Terrorism Survey Results

Democracy comes to you - bombergc2reddit-logoOff the keyboard of RE

Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666
Friend us on Facebook

Published on the Doomstead Diner on December 22, 2015

terrorists-Anthony-Freda-Studio

TAKE THE TERRORISM SURVEY HERE

survey-saysDiscuss this article at the Survey Table inside the Diner

Early results are IN, and quite remarkable in how completely OPPOSITE they are to the policies actually being undertaken by Western Goobermints to try and combat this problem.  Also, many very strong opinions expressed by the Survey takers in the Open Text response areas of the survey.

The results speak for themselves, I am going to publish them without comment until the end.  The Survey remains open, and if there are significant numbers of additional respondents and/or the percentages change very much, I will publish an update of the survey results in 2016.

Now, on to the results!

 

Question 1: Do you think air strikes will resolve the Terrorism problem?

  Yes, retaliation with air strikes will help No, retaliation with air strikes will make it worse It doesn't matter either way. No opinion Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 3
(4%)
46
(64%)
23
(32%)
0
(0%)
18.43 72


Question 2: Rank these solutions to the Terrorism problem in Western countries in order of Most Effective to Least Effective

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Standard Deviation Responses Weighted Average
Sending money to Border Countries to build Refugee Camps 19
(35%)
12
(22%)
10
(18%)
5
(9%)
4
(7%)
4
(7%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
5.97 55 2.62 / 8
Closing all borders and building Fences 6
(11%)
11
(20%)
11
(20%)
14
(25%)
7
(13%)
3
(5%)
3
(5%)
0
(0%)
4.51 55 3.47 / 8
Ground Troops in MENA 4
(7%)
9
(16%)
6
(11%)
11
(20%)
10
(18%)
9
(16%)
6
(11%)
0
(0%)
3.41 55 4.18 / 8
Stricter Gun Control Laws 3
(5%)
12
(22%)
9
(16%)
3
(5%)
8
(15%)
5
(9%)
11
(20%)
4
(7%)
3.37 55 4.45 / 8
Air Strikes in MENA 2
(4%)
4
(7%)
9
(16%)
10
(18%)
15
(27%)
10
(18%)
5
(9%)
0
(0%)
4.65 55 4.49 / 8
Everyone should carry a Gun so Terrorists can be killed before they kill too many people 2
(4%)
3
(5%)
7
(13%)
7
(13%)
7
(13%)
15
(27%)
9
(16%)
5
(9%)
3.76 55 5.18 / 8
Other (explain below) 17
(31%)
3
(5%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
1
(2%)
4
(7%)
28
(51%)
9.52 55 5.22 / 8
Nuking MENA 2
(4%)
1
(2%)
1
(2%)
5
(9%)
4
(7%)
8
(15%)
16
(29%)
18
(33%)
6.25 55 6.38 / 8

Question 4: Detail any other solutions to the Terrorism problem you can suggest here.

