Would you consider terrorists to be evil losers?

[DPKdebator]

Would you say that Donald Trump's description of terrorists in calling them "evil losers" is accurate?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Inaccurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

[SingingAnalyst]

Inaccurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

I'm a pretty intellectually curious person, but I am not sure I care to know or understand what combination of ideology and mental state motivates a man-- it's almost always a man or group of men-- to target women, young adults, and children.

In general, we do well when we seek to understand others, and are kind, as we do not know what internal (or possibly external) battles people are fighting. However, there comes a time when I think we need to call evil, evil.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course. Look at all of them. Elliot Rogers. The Manchester bomber. The Boston bombers. Dylan Wolf. The neo-Nazi cell in Tampa. The guy last week in New York (though PCP was a factor in that). They are all angry, jobless, alone, and isolated. They hate themselves and they see no joy in the world, so they lash out like primal animals. We ought to reach out to these people before it is too late, and we ought to respond with the greatest severity possible when we fail.

I liked the blunt speech. These people are losers. I mean, did any of you read Elliot Rogers manifesto? He was pathetic. He was a loser.

[Sumner 1868]

Evil? Certainly.

Losers? No. Given all the success they've had in shaping the 21st century, the sad truth is terrorists are the real winners in the long run.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Some, not all. Tim McVeigh and John allen Muhammad were evil losers.

[SingingAnalyst]

Evil? Certainly.

Losers? No. Given all the success they've had in shaping the 21st century, the sad truth is terrorists are the real winners in the long run.

Does that make them winners? Hitler certainly shaped the history of 1933-1945 (and perhaps beyond to the extent that Nazi scientists were hired by the US).

[Mr. Smith]

Yes.

[AppleJackass]

of course

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think "loser" is an ontological category that bears any relevance to international security issues (literally normal until about 4 months ago).

[RFayette]

Inaccurate Accurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

(Both can be true simultaneously)

Ben Shapiro had an interesting segment on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBiuXNvVUQ

I largely agree with his segment, but with one big caveat.  Shapiro says he hopes these terrorists burn in hell forever, but I view this is a grave error:  I want every single one of these terrorists to accept Christ as their savior and inherit eternal life.  We shouldn't wish hell on anyone.  They should all be punished to the fullest extent of the law (I think all should be executed for sure), but God desires that all come to repentance.

[LLR]

They are both evil and losers, so yes.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Inaccurate Accurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

(Both can be true simultaneously)

Ben Shapiro had an interesting segment on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBiuXNvVUQ

I largely agree with his segment, but with one big caveat.  Shapiro says he hopes these terrorists burn in hell forever, but I view this is a grave error:  I want every single one of these terrorists to accept Christ as their savior and inherit eternal life.  We shouldn't wish hell on anyone.  They should all be punished to the fullest extent of the law (I think all should be executed for sure), but God desires that all come to repentance.

Im glad you feel this way, because unfortunately its the unpopular view. I remember back in 2011 noted "pastor" mike huckabee lost my respect forever by cracking repeated jokes about how wonderful and funny it was that bin Laden's soul was facing eternal torment and separation from God in Hell. It was very gross for a suposed minister to say that.

[The_Doctor]

The President was completely accurate and right to call them evil losers, to deny them the attention and credit they sought. It is one of his few strong moves.

[RINO Tom]

They are both evil and losers, so yes.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Speaking of evil losers, wanna-be martyr Dylan Wolf is now appealing his sentence. Coward. Proves Trumps point.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Inaccurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

I'm a pretty intellectually curious person, but I am not sure I care to know or understand what combination of ideology and mental state motivates a man-- it's almost always a man or group of men-- to target women, young adults, and children.

To judge by a current prominent example, narcissism, ignorance and stupidity would all seem to play a role. Along with sociopathy.

[parochial boy]

Inaccurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

I'm a pretty intellectually curious person, but I am not sure I care to know or understand what combination of ideology and mental state motivates a man-- it's almost always a man or group of men-- to target women, young adults, and children.

In general, we do well when we seek to understand others, and are kind, as we do not know what internal (or possibly external) battles people are fighting. However, there comes a time when I think we need to call evil, evil.

As others have pointed out, it is possible to be disgusted by their actions, to the point of thinking they're evil, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand their motivations and what drives them to act.

At the end of the day, the only way we can really ever stop these kinds of attacks is by addressing the root cause, and that requires an understanding of why people engage in these acts to begin with.

(and I don't just mean, "oh poor kids driven to terror by poverty and exclusion", if it is as simple as radical preachers ot ISIS driving people to act, then we need to understand how such people would gain such a hold on would be terrorists).

[Kingpoleon]

Inaccurate Accurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

(Both can be true simultaneously)

Ben Shapiro had an interesting segment on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBiuXNvVUQ

I largely agree with his segment, but with one big caveat.  Shapiro says he hopes these terrorists burn in hell forever, but I view this is a grave error:  I want every single one of these terrorists to accept Christ as their savior and inherit eternal life.  We shouldn't wish hell on anyone.  They should all be punished to the fullest extent of the law (I think all should be executed for sure), but God desires that all come to repentance.

