Freedom Kills Terrorism

[Karmashock]

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

[Weavern]

While i doubt it is the only factor, its definatly a good motivator for people. If you had no freedom wouldent you be more enclined into terrorist actions :nyah:

[Karmashock]

Did you read it?... read it.

It also says that poverty isn't a factor. It's the amount of freedom that causes it.


If you give people no freedom, then they don't do anything because they're too scared.

If you give people just enough freedom to know what it feels like, then they might become terrorists.

If you give people lots of freedom, then they don't become terrorists.




Read the article. THere is a reason why I provided a link.

[Weavern]

I did read it, however i saw no reason at the time to provide a decent post as my minor post still sums up a basic opinion on it. If you completely strip most freedom (i refrain from saying all freedom cause that is virtually impossible unless you induce them in a coma and control their bodily functions even then you have the choice to live or try to kill yourself which you can do) from someone then you at least create a senario where people will begin to form resistance or become terrorists to try to get their normality back. While restricting most freedoms which is the other end of the scale may reduce most terrorism that terrorism which would occur would possibly be much more dangerous then the run of the mill terrorism in the listed intermediate countries. If not for the complete shock people would experiance from the incident itself.

The report itself does not conclusively link monetary status to terrorism as it tends to completely set aside the issue without showing statistics or information. An area of extremely low wealth next to an area of high wealth would obviously breed feelings of contempt and could envoke conflict or moderate actions within the poorer country to disrupt its neighbour. This is a theoretical stance on my part but considering it it could very well occur with some people within the population.

[Karmashock]

read it again. :rolleyes:

[shutupandshave]

As far as I know, the worst act of terrorism (according to the US) was the 9/11 attack.
This was perpetrated by people living in the US. Does this mean that the US has the least freedom?

[JADezimar]

No I think your misleading the facts a bit Shave. Those terrorists attacks werent performed by americans. So this ideology paper or study whatever you want to call it would imply the terrorists on the planes were the ones with lack of freedoms. (if they were living in the U.S. they were only doing so to perform the attacks just so that dont get covered in the next posts :P

[shutupandshave]

What is an American JAD?
Someone who lived in the US all their life? Someone who's parents are American?

I thought the whole point of America is that it brings together all kinds of different people from all kinds of places. You're saying that the Jewish Americans are not American? So why aren't the Muslim Americans American?

Surely though JAD, when they had their freedom (living in the US) they would stop wanting to be terrorists?

[JADezimar]

I didnt say they werent american. I said they came here with the goal to do terrorism shave. THats plane and simple if they were in cahoots with Bin ladin then they came over with that goal. And were never an american in there hearts. An american is a person that Wants to be an american and is one in its heart. He should have some pride and patriotism for the country and support it. Beleiving in its foundations etc. And since they werent American in the heart this would make them not american making them more of a spy or a terrorist in hiding.

And no not having there freedom in America after moving here with a brainwashed mind of hatred, and the goal of terrorism would change them at the older ages. There still living off the ideologies and beliefs of there country with less freedoms.

[DrunkenUno]

Suas, if you are a foreign national and not an American citizen, you aren't an American. If I remember correctly, most if not all the 9/11 bitches were NOT citizens right?

[Karmashock]

this is all pretty obvious...

[shutupandshave]

The point is - I think that the article has been mis-represented. It is just as effective to take freedom away to reduce terrorism...

Karma, everything is obvious to you... The allies attacked because there were OBVIOUSLY wmd, the UK is OBVIOUSLY a republic, you OBVIOUSLY have no idea what you're talking about at the best of times.

I think a slightly more accurate representation would be "countries with a lack of government stability are more likely to breed terrorism".

There is nothing in that article to suggest that freedom has anything to do with it.
Of course, you knew this already Karma - this whole thread and your posts were just a ruse. It was all OBVIOUS to you to begin with ;)

Economic strength, and freedom are both by-products of government policy.

[Karmashock]

I could easily reverse any of that on you... which is the first sign that it's not a valid argument.


If you have something specific to say, then do so... otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

*wets finger and puts out shave’s fire*


Hush, Karmashock.

[JADezimar]

More like his flame . pffft fire.

[shutupandshave]

JAD, do you follow people around sucking up to them because you have no friends, or because you have no valid opinions?

Karma reverse this...
It is just as effective to take freedom away to reduce terrorism...
You're saying that it is NOT as effective to take away freedom to reduce terrorism?

That's contrary to what your report says.

I made my point, and it was regarding the mis-representation of what you were saying, and also that I felt the article avoided the real points.

[MVB]

Forgetting the article, Freedom DOES kill Terrorism, if you follow empirical evidence. Truly free, settled democratic countries produce <1% of the world's terrorists, statistically and otherwise.

Those who flew planes into the WTC are perfect examples, SUAS -- they were born and raised in nations which were not free.

[shutupandshave]

And lived for years? in the US - and didn't "convert".

[MVB]

Suas, I don't think that's really an appropriate comparison. If I went and lived in Germany for years with the intention of implanting myself comfortably there, then murdering a million of them with a backpack nuke, and I'd been raised my whole formative life on "Germany is evil" propaganda on a National scale, I think yeah -- I wouldn't convert at all.

[shutupandshave]

That's because you're not open-minded ;)

This was a pointless discussion for me to get involved in. I was just annoyed that Karma was mis-representing something, and I was surprised for some reason. My bad.

[MVB]

Suas, exactly -- those people were not exactly open-minded people; they were not raised to be; in fact, they were raised to be as closed-minded as possible.

[Karmashock]

All the article said was that terrorism comes from repressive governments.

The two places where it doesn't come from are totalitarian governments and fairly open and free ones.

That was what it was saying and I didn't misrepresent anything...


The only closed mind in this thread is yours, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

Actually, the article states that unstable, and changing governments were the cause - if you read the article to the end.

[JADezimar]

Thats your direct misrepresentation o0. And on the way side (The idea that saddam had to regularly shoot ppl to keep his government in place makes it stable ?)

[shutupandshave]

JAD - if I misinterpreted I apologise. Please explain to me what this statement means then.

Though his study didn't explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations' tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.

Also, when did I ever say the Iraqi regime was stable/unstable - which is something I would be happy to discuss with you, were you not so stupid.