Does this mean you're not going to post the stuff? Geez, you guys could just talk by e-mail . . . :rolleyes: LOL

Too long to post, I'm sure.

How about you get the sand out of your cl...Councilor, I'd love to hear your perspective on these issues. You got a question? Ask.

The point is that I'd like to read it too. You know very well that this is not my area of expertise, but I do like to learn from you and NDD. I do post when I have something to say.

I'm just joking around anyway. Jeez, lighten up. :rolleyes: If the stuff is too long to post, it's too long to post. Nothing wrong with me asking to be included, is there? Easy to say no.

I'll see what it looks like when I finish and if its not too long, I'll post it. Or I could just do one on you two.:D

I'm not saying no. As I understand it, this board is at least partially here for learining. Can't learn something better than answering questions about it. Can't get beyond what someone tells you without asking questions. Eveyone wins.

OK. I won't hesitate to ask questions. I haven't in the past. But I do try to limit my questions to intelligent ones -- I won't ask just to take up space. Quite often, there is sufficient content for me to learn without asking anything. And for that I am grateful.

I'm starting it today. Should be an interesting exercise.

What about when the leader takes on the characteristics of the group?

Jimbo, I think you underestimate the herd instinct in humans.

I need a copy of "Why Men Rebel". Seems to me, a lot of studies now days are shallow, not like back in the 60s/70s. Focus seems to be on winning the race to B&N.

Should have been an academic... Need a grant...

Ok.

Pyschobabble aside, some people just want to feel accepted by a group. So a group forms (even if the person seeking acceptance finds it in only one person, they are then a group e.g. Columbine shooters). So you have, in effect, a contract between the two people who in exchange for this acceptance, pledge mutual support. After the establishment of this bond either one of the individuals may find themselves participating in activities that they would not have prior to the 'contract' (in some individuals the motivation for continuing with the activity might be a manifestation of thrill seeking, but I digress) out of fear that should they not participate it will been seen as withdrawl of mutual support which could result in subsequent dismissal or withdrawl from the group. As this behavior progresses, there is an increase in instances of groupthink, cognative dissonace and immature forms of bureaucratic inertia. A likely result is that a leader will emerge that is able to manipulate these particularities of the group to the advantage of their agenda, whatever that may be.

Therein lies my estimation of your underestimation. The ones that don't are the Unabomber. Even the very individualistic people on this board want acceptance by the other members. Some won't admit it, but they want it.

The case of the leader being changed by the group is Castano to me. He didn't want to traffic drugs, but there were so many that insisted on it, he agreed. Also, he needed the money to keep the group happy. His acceptance of the group will led to the ruination of the group and him.

Isn't this what the terrorists are trying to do to us? Eliminate the group?

And don't we defend ourselves by becoming a pack?

I don't think so. There are of course fanatics, but I don't think they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. Some do want Israel gone, but I doubt they would complain if the Israelis just left instead of having to kill them all.

We are forming packs - only they call them coalitions now.

I was thinking in smaller terms:

1. A.Q. attacking American civilians on 9/11, and civilians fighting back;

2. the DC sniper attacking random civilians, and a civilian spotting the vehicle and calling it in.

Your earlier comments reminded me of an article I read back in '02: A Pack, Not a Herd, by Glenn Reynolds.

There was a program on the Discovery-Times channel yesterday about terrorism. They interviewed a Baader-Meinhoff (Red Army Faction) guy, and it seemed clear to me that they were insurgents (albeit unsuccessful ones). They bought into Che's premise that a small group can jump-start a revolution.

The IRA seems to me to be an insurgency -- they want the Brits out of Northern Ireland, don't they? I don't think you determine whether there is an insurgency by looking at territory controlled, or even sought to be controlled, because there are stages to each insurgency that precede armed conflict.

I'm not terribly familiar with N17, M19 or ETA, but I suspect these also are insurgent groups because terrorism is defined to be political in nature. What did these groups want to accomplish? What were their tactics?

I thought I was married, and all of this time, I have been a member of a two person terrorist cell!

TR