Terrorism is not a problem until we in Europe have a situation similar to Israel. Paris clearly shows that politicians endanger democratic values.
Deporting Muslims
Apologize, end American occupations and weapons exports, send reparations, send unarmed aid teams with equipment.
Terrorism, in my mind, is a lot like domestic violence in families. It's a cycle of abuse you could say. Violence begets violence. The lack of economic and educational opportunity, employment after education creates, or marriage prospects creates a bunch of young men who have no outlet. Young men without a purpose are very dangerous. So, long term, we need to make sure men don't want to turn to terrorism because they can see a stable future elsewhere.
Inequality in many aspects is the root of terror, in order to tackle that you would need to change the current system of capitalist economics, which operates as a wealth transference mechanism. The current system transfers wealth from developing countries to core countries, or more simply stated from places that have less money to places that have concentrated money and even within the core countries themselves, as shown by the amount of inequality in the United States and other Western economic dominated countries.
Prevent radicalisation more efficiently, destroy ISIS' money sources
Accept & encourage as many refugees from affected countries as possible. Afterwards: Dissolve all majorly affected countries from their status as a nation, conquer the resulting territories and establish a new temporary military government. Immediately enact martial law.
No trade policy with involved countries
Stop giving them the attention they want do not publish names or photos of perpetrators.
Investments in Islamic countries- particularly in education. Improving efforts at integrating immigrants into European and American society so as to reduce propaganda material and decreasing susceptibility to radicalization.
International / Global coalition and participation in efforts and information sharing
Recognitio of the terrorist groups within our borders not affiliated with Islam. Correcting the "counter factual information" spread amongst the extreme right political and religionist.
Quit killing millions of innocent people in a culture where their relatives are bound by tradition and religion to set aside their daily lives until the deaths are avenged.
economic development
How about NOT FUCKING BOMBING THEIR COUNTRIES! THE CIA IS THE TERRORIST, THEY ARE HAVING FALSE FLAGS!!!!!
Abolish the Us military, disolve NATO, say we are sorry, make reparations
NATO to be disbanded. Ban the sale of all weapons to MENA especially those that are actively supporting terrorism – S. Arabia, Qatar. Turkey and others. Western leader brought to account for their warmongering. Cease regime change and other interference in MENA. Western countries should apologise to MENA and offer reparations for the damage they have caused. Financial assistance must be offered by western govt to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs in affected countries.
Degrowth
Stay the hell out of the middle east. Let them all kill themselves.
Just leave them the fuck alone.
Negotiate and inform.
Keep out of other countries. We just make it worse.
Stop bombing other countries and overthrowing other governments.
Spend the billions spent on arms in humanitarian aid. Withdraw troops and cease hostile action Buy the oil legitimately Put in birth control programmes Assist with local economy and growing some of their own food.
Stop destroying other countries
Let's have a war. An all-out Holy War. Can We get a Table Dance. Then we can get on with our lives.
Stop harrassing other countries for their resources.
as per my article on how to cure terrorism
People only use terrorism as a tool to archive their political objectives. While at full extent it is impossible, avoiding being their enemies and as many interactions as possible you can indeed reduce being a target of their interests to start with. Dialog, despite it can lead to nasty concessions, is also a potential and more civilized approach.
Massive investments in family planning and environmental protections. It's hard to be a terrorist when you are safe, comfortable, employed and well fed. Might want to also collectively stomp on religious fundamentalism. Stop supporting Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan and make trade concessions only upon harmonizaiton of their policies with our. (China too)
Withdraw from MENA and everywhere else. Stop being the biggest terrorist.
Redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries and establish more options for a livabel future for the young people in their countries. Better education about Islam and religion in muslim communities in western countries to prevent radicalization.
The single best strategy to reduce terrorism would be to quit meddling in the sovereign affairs of other countries. Gun control might have an impact, but I don't like the cost (of losing my rights).
It is done by the 1% and they are not going away. No solution.
Send The Donald to Syria without a haircut for 2-3 months. The Donald's appearance will terrorize the terrorists into submission.
Deportation of anyone who 1) attends a radical mosque, 2) travels to MENA, buys guns, and grows a beard, and 3) pledges allegiance to IS on Facebook
leave those people the hell alone, that might help.
Stop fucking bombing them! Stop Turkey buying their oil and supporting them. Stop using oil at all and so stop funding them.
Don't elect Democrats or Republicans and completely replace all our elected representatives with new independent blood.
The obvious one is to remove all imperial forces from MENA, collapse voluntarily (properly prepare nuclear plant shutdowns, with ample funding for the 40 to 60 years it takes to decommission them)), and try to live as people 200 years ago did. So, yeah, this is a unicorn, but it's still a possibility for policy.
diplomacy, negotiation, compromise, understanding, intelligence, common sense, peaceful resolutions
Get out of MENA immediately. "Support the troops" and bring the troops home. Round up the neocons and oblige them to retire in public disgrace.
redirect us war effort to washington d.c. the enemy is there
The "terrorism problem" is mostly a fraud.
Give up the industrial lifestyle, ground all planes and junk all cars.
Treating terrorisim for what it is: crime an not as an existential threat. As well not loosing our shit every time someone with an Arabic name walks by.

