not accurately describe what
You should also begin to see that many different things can cause terror in an individual. It could be the little old lady walking down the dimly lit street at night, accosted by a brawny man. Although it could also be a skinny man, yes? And the victim need not be a lady or be old.
It could be a letter from the IRS that sends a feeling of abject fear through your system, yes? A notice from the bank that you are over–drawn and that a check bounced. Your very life dissolving before your eyes…
And certainly the civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing their house hit by an American 250 lb bomb or laser–guided missile, watching their family die, would feel a bit of abject fear, yes?
And you do not need to qualify the definition by saying that a certain number of people must be effected before it is classed a “terrorist act”, yes? Or the they be from a certain culture, national group, religion, skin color, etc. The simple definition suffices.
Please refer to my book on subject, On… Terrorism: Simple Cause — Simple Cure on the subject.
Not so much that there is a cause, rather a situation that facilitates or suggests it as a remedy, the
only remedy, for a condition. However irrational, immoral, etc.
As far as what normally — in the absence of politics — creates terrorism, it is more that there is an individual condition that must exist before it may — or will not — occur.
The reason the “in the absence of politics” is in there, is because terrorism is a necessary part of politics and political action. Politicians willfully, and with premeditation, perform terrorist acts. Witness George W (Dour Leader) Bush’s attack on the political entities of Afghanistan and Iraq. Geographic areas of the world controlled by a different régime than the American one.
And the terror created when the Israelis drop an American supplied 250 lb bomb on a Palestinian building, or fire an American supplied laser–guided missile at someone in Palestine. This of course is part of the reason that Arabs and Muslim went half–way around the world to attack Americans. This and keeping the Palestinians in the world’s largest, most infamous concentration camp for 30 years. Doing the same thing to the Palestinians that the Nazis did to the Jews. Ironic, yes?
But I will discuss that more later, or elsewhere…
In politics you look at Dour Leader’s attack and say “it is America attacking Afghanistan (or Iraq)”. But these are abstract entities, which can not think, form thoughts and ideas, and take action based on the idea. The same is true with things such as Washington, London, the Congress, the White House, etc. This is simply a common, convenient strategy for individual politicians to avoid responsibility for action.
But back to the condition which facilitates the taking of a terrorist action…
Which will occur only when an individual feels they have totally lost control of their life. That someone else is controlling it. Such as a former boss, spouse. And you have someone going into their former workplace and start shooting. Or someone who kills their spouse and perhaps the children.
The individual feels they have totally lost control of their life. And there is zero possibility this will change. And “it is best to kill those responsible and then myself. So I need no longer endure the unendurable”.
Most people do not go off and commit horrific acts. But this conditions is necessary for anyone to do so.
Please, you need to think about that. And the alternative situation…
The individual who wakes up in the morning thinking “Hey, yesterday was not bad! And based on what happened yesterday and recently, I think today will not be bad. And the future looks great!” This person will not be interested in performing any anti–social acts. Why would they do that‽ Totally derail their future. And such a person also does not really want to of the war created the Dictator[ 01 ]. Who would like to force them to become a criminal and terrorist.
To begin and end to terrorism, we need to think about what can cause people to lose control of their lives. Of course it is the “personal problem” indicated above, but what causes these situation?
Well, as I intimated, it could be a politician who wants to settle a personal disagreement with a different politician, by going to war against them. Or it could be that letter from the IRS, as there have been a few such events. (Google it…).
Isn’t it a bit incongruous that Dour Leader was against Mother of all Leaders because that latter might be stockpiling &ldquolweapons of mass destruction&rdqo; (WMDs)? Didn’t Dour Leader have the world’s largest stockpile of WMDs? And announced his intention to use them in Shock and Awe?
Curiously, if you refuse to go off to war and kill people from another geographic area, you are branded a criminal by your own political entity. Never mind that if you killed any of these other people you would also be a criminal. Well? Isn’t it a criminal act to kill someone else? Can your local ruler, such as Dour Leader, properly justify this? Or the new “leader”[ 02 ] Barak [The Professor] Obama? Because he is the leader of a hallowed Democracy? This act of serial killing, of mass destruction, is allowed because the perpetrator heads a “good” political system?
Yes, I know: “God is on our side””. But Mother of all Leaders also believed God was on his side.
Supposed you killed the person across the street because you thought he was against your ruler? Would this be allowable defense in court? “My ruler, the head of a democratic regime, would have wanted me to do it”?
I am asking you to think of principles, dispensing with the prejudices that have been ingrained into you by a failed societal system and faulty concept of morality and history.