Terrorism: What's Coming

[charter6]

The problem is, though, that the cost of entry to war has been lowered to such a great degree by advances in technology that smaller and smaller groups are progressively able to cause greater and greater strategic disruptions. While the root causes of the dissatisfaction of some terrorist movements obviously need to be addressed, that may not alone "solve" the terrorism problem that is likely to face the West and the state more generally as the 21st century progresses. There are always going to be disaffected elements in any society, further technological advances are likely to further increase the ability of those disaffected societal elements to cause damage disproportional to their size.

When a skilled individual with a $1,000 laptop can wage war on the United States, talking about root causes becomes less relevant to the problem.

[Sean Osborne]

The authors missed the 25-meter target in this report.

I would suggest reading LTC Joseph Myers essay review on The Qur'anic Concept of War in the Winter06 edition of Parameters.

To read the Jihadist asymetric warfighting doctrine, particularly the decentralized individual jihad, find a copy of Da’wat al-muqawamah al-islamiyyah al-‘alamiyyah (The Call for a Global Islamic Resistance) by Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (a/k/a: Abu Mus’ab al-Suri). There is an online english language version. I'd include a link here but I've msiplaced the URL.

[Jedburgh]

The authors missed the 25-meter target in this report.

I would suggest reading LTC Joseph Myers essay review on The Qur'anic Concept of War in the Winter06 edition of Parameters.

To read the Jihadist asymetric warfighting doctrine, particularly the decentralized individual jihad, find a copy of Da’wat al-muqawamah al-islamiyyah al-‘alamiyyah (The Call for a Global Islamic Resistance) by Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (a/k/a: Abu Mus’ab al-Suri). There is an online english language version. I'd include a link here but I've msiplaced the URL.

None of the essays in the paper at the top of thread are really about terrorist ideology or doctrine. However, there are several other threads in this sub-forum that specifically discuss those influences. I suggest you scroll through the entire Adversary/Threat forum to find the appropriate discussion thread.

[Sean Osborne]

None of the essays in the paper at the top of thread are really about terrorist ideology or doctrine.

Physical jihad - terrorism per se - is 110% rooted in ideological jihad - terrorist ideology and doctrine. Period.

If one doesn't comprehend the ideology or the doctrine of the terrorist then one cannot possibly hope to comprehend at tactic of terrorism used by the individual or group of Islamic jihadists (terrorists).

This has been a fact regarding Islamic terrorism since Muhammed's first military adventure, and the subsequent conquest of non-Muslim lands external to the Arabian peninsula in the past 1,375 years. The works I cited are the basics to understanding the preeminent type of terrorism in the world today.

[Jedburgh]

Physical jihad - terrorism per se - is 110% rooted in ideological jihad - terrorist ideology and doctrine. Period.

Sorry, but the world does not operate in black and white. Although ideology is a critical component of jihadist terrorism, it is certainly not the only influence nor the single root of what we see in Jihadist terrorism today.

If one doesn't comprehend the ideology or the doctrine of the terrorist then one cannot possibly hope to comprehend the tactic of terrorism used by the individual or group of Islamic jihadists (terrorists).

I do agree with you that understanding ideology and doctrine is key to understanding the operational characteristics of the terrorist group in question. However, how their ideology and operations are influenced by a myriad other factors is even more important. Understanding the former is but a learning step to enable the CT analyst to perform the latter.

Again, if you wish to discuss terrorist ideology specifically, whether just Al Qa'ida or violent Salafists in general, then look through the Adversary/Threat forum for the appropriate discussion thread.

[Ron Humphrey]

Sorry, but the world does not operate in black and white. Although ideology is a critical component of jihadist terrorism, it is certainly not the only influence nor the single root of what we see in Jihadist terrorism today.

I do agree with you that understanding ideology and doctrine is key to understanding the operational characteristics of the terrorist group in question. However, how their ideology and operations are influenced by a myriad other factors is even more important. Understanding the former is but a learning step to enable the CT analyst to perform the latter.

Again, if you wish to discuss terrorist ideology specifically, whether just Al Qa'ida or violent Salafists in general, then look through the Adversary/Threat forum for the appropriate discussion thread.

my thoughts on this I come back to Elementery school realities.

Who done who wrong and what's to be done about it. Yes there are immense complicating factors which truly determine the difference between the two but if you step back and look at it what besides the scope of the problem and the capability or knowledge of the actors, is it really any different.

