How to grow a terrorism plant in 4 easy steps

[sataricon]

This is to teach you how to grow a terrorism plant in somehow easy steps. so let's begin every one.

1- the first thing you need is the seed of terrorism and seeds can be anything you want from ideological or psychological or the most dangerous one which is the seed that mix ideologicalreason with the psychological.

2- After the seed you need the soil which is a mixture of ignorance and poverty....this is the perfect soil....shop smart.
3- now for fertilizer you will mix the following :

A: Despair.
B: discrimination.
C: Oppression "plenty of oppression"

4 – Until now if you think that the terrorism plant will grow from the above you are mistaken because we sadly didn't add the most important element yet which is WATER.
Now water here takes the shape of injustices.....it is important to understand that without injustices nothing will grow...injustices can take so many forums but i'll list only 4 for ease of mixing:

A: Occupations.
B: Collateral damage...very important...don't forget during Occupation or "surgical strikes".
C: Supporting dictators.
D: Injustices in global economy.

And that is it....congratulations you are now the proud owner of a terrorism plant.
Now it can take years to grow....but IT WILL GROW so don't worry.

Now for someone who didn't take this lesson they will be surprised as where did this terrorism came from?
And because they don't understand or they understand but like to ignore it...they start dealing with it with one way and that is security measures.
So they cut plant but leaves the roots in what can we describe as a fertile soil.

Those of you who know anything about guarding knows that cutting this plant will only strengthen it make it grow even more than before.

FAQ:
Q- all you have said is fine but you have to agree that without the seeds nothing would have grown.
A- Actually that's a common mistake...you can try taking any soil "real soil lol" and put some fertilizer and give it water.....it will grown.
As long as the soil and fertilizers And above all else water are there it will grow.

Q- Ok so this sounds bleak....how to destroy this plant then?
A- make sure remove the elements stated above with the most important one being it's water.

Q- Are you a member of ISIS?
A- No...i'm a gamer.

PS:
Forgive my English....What i said here i hope it's clear "it did sound clear in my head in Arabic"


Moved from the EM&M. ~Iskar

[paleologos]

I have no real disagreement with the general ideas in the OP but I can say that I find an effort to make it look more complicated than I think it really is.

For starters we need to make something else clear:
A militant group may be terrorists to some but "freedom fighters" to others.
For example, the PKK is defined as a "terrorist group" by the Turkish state, but in the "hearts-&-minds" of the ethnically-Kurdish citizens of Turkey it is a "liberation movement".

It's only a matter of public relations (See Neuro-linguistic programming).
Some examples of neurolinguistics in public relations:
A) We don't say "global warming" (sounds threatening), we say "climate change" (sounds neutral).
B) We don't say "drilling for oil" (sounds dirty), we say "energy exploration" (sounds more high-tech).
C) We don't say "reproductive anti-emancipation" (sounds fascist), we say "pro-life" (sounds benevolent).
D) We don't say "tax-dodging tycoons" (sounds class-bellicose), we say "job-creators" (sounds action-affirmative).
E) We don't say "war on those-who-must-choose-between-peddling-contraband-or-homelessness" (sounds elitistic and intolerant), we say "war on drugs" (sounds righteous).


Other than that, what characterizes our modern concept of terrorism is the employment of "asymmetrical" methods and forms of aggression.
But how could any aggression by any small group possibly be symmetrical to the ability of a state to perform acts of violence?

In most political theories (maybe even all of them) the definition of a state falls along the following general lines:
"A state is the social-organisational entity that has achieved a monopoly of legitimate violence within a territory and demostrates the willingness, the determination and the competence to defend and preserve that privilege", with the mentioned territory being the domain of the state.

But what gives a state the right to violence, of any kind, to begin with?
Well, most modern political theories have adopted the opinions of Adam Smith on this matter:

The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement.

(The Wealth of Nations, book V, chap. 1, part 1)

The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society.

(The Wealth of Nations, book V, chap. 1, part 2)

The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society.

(The Wealth of Nations, book V, chap. 1, part 3)


The above makes evident that according to Adam Smith the same things that give a state the priviledge of legitimate violence, also give the state the priviledge of "expropriation", that is to say taxation.
But when a state expropriates the fruit of the people's labour without performing it's duties it becomes nothing short of a tyranny.

And "why would any sovereign risk losing the legitimacy of their claim to the priviledge of violence and taxation?" one might ask.
I can see a variety of reasons, most of whom have been mentioned as the presuppositions of terrorism by the OP: corruption, corruption induced inefficiency, expansion induced inefficiency, or outright indifference due to callousness and/or arrogance of the elites.

