Do liberals enable terrorists and make them respectable?

[The Straight Story]

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. 20540–4840
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
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 group’s 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_terrorism.pdf

An interesting read culled from google.com/unclesam while looking for info on terrorism and psychology. Still reading the whole thing (186 pages).

[Robbien]

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.

[Warren Stupidity]

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.

[Terran1212]

3. W..T...F....

[The Straight Story]

8. WTF is right

Who are the REAL enemies? The people behind writing these things and putting us into wars.

[Old and In the Way]

4. No, we treat them as criminals, hunt them down and prosecute.....

instead of making them a profit center for Republican business interests.

[joemurphy]

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.

[godhatesrepublicans]

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>

[hfojvt]

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.

[stepnw1f]

7. WTF? Inflamatory or What...

So... Make me your enemy and come and get me. I'll be waiting right here.

[The Straight Story]

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.

[stepnw1f]

15. No, No, No... sorry... Not You

I wasn't addressing you.

[sendero]

10. There is nothing so amusing...

... as when people try to explain with hundred-dollar words that which can be explained reading bathroom walls.

[Cleita]

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.

[agincourt]

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?

[magellan]

13. This from a government that incites coups

...against democratically elected leaders and arms right-wing radicals to overthrow their governments.

[johnaries]

14. NO, but Conservatives armed them and then acted surprised

when they turned those weapons toward us.

[KansDem]

17. It wasn't "liberals" who let them through on 9/11(eom)

[TheBaldyMan]

18. No - they refuse to vote for republicans.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

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.