Question 5: Where do most Terrorists come from?

  Most are recent immigrants from foreign countries Most are home grown locals who become radicalized It's about equal between Foreigners and Locals Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 4
(5%)
28
(38%)
29
(40%)
12
(16%)
10.64 73

Question 6: Are most Terrorist actions Centrally Planned by Masterminds operating abroad or are most independent actions by disaffected individuals and small groups?

  Most are planned abroad by Masterminds Most are disaffected Locals It's about equal between planned abroad and locally grown Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 5
(7%)
33
(46%)
26
(37%)
7
(10%)
12.03 71

Question 7:Who kills more innocent civilians each year, Terrorists shooting, beheading and suicide bombing people or NATO dropping Bombs and using Drones?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Terrorists NATO It's about equal in Death Count of civilians between Terrorists and NATO Other Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 3
(4%)
56
(78%)
7
(10%)
6
(8%)
21.99 72

Question 8: Rank these current US Presidential Candidates in terms of who would do the Best Job of handling the Terrorism problem and who would do the Worst job Best to Worst.

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Standard Deviation Responses Weighted Average
Bernie Sanders 26
(52%)
8
(16%)
7
(14%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)
2
(4%)
4
(8%)
7.72 50 2.56 / 9
Rand Paul 7
(14%)
18
(36%)
5
(10%)
5
(10%)
5
(10%)
1
(2%)
5
(10%)
4
(8%)
0
(0%)
4.86 50 3.52 / 9
Hillary Clinton 6
(12%)
14
(28%)
8
(16%)
6
(12%)
2
(4%)
0
(0%)
3
(6%)
4
(8%)
7
(14%)
3.83 50 4.16 / 9
Jeb Bush 0
(0%)
3
(6%)
14
(28%)
14
(28%)
5
(10%)
4
(8%)
3
(6%)
5
(10%)
2
(4%)
4.74 50 4.64 / 9
Chris Christie 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
4
(8%)
12
(24%)
13
(26%)
12
(24%)
4
(8%)
4
(8%)
1
(2%)
5.04 50 5.32 / 9
Ben Carson 0
(0%)
0
(0%)
6
(12%)
4
(8%)
9
(18%)
7
(14%)
11
(22%)
10
(20%)
3
(6%)
3.86 50 6.1 / 9
Ted Cruz 1
(2%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
3
(6%)
6
(12%)
11
(22%)
13
(26%)
9
(18%)
3
(6%)
4.17 50 6.18 / 9
Marco Rubio 1
(2%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
8
(16%)
13
(26%)
9
(18%)
11
(22%)
3
(6%)
4.42 50 6.22 / 9
Donald Trump 9
(18%)
3
(6%)
2
(4%)
3
(6%)
1
(2%)
2
(4%)
2
(4%)
1
(2%)
27
(54%)
7.92 50 6.3 / 9

Question 9: What percentage of Refugees trying to get to Europe are Terrorists in disguise traveling with the specific intention of doing a Terrorist action?

  <1% 1%-5% 5-10% 11-50% 50-100% Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 57
(78%)
12
(16%)
3
(4%)
0
(0%)
1
(1%)
21.62 73

Question 10: Is State Sponsored War a form of Terrorism?

  Yes No It depends (explain below) Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 50
(68%)
13
(18%)
10
(14%)
18.19 73