One might very quickly identify a colonial situation as one that is rife with the above conditions.
I will take the liberty of proposing a additional one: sectarianism - and specifically the indulgence to sectarianism by the ruling class of any society.
Now, most "Christian" nations have instances of sectarianism in their past.
Such instances are not very frequent in our time (among Christians) due to the extensive secularization of the western states.
(The last such example that comes to mind was the conflict in Northern Ireland.)
However the Middle Eastern and Central Asian states are far from being secularized to the point of no faction being the favourite of the sovereigns.
(Just have a look at Wikipedia articles Sectarianism and Sectarian violence among Muslims and their linked articles.)

That all being said the question that begs itself into our attention becomes "what can people do when the parties who wrong them are their own sovereigns? What recourse do they have?".
A violent uprising seems to be a rather unwise option, considering that violence is a core competency of any state.
But when the degree of injustice rises to the point of threatening the very existence of a community, then even against overwhelming odds, a violent uprising is nothing else but the choice to die in a way that is perceived as "dignified" according to the cultural standards of whom it concerns.

To all of the above I can perceive a very easy objection:
"How do all those instances of terrorist attacks in western countries be of any help to the cause of greater social justice in the Middle East?"
And the answer is equally easy:
They are of no help, not to the cause of social justice anyway.

You see, when a militant group attack a state, while being "armed" with a professed cause that can pass for just in the hearts and minds of others, then they are not only attacking the state but, even more injuriously to the state, they are attacking the state's monopoly of the legitimate kind of violence.
In such a case the fight for the way the people perceive the cause's righteousness is every bit as important to the belligerents as the tactical-strategic success on the battlefields.

And that is exactly why the objective of the public relations battles that rage parallel to the battles of armed conflict is nothing else but to lead the other side on to acting just like one's propaganda describes them. And both sides are trying to do the same.

Ergo, when IS kill a hundred people in Paris, they are actually hoping that France will push her NATO allies for "boots on the ground", thus helping IS with their propaganda and boosting their recruitment rates to unprecedented levels.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[fkizz]

You forgot the Charismatic leader part. And the seller of weapons to terrorist cells part aswell.

[paleologos]

You forgot the Charismatic leader part. And the seller of weapons to terrorist cells part aswell.

I did not, these things are like for granted:
A) "When the people are ready, the narcissistic-psychopathic megalomaniac will appear".
B) "Nature abhors a vacuum, when the market appears, the vendor will arrive".

[kesa82]

Good effort.But there's a rather glaring error in it.

After the seed you need the soil which is a mixture of ignorance and poverty....

this is a self-flattering, reality-avoiding, condescending myth. Osama bin Laden came from a prominent family , did well in school, and previously was a successful business man. Two of the 911 hijackers were grad students who weren't by any stretch flunking out. It's true that at one point Hitler was homeless . But he came from a respectable and affluent family , and the " failed artist " story doesn't bare scrutiny. By 1913 he was making enough off his painting to pay the rent and the grocery bill. How many people do you know who can pay the rent and grocery bill with picture painting ? Lenin was a nobleman , so was Robespierre. It's true that Samuel Adams ran a brewery he inherited into the ground within 4 years of inheriting it, but the fact that he inherited a brewery ; what does that tell you about him ?( By the way, no doubt a great many well-to-do and educated people would strongly object to Samuel Adams's Sons of Liberty being described as a " terrorist group. " never mind that their activities did not consist of handing out leaflets and friendly persuasion. ) Getting a passport takes some know-how and involves some expense, and an airplane ticket across the Atlantic Ocean isn't cheap. Needless to say then, those Americans who have tried to join ISIL in Syria / Iraq , or succeeded, very few have proven to be poor. More generally, the attitude and world-view of poor people is typically fatalistic and resigned ; ( indeed, and this is commonly construed as stupidity and laziness by those better off, who being better off are ignorant of the actual situation and context of these people. ) " Don't think about, or worry too much, about tomorrow, because you can't do anything about it. "Yes, poor people do get upset and act out. And it is typically episodic, disorganized, and aimless. Terrorism, or revolution, requires organization , focus, and determination , and over the long term. Generating mayhem doesn't generate income. Poor people typically have far more pressing priorities, like eating, like avoiding having to sleep in the woods or in the jail house. No, it is usually very easy to buy off poor people. Buying off spoiled brats is a great deal thornier a problem. Educating people to think may just as likely teach them to think things you won't like.

[chilon]

A) We don't say "global warming" (sounds threatening), we say "climate change" (sounds neutral).

I'm pretty sure "global warming" was changed because not all of the world is actually warming. Climate change is a bit more accurate scientifically because it includes the areas of Earth that would get colder during climate change even if the aggregate temperatures are rising.