Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do liberals enable terrorists and make them respectable?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:12 PM
Original message
Do liberals enable terrorists and make them respectable?
According to the US government we do:

The sociology and psychology of terrorism: Who becomes a terrorist and why?

September 1999
Author: Rex A. Hudson
Editor: Marilyn Majeska
Project Managers: Andrea M. Savada
Helen C. Metz
Federal Research Division
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 205404840
Tel: 2027073900
Fax: 2027073920
E-Mail: frds@loc.gov
Homepage: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd /

Environments conducive to the rise of terrorism include international and national environments, as well as subnational ones such as universities, where many terrorists first become familiar with Marxist-Leninist ideology or other revolutionary ideas and get involved with radical groups. Russell and Miller identify universities as the major recruiting ground for terrorists...


Moreover, in Guttman's analysis, the terrorist requires a liberal rather than a right-wing audience for success. Liberals make the terrorist respectable by accepting the ideology that the terrorist alleges informs his or her acts. The terrorist also requires liberal control of the media for the transmission of his or her ideology...
(page 26 of the PDF file)

more:

GENERAL HYPOTHESES OF TERRORISM
If one accepts the proposition that political terrorists are made, not born, then the
question is what makes a terrorist. Although the scholarly literature on the
psychology of terrorism is lacking in full-scale, quantitative studies from which to
ascertain trends and develop general theories of terrorism, it does appear to focus
on several theories. One, the Olson hypothesis, suggests that participants in
revolutionary violence predicate their behavior on a rational cost-benefit calculus
and the conclusion that violence is the best available course of action given the
social conditions. The notion that a group rationally chooses a terrorism strategy
is questionable, however. Indeed, a groups decision to resort to terrorism is often
divisive, sometimes resulting in factionalization of the group.


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/soc_psych_of_te...

An interesting read culled from google.com/unclesam while looking for info on terrorism and psychology. Still reading the whole thing (186 pages).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. In this world of the RNC owning all media outlets, how can a liberal
make anyone a "success". A limited success in alternative media perhaps, but an overall success? No. Liberals do not have access.

Also, check your records, in their book liberals ARE terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well first define 'terrorist'.
The professor appears to have whittled the broad definition down to one that fits the conclusion drawn.

For example: "many terrorists first become familiar with Marxist-Leninist ideology". Hmmm... these days 'many terrorists' first become familiar with rightwing jihadist ideologies taught in the religious schools funded by the right wing religious saudi monarchy.

I wonder what Marxist-Leninist ideology old Timmy McVeigh was exposed to? Oh that's right he was 'a nut' not 'a terrorist'. Or the contras of Nicaraugua that we trained and funded, who tromped around terrorizing the sandinsita base of support for a decade or so, did they need the liberal media to keep them going, or was the cocaine money from our CIA front organization's sufficient? Oh, I forgot, they were 'freedom fighters', not 'terrorists'.

So much bullshit, so little time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran1212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. W..T...F....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. WTF is right
Who are the REAL enemies? The people behind writing these things and putting us into wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. No, we treat them as criminals, hunt them down and prosecute.....
instead of making them a profit center for Republican business interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Um, how many left wing terrorists have been plaguing the
world, lately?

But I agree with one thing in the article. Terrorists do seem to spring from either an international or a national environment. I'll buy that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
godhatesrepublicans Donating Member (343 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. better question; do authoritarian governments enable terrorists?
David Icke is a bit nuts IMHO, but he's right about the following pet theory anyway. Allow me to quote wholesale.

Problem-Reaction-Solution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Problem-Reaction-Solution, also known as Problem? Reaction. Solution., PRS, or P-R-S, is a variation on the classic Machiavellian fabricated external-enemy strategy for manipulation of public opinion and society, usually by the government. The term was introduced by David Icke in a speech at the University of Toronto in 1999. <1> The general theory is based on the Hegelian Dialectic method thesis, antithesis, synthesis, but the specific term is usually only used in the context of a conspiracy theory.