Question 11: Explain what circumstances State Sponsored War is Terrorism and what circumstances it is not Terrorism

is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Use_in_Iraq_.282004.29 its all pretty crappy though
It's terrorism on a larger scale
When the stated goal of an invading force is "terrorize into submission". See invasion strategy shock and awe, United States invasion of Iraq strategy. They define it as inflicting terror on a population. That any moment they could be killed; and that any resistance they would be killed.
Generally, war could be considered terrorism if you're on the losing side. However, terrorism generally is associated with actions against primarily civilian targets.
no
I think anytime it's underwent with the express purpose of furthering an ideology, or meant as a "show of power" to either citizens or non-citizens.
Mutual aggression is not terrorism
Killing innocent people by the millions as collateral damage is terrorism.
attacks on non-military targets to harm civilians. think israel blowing up the only water treatment facilities in gaza.
All war is terrorism, premeditated, mass murder
War is just terrorism by another name – it is sponsored by the state and has a larger budget – those being the main differences.
Its terrorism if regime change is being sponsored from abroad.
CIA operation after WW2 OSA operation during WW2
State Sponsored War has legal status. Terrorism is extra-legal action. EG Mr Cameron killing in Syria prior to vote in Parliament authorising action.
It is not when it is in self defence. All other times it is terrorism.
It is not terrorism if directed at specific source of an attack on the country. Otherwise terrorism.
wars of choice and exploitation
I suppose Killing people is wrong, no matter what you call it.
USA bombing Iraq and Afghanistan is terrorizing those countires. We terrorized Lybia and Syria as well. What is one to expect from these countries in return, Thank You notes.
this requires a ten page essay
When instill fear is the main mean to archive your political interests, like bombing your foes with collateral damage to civilians not in consideration. It is not terrorism when there is a clear military objective to forcefully impose partly or fully your political interest (though it is still a crime).
Self-Defense of the state is similar to self defense of a person. Self defense is always a legitimate form of war. Foreign wars of aggression are not.
State sponsored war is not terrorism if it's done to repel a foreign invasion of native soil. So the kind of war we're in now is terrorism.
If aggression it is terrorism. If defense it is war. The war of 1812 was OK. The rest terrorism.
SSW as terrorism is sending The Donald to Syria without a haircut for 2-3 months. It is not SSW as terrorism when ISIS/ISIL captures The Donald and beheads him and his hair.
retalliating against a nuclear attack, or physical invasion of the US would not be terrorism.
killing innocents and children is not terrorism. Show me a bomb that can target only those people we are calling terrorists today and I will stop calling state sponsored war terrorism
Dead is dead. It does not matter how you get there the destination is the same.
State sponsored terrorism is, like other forms, using lethal violence to obtain political objectives (that usually reflect the narrow focus of a limited group and often against the will of the great heard. ) Kent State was clearly terrorism, for example.
defense when attacked directly is not terrorism going abroad to commit violence is terrorism
Clausewitz said War is Politics by other Means. To the extent that our serial wars in MENA are a latter day version of colonialist extraction, all military operations in MENA (as well as Ukraine) is terrorism. "Terrorism" is whatever the definer says it is.
state sponsored war is always terrorism
Anything that isn't a declared war by a state upon another but involves violence or coercion is terrorism. Period. Most of what the US does as foreign policy under this definition is indeed terrorism which is most US foreign policy since 2001.
When you are in a fight for survival and there are only enough resources for one group or the other. All the rest of the time it is terrorism, which is most of the time since the beginning of the Age of Agriculture.
Terrorism is a tactic. A state's foreign policy, including war, is a strategy. A tactic cannot be a strategy.

Question 12: Which driver of Terrorism is more powerful, Religious Fanaticism or Economics and Poverty?

  Religious Fanaticism Economics and Poverty Other (explain below) Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 17
(24%)
36
(50%)
19
(26%)
8.52 72

Question 13: Explain other drivers for Terrorism you think are as important or more important than Religious Fanaticism or Economics and Poverty.