If a teacher doesn't pay attention to how the children interact on the playground or in class, or worse only seems to notice when the child being picked on reacts in small ways, then eventually that child or multiple children in many cases; will eventually find a larger scale way of responding or revert to size over number. Either way how far are we from really intepreting the actions of jihadist, terrorist, criminals, anyone in the same context.

What is the root cause, the same thing it always is, was and will be.

Just my 1 1/2 ....

[Norfolk]

my thoughts on this I come back to Elementery school realities.

Who done who wrong and what's to be done about it. Yes there are immense complicating factors which truly determine the difference between the two but if you step back and look at it what besides the scope of the problem and the capability or knowledge of the actors, is it really any different.

If a teacher doesn't pay attention to how the children interact on the playground or in class, or worse only seems to notice when the child being picked on reacts in small ways, then eventually that child or multiple children in many cases; will eventually find a larger scale way of responding or revert to size over number. Either way how far are we from really intepreting the actions of jihadist, terrorist, criminals, anyone in the same context.

What is the root cause, the same thing it always is, was and will be.

Just my 1 1/2 ....

For the most part I agree with you Ron, although I would add the absolutely necessary element of the gravity of the matter concerned. I absolutely agree that what is Black and what is White and the necessary distinction between the two must not be lost in what is otherwise an overwhelming sea of various greys. Just as there are dangers in naivety and idealism, so there are dangers in pragmatism and realism. And to complicate matters, very often there is not just one side in the fight that is, or has been, in the wrong.

The gravity of the matter in question is utterly critical in that regard, and the gravity of terrorism, crime, etc., gives it a very different and very serious character by comparison to (most) of what occurs with school teachers and the young children in their classes, as an example. That said, you're quite right that who done wrong and what's to be done about it must be addressed to the extent that it is possible, otherwise the basic injustices that led to the problem, and subsequently the problem itself, may be impossible to rectify or at least mitigate.

[Sean Osborne]

Sorry, but the world does not operate in black and white.

No, I didn't say that the world operated thus. I said the the Islamic Jihadist (Islamic Fundamentalist) operated thus. Big difference, don't you agree?

Although ideology is a critical component of jihadist terrorism, it is certainly not the only influence nor the single root of what we see in Jihadist terrorism today.

I agree. Ideological jihad is a critical component; it is derived explicitly from the fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an. I also tend to think that for the fundamentalist Muslim, influences external to their interpretation of the Quran are of secondary consequence. If Islamic fundamentalism is based upon a specific from of brainwashing or Islamic sect teaching from an early age - wahhabism or al-Mahdi expectant shi'ism - then outside influences are probably minimized. The acts of suicidal/homicidal jihadi's such as 9/11 and others would tend to confirm this.

I do agree with you that understanding ideology and doctrine is key to understanding the operational characteristics of the terrorist group in question. However, how their ideology and operations are influenced by a myriad other factors is even more important. Understanding the former is but a learning step to enable the CT analyst to perform the latter.

What other factors have a higher priority to the run-of-the-mill suicidal/homicidal Islamic jihadist than the promise of 100% forgiveness of earthly transgressions by Allah and the sexual hook of multiple tens of virgins waiting for him in the afterlife?

How do these religious inducements work for the increasing number of female Muslim suicide/homicide jihadists?

Again, if you wish to discuss terrorist ideology specifically, whether just Al Qa'ida or violent Salafists in general, then look through the Adversary/Threat forum for the appropriate discussion thread.

I'll do that.

[Ron Humphrey]

No, I didn't say that the world operated thus. I said the the Islamic Jihadist (Islamic Fundamentalist) operated thus. Big difference, don't you agree?



.

Do you consider all those who are christian to be as strong in following its precepts as yourself. I would probably guess not.

In the same way what makes you think that everyone who is of any other faith are any more guaranteed to buy into every facet of their faith or the way it is portrayed by any given group.

here is a http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1623.htm to something I think is a good example of the fact that not all are quite as stringent as one might think

It is rare that any two groups with ideologically polar positions will come to agreement through anything less than attritive practice.

However,
There is probably a saying somewhere related to the average guys always working out the differences, because the above average tend to be to busy establishing their above averageness.

And if there ain't , there should be