Cheat Sheet Q&A: What's really behind the continued terror attacks:
Today's entry: Being the analytical person you are (and I am), I am reaching out to you with what I conceive to be practical psychology 101 common sense, I respect your opinion to correct me if I'm wrong.
Here goes: In regard to yesterday's attack in London, I have to speak up about a long time issue gnawing at me concerning these continuing attacks. It is the media's constant use of the words terror, terrorist, and terrorism, so often in huge bold print. Is it not purely logical that these words, coupled with repeated replays of film clips of people running in panic, scattered victims, aid crews rushing in, and the show of force after the fact only serve to give these depraved extremists the sense of satisfaction and excitement they so crave, and whet their appetites to do more and more of these barbaric acts, knowing they are accomplishing their goal? How about hitting them in the face with a put down, such as depraved, extremist, act of extremism, minimizing film coverage, and not making their names household words throughout the world? Part of what these radical extremists live for is the notoriety and fear they receive after these despicable acts on innocent people, who by the way often remain anonymous. It won't stop such acts, but may convey a message that they are more disrespected and despised than feared.
Bottom Line: On an intellectual level I see where you're coming. I'll liken my forthcoming thoughts, first, with an analogy that will hopefully help to convey the message.
During World War II one of the greatest surprises, after Pearl Harbor, was the Japanese Kamikaze. From our western world-view they were "crazy" or some such adjective. But in their culture they were noble. In fact the meaning of the word Kamikaze generally isn't and wasn't even known by Americans. It actually means "divine wind". In their culture/ideology the Kamikazes were among the most noble of all people. Do you think that if the allies had handled the terminology or depiction of Kamikazes differently that they would have rethought their role in the Japanese war machine? Of course not right...?
What we're dealing with today is a different version of a similar thing. It's why it's still about Islam (and always will be). Most informed Americans are familiar with at least some of the various sects (Sunni's Shiites, etc.). Certain Islamic sects believe in their own version of the Apocalypse that's rather similar to the Christian view of the Rapture. The sect that ISIS adhere's to, Salafi, is one of those. In short, under the Islamic view of the Apocalypse, there is a Mahdi (means guided one) who will come to earth and rule from between 5 to 19 years before a judgement day that rids the world of the infidels. There are a series of world events that must occur to bring this Apocalyptic sequence about. That's what ISIS and their brand of terrorism is seeking to achieve. So now try to mentally place yourself in the shoes of those who carry out these attacks in the name of bringing about the Apocalypse. Do you really think that the way western media depicts them would alter their mission? It's arguable that their mission is more significant than that of the Kamikazes. We've got to stop applying our ideas and worldview into what this is about - to them it's about so much more than our society appreciates.
If you have a topic or question you'd like me to address email me: firstname.lastname@example.org