cyclical effects in control systems, there has been terrorism before, some research might be in order
Oppressive governments that make life seem hopeless
False flag attacks by states against themselves, such as 9/11.
I think they're both at play. Fanaticism is a primary reason there is even a war right now. Some religious extremists want a theocratic state instead of a secular one. However, the key factor to getting low-level recruits is that those folks lack opportunity to hold normal jobs or they are pissed off about losses in their lives.
both
History
It's both.
NATO killing family members
I think media helping to drive the polarization of groups – be it political parties, religions, nationalities – creates a constant cultural narrative of "us vs. them" that increases and incentivizes and confines extreme/violent behavior to the "other" group.
Religious fanaticism is a vehicle through which economics and poverty leads to terrorism
Both factors drive terrorism together, with historical military actions and international relationships playing a role.
Profit by warmongers and bankers in the "civilized" world.
Poverty is number one because if people have shit to do or buy they wont build bombs
The CIA is the root cause of all terrorism.
US military and the US state dept
Anyone with a personal grudge against society can perform an act of terrorism – losing a job, being personally rejected by another or even imagining a perceived rejection can lead to terrorism – the many high school/college shooting in America being a case in point.
But the two combined are a fatal, toxic brew!
Climate change
Arms and Funding from Gulf States or the Pentagon
Energy
Religions tend to have reached accomodations with one another. Terrorisim tends to flow from a combination of political and religious views that narrowly promote their wellbeing at the expense of others.
Corporate greed.
Nearly as important as economics and poverty is the lust for power. Religion is simply the tool used for rationalization.
domination and occupation of other societies
I believe the two go hand in hand. People turn to strange religions (pretty much all of them) to help them cope with feelings of inadequacy financial, cultural, etc. But Islam is Bullshit.
was hen or egg first……
Hatred of Western exploitation of world resources.
Revenge and anger fueled by abuse and injustice.
Both in equal partts. Economics and poverty create the fundamental motivations, Religious fundamentalism shapes the motivations into weapons.
Greed. Anger. Fear.
Economics and poverty are more powerful, but religious fanaticism plays a strong role as of right now.
The sadism of the ruling class in the west followed by the sadism of all other ruling classes.
Looking at The Donald's hair is worse torture than fanaticism and poverty. Are NY Yankee or Green Bay Packer fanatics the result of poverty and religion. Well, yes, poverty of the intellect and a strong belief that professional sports are essential to existence.
Poverty amplifies fanaticism.
climate change. climate change,. climate change
The CIA and the Department of Homeland Security.
How about Classism. The Global .01% don't give a rip about the rest of their fellow humans, and steal wantonly from the great multitudes. It is inevitable there will be pushback as 99% is a large amount to keep docile and underfoot.
ignorance, lack of education nationalism tradition fear
Ignorance and nationalism.
Imperialism
As a driver, climate change is setting up the underlying unstable conditions that lead to war, conflict as terrorism.

Question 14: Would Terrorism be reduced if Wealth was redistributed from Rich Countries to Poor countries internationally and from Rich People to Poor people locally?

  Yes No It would remain the same Standard Deviation Responses
All Data 40
(56%)
16
(23%)
15
(21%)
11.56 71

Question 15: You may explain your answer to Q14 here (optional)

You know of the correlation between riots and food prices, beyond that you can pay off many people the rest you can ignore or avoid pissing off.
The governments of poor countries would steal all the aid money and give it to the already rich elite. Also giving free money to poor people is just a temporary solution that makes them passive and lazy.
it is self evident.
When a country is in conflict or poor, there is often a high level of corruption. If you attempt to get aid to actual citizens, it will likely be siphoned off before it reaches them.
Think of it as the law of the instrument, "often stated as" if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". The current "real existing capitalism" operates as the "instrument", and whoever is in charge of wielding the instrument begins to see everything as "a nail." A change to the system of wealth transference is a necessary step, but that only addresses one item. It does not address environmental, or social institutional needs.
I don't think there are any right answers here, for all the questions
I don't know
By no means do I suggest that distribution would solve terrorism, but constant poverty often creates a vacuum of purpose and general anger/ feeling of "unfairness" that extremists exploit to garner followers. I think it would certainly help measurably.
Wealth redistribution may not solve the driving issue
Poverty and lack of education and opportunity result in disaffection, and alienation. Religionists are providing "answers" and a way to belong – to strike back at the evil and evil ones "responsible" for these dismal conditions.
reduce poverty would help alleviate terrorism
The CIA plans all false flags, they may contract the shit out, but they control all.
The rich countries are only rich because they stole from the poor, give it back.
A more egalitarian distribution of wealth would help reduce resentment between different socio economic groups and between different cultures but is not a cure all as other factors are also in play – religious fanaticism, resource depletion – the disputes over water resources are a good example of a driver that can lead to war/terrorism.
Rich people, even middle class people, vested in their socieites have better things to do than wage war and die.
I kinda feel like it would have varied effects across the board. I kinda feel like global redistribution might cause more problems in some places even as it decreases problems in other places. I support it locally but I dont know how it could work internationally, it would mostly change things up
It is called stress. Stress leads to action. Sometimes good, but too easy to be hijacked for the worst purposes.
Poverty is not the cause. Exploitation and inequality in a nation are the causes.
Terrorists come from the group that is disaffected economically, socially and politically. Committing acts of terror becomes a reason d'etre to some of the disaffected.
wealth distribution is not related to terrorism
It would also help if people could unit within their own communities and work together for their common good. Running to the white developed countries and demanding to be cared for may not be the best plan.
People would be less drawn to religious fundamentalism, or any risky behavious if they had a roof over their head, a job and a full belly AND their neighbours had it too.
Yes, and when that happens monkeys will fly out of my butt.
No act for increased efficiency will work if the number of humans are not limited. Too many humans.
Each month I make my rent, insurance, and car payments, I feel poor and thus am terrorized financially and economically. Therefore, I deserve to have a rich guy pay at least half of my living costs so I can use the difference to buy guns and ammo, and to make pipe bombs to terrorize terrorists who are coming to the US by the millions to kill us all.
It would help in the short term but ultimately be ineffective as new grievances arose and violence ensued.
I have no earthly idea.
It would intensify if governments were not changed out. The terrorists don't want their stuff given away and would be orchestrating the return of their stuff if it were redistributed. Redistribution is a bad answer anyway. There are other better ways. Of course redistribution is impossible with the government we have so it really does not matter.
As long as the Global North keeps looting the South, there will be problems. The wealth doesn't need to be redistributed; the North and the West just need to stop stealing ftom the South and East.
Scarcity breeds aggression.
Eat the rich.
poor countries are poor because we've already raped them
It would help, but ultimatly there will be blood regardless.

NOW…

Democracy comes to you - bomberWhat is the takeaway from this Survey????

Quite obviously, at least amongst people who frequent collapse websites, they are in COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT with just about every policy being followed to combat terrorism.  Not by a small margin either.  About nobody thinks bombing is doing any good, most think The Donald would be the absolute WORST choice for a POTUS who might be able to handle the problem, few think Refugees are a huge source of Terrorists, and even fewer think there are big time Terrorist Masterminds out there like Osama Bin Laden planning all the mayhem from caves in Afghanistan, and most think a redistribution of wealth (from rich to poor rather than poor to rich) would if not solve the Terrorism problem, might at least make it a little less problematic.

Now, are Kollapsniks TM really THAT different from the population at large?  Or is the opinion of the population at large simply being IGNORED by TPTB running the show here?  I tend to think toward the latter, but the general population is so Brainwashed I'm not entirely sure of that.  If the opinion of the population at large is just being ignored here, what does that say about the so-called "Democracy" that we supposedly live under and are delivering to the rest of the world via Carpet Bombing them all?  What does it say about the power of the Ballot Box and Voting?  It's obviously not changing the policies here no matter WTF you vote for!!!

On the other hand, if it's true that the general population DOES think these policies are a good idea, then what does that say about Democracy?  Do you really want a Democracy when most of the Voters are Brainwashed IDIOTS?!?!?!  Imbeciles electing Morons is a good way to run a Goobermint?  What?  I'm no fan of the Dictatorship idea either, so clearly we need to come up with a different plan here, because Plan A and Plan B are not working.  Suggestions?  Buehler?

https://images.rapgenius.com/60512a3c587a53cd3492c56154e88845.500x205x33.gif

 

Advertisements