Im glad you feel this way, because unfortunately its the unpopular view. I remember back in 2011 noted "pastor" mike huckabee lost my respect forever by cracking repeated jokes about how wonderful and funny it was that bin Laden's soul was facing eternal torment and separation from God in Hell. It was very gross for a suposed minister to say that.

Huckabee's jokes and sense of humor is on a higher plane of humor than we can comprehend. You can't judge people for being hateful.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Sure, we can say that those young Muslim men who become terrorists are losers, just like we can say young white men who shoot up schools are losers, or how criminals of all stripes are losers. But as others in this thread mention, this paints an incomplete picture.

Because do you know who else are losers? Politicians who perpetuate the economic and social policies that disadvantage the youth, but especially young and poor Muslim men in Europe, forcing them to chase a shrinking pool of jobs before consigning them to the bottom of the totem pole. And then many of those same loser politicians have the gall to turn around and say that they are the problem, that they don't belong in the country they were born in or lived in since childhood, that Islam is not a diverse religion but instead a political disease incompatible with the West.

And then those loser politicians and their followers wonder why these Muslim youths do become problems, why they say "let me be evil," why they commit terroristic acts on innocent people.

[Santander]

We call them terrorists, they consider themselves soldiers in an asymmetrical war.

I prefer not to get emotional about the actions of individuals. They are soldiers fighting for an ideology, whether political or religious, that they consider to be worthy of dying for, and that we consider evil. We should destroy them whenever we encounter them, not because of right and wrong, but because it is a necessary part of our goal of defeating the enemy ideology. I don't think it is useful to speculate on whether individual soldiers who fight in the name of evil are themselves evil.

[SingingAnalyst]

Inaccurate. Misguided souls that need our help.

I'm a pretty intellectually curious person, but I am not sure I care to know or understand what combination of ideology and mental state motivates a man-- it's almost always a man or group of men-- to target women, young adults, and children.

In general, we do well when we seek to understand others, and are kind, as we do not know what internal (or possibly external) battles people are fighting. However, there comes a time when I think we need to call evil, evil.

As others have pointed out, it is possible to be disgusted by their actions, to the point of thinking they're evil, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand their motivations and what drives them to act.

At the end of the day, the only way we can really ever stop these kinds of attacks is by addressing the root cause, and that requires an understanding of why people engage in these acts to begin with.

(and I don't just mean, "oh poor kids driven to terror by poverty and exclusion", if it is as simple as radical preachers ot ISIS driving people to act, then we need to understand how such people would gain such a hold on would be terrorists).

I understand.

I think what you're saying is that, of the 7.5 billion of us, a significant few have to take the lead in being diplomatic, and seeking to understand the hard-to-understand.

Perhaps what I am saying is, I do not consider myself one such person. My skills are in math, statistics, and scholarly education-- but not diplomacy.

[SingingAnalyst]

Sure, we can say that those young Muslim men who become terrorists are losers, just like we can say young white men who shoot up schools are losers, or how criminals of all stripes are losers. But as others in this thread mention, this paints an incomplete picture.

Because do you know who else are losers? Politicians who perpetuate the economic and social policies that disadvantage the youth, but especially young and poor Muslim men in Europe, forcing them to chase a shrinking pool of jobs before consigning them to the bottom of the totem pole. And then many of those same loser politicians have the gall to turn around and say that they are the problem, that they don't belong in the country they were born in or lived in since childhood, that Islam is not a diverse religion but instead a political disease incompatible with the West.

And then those loser politicians and their followers wonder why these Muslim youths do become problems, why they say "let me be evil," why they commit terroristic acts on innocent people.

I don't doubt for a minute that such policies are being pursued, not only in Europe but in the US (raising the interest rate on student loans in the US comes to mind, and I'm sure there are many, many other examples).

I am sure there are constructive alternatives to such policies that affirm everyone's worth and create or retain opportunity for such youth, and all youth, and all people, to survive and thrive. I hope such policies are implemented.

In the meantime, is there perhaps more that can be done to encourage the Dylan Roofs and the Manchester bombers of the world (and those who would follow in their footsteps) to make better/different choices?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The odd thing is, terrorists draw their ranks from a vast swathe of society. High income educated sons of doctors are just as likely to follow the path as your sterotypical impoverished youth in a councli estate. Likewise, they draw from all degrees of religiosity - ultra-pious individuals and people who know about as much as their cause sd any given kaffir.

I think the best comparison with jihadi violence is the turn of the 20th century Propaganda of the deed (anarchist violence). Whatever you may think of the root idealogies of anarchism and islamism (my opinion: both are bad, the latter especially); the violent elements aren't particularly represenative of the wider idealogy. It's one of the few cases where horseshoe theorem comes into play - a lot of low level political thuggery, whether of a far left, ethnonationlist, far-right or religious character basically are bored people using political trappings to cover a mix of psychological wants and needs that could be found healthily elsewhere [and yes a lot of "mainstream" non-violent activist types, including much of atlasm probably have a similarly unhealthy dependence on politics]. Maybe it's a quest for infamy/notoriety (a status that inspid people everywhere strive towards) or a childlike utopianism or ganglike belonging (the last two esecpially apply for a lot of wannabe jihadis, especially the ones that view Syria as like an interesting gap year). It's all very complicated.

But yeah, none of this dispels the fundanental point: if you set out to hurt civilians you are a wanker.