Definition

Problem-Reaction-Solution is defined as the strategy of creating a crisis (the problem), waiting for a call for action to resolve the crisis (the reaction), then taking action (the solution), supposedly in response, which actually furthers a hidden agenda, usually gaining power.

This is often cited as:

1. The government creates or exploits a problem, blaming it on others
2. The people react by asking the government for help, willing to give up their rights
3. The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis



Example

From David Icke, noted reptilian humanoid investigator:

You want to introduce something you know the people won't like. This may be more power to the police, a further erosion of basic freedoms, even a war. You know that if you offer these policies openly the people will react against them. So you first create a PROBLEM, a rising crime rate, more violence, a terrorist bomb, a government collapse, or you get one of your Illuminati puppets like Saddam Hussein to go to war.

You make sure someone else is blamed for this problem and not you, the real people behind it all. So you create a "patsy," as they call them in America, a Timothy McVeigh or a Lee Harvey Oswald. You then use your media to tell people what they should think about your manufactured event and who they should blame for it. This brings us to stage two, the REACTION from the people - "This can't go on; what are THEY going to do about it?"

This allows THEM to then openly offer the SOLUTION to the problems they have created - new legislation which advances their agenda of centralisation of global power or the erosion of more basic freedoms. This technique is being used all the time on the human mind and emotions, not least with the stream of mind-controlled youngsters and adults who go crazy with guns around the world and immediately prompt gun control laws. <2>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. another example
"Well, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the calibre of disaster indicated by the presence of a pool table in your community. Wellll, you got trouble, folks, right here in River City ...."

"Folks, listen. May I have your attention please? I can deal with the trouble, friends, with a wave of my hand, this very hand. Please, observe me if you will. I'm Professor Harold Hill, and I'm here to organize a River City boy's band ..."



"usually by the government"?

Corporations do it all the time, and usually they, the Prison Industrial Complex, or the Military Industrial Complex will be the one's driving what the government does - especially a Republican government. "Healthy Forests Initiative" = healthy profits for lumber companies. "Prescription drug coverage" = healthy profits for pharma Inc. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. WTF? Inflamatory or What...
So... Make me your enemy and come and get me. I'll be waiting right here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I ain't trying to inflame :)
Just worried that this insitutuionalized mentality is so deep in it's roots that we are in serious shit.

This was written in the late 90's and published '99. Essentially we can elect new leaders but some people in government never change - and we need to figure out a little bit more about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. No, No, No... sorry... Not You
I wasn't addressing you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. There is nothing so amusing...
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 10:42 PM by sendero
... as when people try to explain with hundred-dollar words that which can be explained reading bathroom walls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. Well, sure. It's important to have a scapegoat to blame
for aiding and abetting the enemy, so I guess liberals are it these days. Now if someone can point out who the real terrorists are, perhaps we can prove that there weren't any liberals who enabled them.

So let me take a stab at it. The only terrorists I can see are sitting in our seats of government and the White House. I don't think they have adopted any liberal philosophies.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. Sounds like,
ditto pig boy RW think-tank shit to me. Sure, it was Teddy Kennedy who financed the AlQuaida during the Soviet Afghan war. Fox news never reports on terrorism so it don't transmit the ideology. So much shit who can keep up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. This from a government that incites coups
...against democratically elected leaders and arms right-wing radicals to overthrow their governments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. NO, but Conservatives armed them and then acted surprised
when they turned those weapons toward us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
17. It wasn't "liberals" who let them through on 9/11(eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
18. No - they refuse to vote for republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Humor_In_Cuneiform Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. What a mystery it all is. Not like a charismatic leader comes along
and preys on conditions of poverty, submission to authoritarian regimes etc etc to create a movement.

The demagogery of the leader, ie Bin Laden, and the desperation of many people make it all possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC