Let's understand this - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

stevo · 07-25-2005, 06:43 AM

We need to figure out the terrorists reason, their motivations, right. And then they'll stop once we've figured them out. Well figure this. Suicide bombings in Egypt over the weekend that have the hallmark of al-qaeda, suicide bombers, synchronized attacks, economic significance.

So if Britain asked for it by backing the US and the US asked for it from years of foriegn policy, then why attack Sharm al-Sheikh. Reports give credit to an organization that wants all jews out of egypt. But their bombs didn't target Jews, but anyone in the vicinity. Their bombs killed more egyptians than anyone else.

How can you try to understand an irrational people? Did egypt ask for this as well?

07-25-2005, 06:59 AM

Everyone has their own reasons for doing something. One thing about suicide bombing is that it's a relatively cheap way to make a huge impact (either politically, socially or just being able to kill lots of people you hate) - Especially since the west started responding to it so overtly (i.e. by invading other countries) a criminal act such as this will be viewed on TV screens around the world and people will wonder what country might get invaded next, or is it linked to this group or that etc. Years ago, a bomb such as this would be viewed as a separate incident, with separate politics and separate motivations.

The problem is with our response, we've used the word 'terrorists' so much, that whenever a bomb goes off, we will think (as you appear to have done in your initial post) that usage of this tactic means that those behind it are part of a single, global conspiracy against the west.

Yes, the blast may show the hallmarks of Al Quaida, but since anyone who watches the news knows what those 'hallmarks' are, they can be easily duplicated. It doesn't mean that the people behind it believe in the same things - they may well do, but we just don't know.

I find it hard to understand why anyone commits such acts, against anyone - but I suppose it's a cheap alternative to tanks, aircraft and all the ammunition etc that goes with it. There will always be conflict, and in the economic climate at the moment, it's just cheaper to blow yourself up than it is to equip an army.

roachboy · 07-25-2005, 07:07 AM

it should be pretty obvious that the situation i egypt is particular.
the mubarak government is not exactly a paragon of democracy.
the pattern of "fundamentalist" groups emerging as a mode of expressing political dissent (directed at the dominant muslim communities and at the state) is older in egypt than almost anywhere else. i think the emergence of these formations in egypt predatesthe rise of the fis in algeria (btw the situation in algeria was pretty instructive for teh "war on terror" in general--the fln apparently staged massacres so they could be blamed on the fis publicaly and then used as a pretext for repression...)

here is a **very** basic website that outlines (and ono more than that) the history of egypt since ww2--but focus in particular on the section from the assassination of anwar sadat through the end of the outline.

http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/egypt.htm

you should also know that egypt supports bushwar. egypt is one of the preferred destinations of cia "renditions"--you are dealing with a very particular situation there. you need to find out the basic parameters of that situation before you move to crush it into other ways of interpreting what happens there. the past month has been a very explosive situation there--considerable demonstrations (which are usually met with violent repression) advocating a return to actual democracy (you know, votes that involve more than one candidate)....so the internal political situation is volatile---the bombing at sharm-el-shiek are interesting in the choice of the flagship of the egyptian tourist industry as target--it is obviously a symbolic choice, but there are many ways to read it.

what is clear is that the timing creates the possibility of interpretation like yours, stevo, but the problem is that you have to not look at all at local conditions for your interpretation to function.

what makes you think, then, that these folk are irrational? you might not approve of tactics--who would , really--but it is a big step from disapproving of tactics to arguing that the action is irrational.

and you could say parallel things baout each "terrorist" attack.

i dont think the bombings in egypt and those in london have anything to do with each other. obviously it would simplfy the already simple interpretive world fahsioned within the debilitating framework of the "war on terror" to see things otherwise--but that is already being discredited as a viable interpretation:

Quote:

Searching for Footprints: Bombings Link Doubted
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

LONDON, July 24 - As Britain and Egypt struggle to absorb the effects of terrorist attacks on their soil and determine who was responsible, both countries are asking the same two questions: Were the attacks linked, and was Al Qaeda involved?

On the face of it, there are a number of similarities: two well-coordinated attacks, carried out in scattered locations nearly simultaneously by suicide bombers.

In both cases, this line of thinking goes, the bombers struck targets that represented support for Western or American policies they saw as anti-Muslim.

Indeed, London could have been chosen at least in part because of Britain's unflinching support of the American-led war in Iraq and the military campaign against the Iraqi insurgency. Sharm el Sheik is Egypt's leading tourist resort as well as a symbol of the halting American-led process to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

But several senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials based in Europe and the Middle East said that they would be surprised if the two attacks were operationally or directly linked.

They also stressed that it is much too early in the inquiries in both countries to determine conclusively whether a resurgent Al Qaeda, possibly with a newly installed group of operational commanders, had organized or financed either of the two groups of men who attacked the London public transportation system on July 7 and July 21 or the bombings of an upscale hotel, a local market and a parking lot in Egypt.

"Egypt is not at all the same political universe as London," said a senior diplomat based in Cairo who has decades of experience in the Middle East. "It's much too early to draw a link between the two. It's also a little bit artificial to say they were supported or inspired by Al Qaeda at this point." Saying a number of scenarios are possible, he added, "There are a lot of people here in Cairo insisting it is not Al Qaeda, that it's a local operation, locally inspired."

The head of one European intelligence service who has long monitored Al Qaeda said, "It sounds very strange that there could be a link between London and Sharm." As for finding a connection to Al Qaeda, he said, "It's too soon; we are still trying to determine the origin of March 11," referring to the terrorist train attacks in Madrid last year that killed 191 people.

That said, there is the conviction among intelligence agencies in Europe and the Middle East that terrorism inspired by Al Qaeda's ideology, carried out in the name of a violent interpretation of Islam, has entered a new, dangerous and global phase.

Those officials point to a surge in terrorist attacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the recent attacks in London and Sharm el Sheik that could be part of a new mandate to set off devastating, multiple bomb attacks to punish Western governments for their foreign policies.

A document that some intelligence services see as a kind of road map for the new, more aggressive strategy is a 1,600-page treatise written last December by Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, a Syrian-born militant who operated in London for many years and who authorities believe is the mastermind of the Madrid bombings, the head of a European intelligence service said.

Titled "The International Islamic Resistance Call," it outlines future strategies for the global jihad movement, dividing the enemy into sectors: "Jews, Americans, British, Russian and any and all the NATO countries as well as any country taking the position of oppressing Islam and Muslims."

Only by carrying out terrorist attacks and decentralized urban warfare will the jihadi network win, the treatise said.

There has been a tendency, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, to immediately blame Al Qaeda after a terrorist attack of unknown origin, even if there is little proof an outside group was involved. It is less terrifying if the terrorists are an amorphous outside enemy rather than one that is based internally.

But Al Qaeda is almost certainly on the minds of British and Egyptian officials as their investigators sift through the evidence of the bombings on their soil.

From the beginning, there was a strong suspicion that the initial London attack that killed 56 people might have been an operation inspired by Al Qaeda.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on the afternoon of July 7 that the attacks in the London Underground and on a double-decker bus carried the hallmarks of Al Qaeda. Less than a month before the London attacks, Britain's top intelligence and law enforcement officials said in a confidential assessment that the threat from Al Qaeda's "leadership-directed plots has not gone away."

Investigators have actively pursued one theory that the suicide bombers in the July 7 attacks might have met a mastermind in Pakistan, possibly connected to one of two Qaeda-inspired groups, the Jaish-e-Muhammad, meaning Army of Muhammad, and Lashkar e-Toyba, meaning Army of the Pure.

Lashkar e-Toyba is believed to have established a recruitment and fund-raising foothold in Europe in the past few years, senior intelligence and counterterrorism officials said. "I have worried about Lashkar possibly trying to do something like the London bombings," one senior intelligence official based in Europe said, adding that he had seen no evidence of a direct link between the group and the London attacks.

Another possible Qaeda link under investigation in London is a hunt for a potential suspect, 30-year-old Haroon Rashid Aswat, who authorities accuse of attending two Al Qaeda training camps and trying to establish a camp in Bly, Ore., in 1999.

Because Mr. Aswat is believed to have arrived in Britain two weeks before the July 7 attacks, and have left either the morning of the attacks or the day before, investigators want to know if he had any contact with any of the four suicide bombers.

However, several American officials have said that it is still not confirmed that the Mr. Aswat who arrived in Britain prior to the attacks was the same Mr. Aswat who attempted to establish the training camps in Oregon.

In the Sharm el Sheik bombings, some officials have already pointed to Al Qaeda.

But Al Qaeda's true form these days is a question mark. A majority of the officials interviewed call it a badly hobbled, barely functioning organization. Its top commanders have been captured or killed, and its two top leaders - Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri - have been in hiding for nearly four years.

One senior counterterrorism official said, "Al Qaeda is finished. But there is Al Qaedaism. This is a powerful ideology that drives local groups to do what they think Osama bin Laden wants."

Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting for this article.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/in...rtner=homepage

jwoody · 07-25-2005, 07:10 AM

Attention seeking.

Every bombing is followed by an insane amount of news coverage.

If I were to strap a bomb to myself and cry out "Free milk for schools!" ...then detonate, may not achieve free milk for schools but it would certainly get people talking about it.

Ustwo · 07-25-2005, 07:19 AM

The motivation for evil is irrelivant.

Islmofacists will murder innocents as their very philosophy makes no room for innocents, and if the motivation for Egypts attacks are due to local politics, while Britians are due to its forigen policy, it makes no difference.

stevo · 07-25-2005, 07:33 AM

roach- I'm aware of the local political climate in egypt, and it seems to me that terrorist attacks in middleeastern countries would serve to rally anti-terror support. Support for actions against religous extemism and wahabbism. It also appears that those involved were foreigners, not egyptian nationals, which would point more toward al-qaeda associated terrorists and not local political terrorists.

Quote:

Egyptian police hunt for suspects in Red Sea blasts
Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:33 PM BST

By Cynthia Johnston

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - Egyptian police hunting for bombers in the Sinai peninsula on Monday distributed photographs of some 50 foreigners, including Pakistanis, who may be connected with attacks that killed at least 64 people.

Two days after Egypt's worst attack since 1981, officials are investigating the possibility foreigners could be behind the three blasts which ripped through hotels and shopping areas at the popular Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Some of the 50 people were "known international terrorists" not known to have visited Sharm el-Sheikh, a security source told Reuters. It was not clear if the Pakistanis in the photos had been staying in the town, the source said.

But Arab satellite channels said Egyptian police were searching for up to nine Pakistanis for questioning.

They said the Pakistanis had been staying in hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh but disappeared after the bombings early on Saturday morning, leaving their passports at reception.

Al Jazeera television aired a copy of what it said was an Egyptian Interior Ministry list of suspects, highlighting the grainy pictures of two men named Muhammad Akhtar, 30, and Tasadduq Husayn, 18. It said they were Pakistanis.

Al Jazeera said the suspects might have entered the country using forged Jordanian passports.

Al Arabiya television said police were looking for six Pakistanis, adding that police had distributed their pictures throughout Sharm el-Sheikh.

Egypt's Interior Ministry did not comment on the reports.

A Pakistani embassy official in Cairo told Reuters his country was urgently requesting information from the Egyptian authorities.

PAKISTAN DOUBTS NATIONALS BEHIND

Islamic militants have launched attacks against tourist targets in Egypt but the involvement of Pakistanis, if confirmed, is unprecedented.

In Islamabad, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman said nine Pakistanis reportedly being sought by Egyptian authorities are unlikely to have been involved in the bomb attacks.

"I think that there is no connection between these nine Pakistanis and the bomb blasts in Egypt," Muhammad Naeem Khan said at a regular weekly news conference.

An Egyptian security source said on Monday police were surrounding villages near Sharm el-Sheikh, where they believed that two Pakistanis wanted for questioning may be hiding. But one of the villages, el-Ruweisat, was calm on Monday afternoon, with no sign of a police presence or unusual activity in the immediate vicinity.

Until Monday, suspicion fell on a group police said probably had links with those who attacked hotels in Sinai last year in which 34 people were killed. A Palestinian leading an unaffiliated group had been blamed for that blast.

At least 64 people were killed in the Sharm el-Sheikh attacks, Minister of Tourism Ahmed el-Maghrabi said, adding the count does not include a number of set of body parts.

Officials at Sharm el-Sheikh International Hospital on Saturday put the number of dead at 88.

Seven non-Egyptians, including two Italians, one Briton and a Czech, were also among the dead.

Mustafa Afifi, governor of South Sinai, told a news conference on Monday that one of the attackers rammed a car packed with explosives into the luxury Ghazala Garden hotel after running over a policeman.

He said the body of the attacker had been found inside the remains of the car but he did not identify the attacker.

The blasts against the showpiece of Egypt's tourism industry sent hundreds of foreign tourists, many sunburned and toting scuba diving gear, scrambling to catch flights back to European capitals.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy on Monday discouraged French tourists from travelling to Sharm el-Sheikh.

"We have not forbidden anything to anyone," Douste-Blazy told France 2 television when asked whether he was advising the French not to go to Egypt.

"(But) I think that if you are going on holiday today, it is maybe not necessary to go to a place where clearly planned attacks like this have happened," he said, not making clear whether he was referring to Sharm el-Sheik or Egypt as a whole.

Douste-Blazy's comments came after the U.S. State Department urged Americans to avoid the South Sinai governorate and crowded tourist destinations in Cairo.

The Egyptian pound, which should be vulnerable to a decline in tourism revenue, has remained stable at about 5.77 pounds to the dollar since banks reopened on Sunday morning.

The benchmark stock index fell 3 percent on Sunday but shares recovered some of those losses on Monday.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...EXPLOSIONS.xml

pan6467 · 07-25-2005, 07:37 AM

My opinion...... some of these bombs are set up for certain targets and not necessarily all the same terrorist sect or possibly not all terrorist planted.

There is more terror in random bombings.

And what better way to get rid of an opposition leader than to make it look like a terrorist act?

politicophile · 07-25-2005, 08:02 AM

In my way of thinking, suicide bombing can only be understood in the context of an afterlife. If there were no such thing as life after death, then being a suicide bomber would make absolutely no sense.

Once the 72 Virgin Reward Program is taken into account, however, you see that if you accept the same premises as the suidice bombers, you can understand their conclusions. There is a reason why a lot of the terrorists' more disposable members are short, unattractive, poor, young, sexually frustrated men intent on getting themselves a better sexual status in the next life.

Lebell · 07-25-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The motivation for evil is irrelivant.

Islmofacists will murder innocents as their very philosophy makes no room for innocents, and if the motivation for Egypts attacks are due to local politics, while Britians are due to its forigen policy, it makes no difference.

Consider that very few individuals are motivated by a desire to do "evil". Heck, even Hitler thought he was doing a great thing.

Every "terrorist" thinks he/she is doing something "good", be it purifying their holy land, to fighting the jews.

So I think it is very relevant asking what their motivation is. We might even find that we can sympathize with some of it (even if we disagree with how they express it.)

Consider a scenario where a young palestinian man cannot get work because of an Israeli lock down on his town, which goes on for not just weeks or months, but years. This on top of the hatred spewed by the local Imam might be enough to convince him that it would be "good" to blow up an Isreali bus to help get the Jews out of their town so that his friends and their families can get jobs.

(Please note that this comes from a person who is a strong supporter of Israel.)

In my scenario, I use an example of an economic injustice that could be fixed thus reducing the number of terrorist recruits, but I could have used political injustice, social injustice, etc.

Then, there are those individuals who have been taught and truely believe that the west is just evil and that any westerner in Muslim lands needs to be killed.

So my preferred strategy is to understand those reasons that they want to kill us and to try and change the ones that can reasonably be changed. As for those who would kill us for unreasonable reasons, I would kill them without mercy or hesitation.

Ustwo · 07-25-2005, 09:27 AM

I'm sorry Labell but I don't see it that way.

While undoubtedly the mind makes excuses for evil, and as you said I am sure Hitler thought he as a great guy, but that doesn't change the fact they are in fact evil. If you are willing to do evil such as this your goals will be inflexable. Someone willing to strap a bomb on his back and blow up a area full of adults/children etc is not going to be swayed by compromise.

The solution is to remove the institutions that educate people in such a way as to make suicide bombing an acceptable course of action, and kill those already infected. Harsh, brutal and simple, but we are dealing with a harsh, brutal, and simple philosophy.

In our attempts to be diplomatic and more understanding we have only made things worse.

07-25-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

kill those already infected

How do you propose doing this?

Harsh, brutal and simple policies have had pretty bad press when conducted in the past. Please think about what you are saying.

boatin · 07-25-2005, 09:45 AM

thank you, lebell. for clearly articulating that 'understanding' is a useful tool in the process. i keep trying for that clarity (and largely failing)- it's always nice to see a good example of it.

i have new found hope for dialogue (and understanding!).

Willravel · 07-25-2005, 10:00 AM

True terrorism spawns from desperation. When you have no great army to defend you or your people, you have to use whatever tactics are at your disposal. In the case of real terrorists, we are talking about home made bombs and small arms that are available on the black market. Imagine you live in a small country that is being bullied around by a large country with a great military (not America/Iraq, this is purely hypothetical). Imagine that this country, in it's puchiness, has killed many innocent people. You know what they are doing is wrong, but the rest of the world is either unwilling or unable to stop them or prove their wrong doing. You either lay back and risk death or you fight back. Now, I don't support either side of this equasion. As someone who detests violence and invites peace as much as possible, I'd look for every possible route of negotiation and compromise, but when you are worried for the safety of your and your loved ones, many of us would feel the need to fight back.

This hypothetical man knows that taking on the oppressive army head on would be suicide and would accomplish nothing. He knows that he has to make them want to stop what thery are doing in the most efficent way possible. He must strike fear into the minds of his enemies. Therefore he becomes a terrorist, one who attacks with the goal of spreading fear.

That's how I understand the motivations. (I know I left out religion, but honestly that would have only started an argument and acomplished nothing.)

Charlatan · 07-25-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In our attempts to be diplomatic and more understanding we have only made things worse.

You call the invasion of two nations being diplomatic?

stevo · 07-25-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

You call the invasion of two nations being diplomatic?

Are you saying we shouldn't be in Afganistan? Are you saying we should have had round-table discussions with the Taliban?

I think Australian PM Howard has it right.

Quote:

Could I start by saying the Prime Minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it, and my first reaction was to get some more information, and I really don’t want to add to what the Prime Minister has said. It is a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here. Could I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government, and indeed the policies of the British and American government on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it has given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen. Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq; and could I remind you that the 11 September occurred before the operation in Iraq; can I also remind you that the very first occasion that Bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people, by implication, suggesting that we shouldn’t have done that? When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on 7 July, they talked about British policy, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? When Sergio de Melo was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when al Queda gloated about that they referred specifically to the role that de Melo had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorist, by definition you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber, I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I have cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq, and indeed all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggest to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion that at its root preaches peace and cooperation, and I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances, rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1473.html

Terrorists don't want to comprimise. They want to kill us and change our ways. How can you comprimise with someone who won't?

roachboy · 07-25-2005, 11:14 AM

"understanding" the bush administration's "war on terror" as a "war against Evil" is consistent with the outlines of the admninstration's marketing campaign for war---but it is particularly dangerous in the context of this "war" because the boundary that seperates response from racism is so fine, and so difficult to manage. importing theological categories, here as elsewhere, functions to erase and/or transpose racism shifting it from a choice to something that appears necessary--as such it is a really dangerous move. and totally uninformative as a matter of thinking about policy, about politics, etc.

Ustwo · 07-25-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

You call the invasion of two nations being diplomatic?

I forgot history began in 2001.

07-25-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

I forgot history began in 2001.

Evidently Ustwo, since you appear to advocate the killing of peoples "infected" with an unreasonable dislike of the West.

I'll ask you again, in response to your

Quote:

The solution is to remove the institutions that educate people in such a way as to make suicide bombing an acceptable course of action, <b>and kill those already infected.</b> Harsh, brutal and simple, but we are dealing with a harsh, brutal, and simple philosophy.

My question is, how do you intend to figure out who to kill? And what will the process for this culling policy be? A simple question and answer quizz? Interrogation camps, carpet bombing, nuclear weapons?

How harsh, brutal, and simple a solution are you advocating?

politicophile · 07-25-2005, 11:45 AM

"Have you been in control of your luggage at all times?"

"Have you been approached by anyone asking you to put items in your baggage?"

Marvelous Marv · 07-25-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I forgot history began in 2001.

There's a point.

To delve into ancient history from 14 or so years ago, in spite of all of the hindsight directed toward him, Bush Senior is starting to look a lot smarter for not going into Iraq.

Ustwo · 07-25-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

Evidently Ustwo, since you appear to advocate the killing of peoples "infected" with an unreasonable dislike of the West.

I'll ask you again, in response to your

My question is, how do you intend to figure out who to kill? And what will the process for this culling policy be? A simple question and answer quizz? Interrogation camps, carpet bombing, nuclear weapons?

How harsh, brutal, and simple a solution are you advocating?

This isn't dislike, you don't blow yourself up and innocent people because you DISLIKE.

I DISLIKE carrots but I haven't killed any carrot farmers.

I DISLIKE opera but I haven't blown up the lyric opera house.

I DISLIKE diet coke, but I haven't blown up a bottling plant.

I DISLIKE having to state the obvious.

We arn't talking about DISLIKE we are talking about malevolent violent HATRED with intent to harm.

These are people who are targets in the war on terror.

Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

As for my solution, I am not opposed to fighting this as a war of occupation instead of a war of liberation. I am willing to give the Iraq experiment a shot, and if it ends up failing, we go to plan B.

Willravel · 07-25-2005, 12:34 PM

I also dislike carrots, but I eat them anyway because they're good for you and I want my daughter to eat them. I know that despite my dislike (I could go as far as hatred) of carrots, it is for the common good that I eat them. Of course, that's neither here nor there. In actuality that comparison is incorrect, as carrots, opera, and diet coke pose no immediate risk to you. I'd even say that they probably don't pose any risk to you at all, immediate or otherwise (save for the coke giving you diabetes or something).

Why not play doctor instead of executioner? Instead of killing someone with an infection, why not try to cure them? In this hypothetical solution in post #10, perhapse we can replace the institutions of hate with institutions of learning. I do not hold people responsible for being indoctrinated. I onyl want to help them break free.

stevo · 07-25-2005, 12:39 PM

They have to want to break free, but all they seem to want to do is kill us. You have to admit that some people are beyond repair. Suicide bombers are beyond repair. No amount of therapy will help them from driving truck full of explosives into your hotel lobby. Your intentions are good, but good intentions are what failures look at. Winners look at results. And results take time.

politicophile · 07-25-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Why not play doctor instead of executioner? Instead of killing someone with an infection, why not try to cure them? In this hypothetical solution in post #10, perhapse we can replace the institutions of hate with institutions of learning. I do not hold people responsible for being indoctrinated. I onyl want to help them break free.

Well, there aren't very many former suicide bombers around to try and cure. I'm not sure who else would be in need of curing. Are we talking about the folks in charge of the terrorists like bin Laden? They're not gonna change their minds. Are we talking about Joe Camel, the average terrorist? That might work, but how would we get any sort of message across to them?

pan6467 · 07-25-2005, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This isn't dislike, you don't blow yourself up and innocent people because you DISLIKE.

We arn't talking about DISLIKE we are talking about malevolent violent HATRED with intent to harm.

These are people who are targets in the war on terror.

Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

As for my solution, I am not opposed to fighting this as a war of occupation instead of a war of liberation. I am willing to give the Iraq experiment a shot, and if it ends up failing, we go to plan B.

First off, my personal observation is you don't need to talk to someone like they are beneath you.

Second, you still don't tell how you determine which "they" you are wanting to kill..... is it all muslims? Is it everyone in the Middle East?

How exactly do we go about finding which ones are wanting to kill us and which ones are innocent non radical non violent muslims?

Or do you expect the innocents to turn over their radical brethren through the goodness of the hearts or should we force the innocents to do so with violence to them?

What exactly is your "plan B"? And do you not think that killing innocents and just being totally destructive is going to bring about peace?

I don't think irrational and unjust behaviors are the cure to irrational unjust behaviors.

There are far more of them then there are of us, and as long as our ingenius president allows the Mexican border to be left open and virtually allow illegals to come over by the 1000's daily we will truly not be safe.

I truly believe there is enough hatred in Central and South America along with the Middle East that if we truly start any "plan B" our asses will be hung out to dry as the terrorists will be coming across the Rio Grande so fast and blowing our asses to Hell that we'll have no choice but to find diplomatic ways to end this.

There is no cut and dry to this and to just say "kill them" is suicidal.

Willravel · 07-25-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

They have to want to break free, but all they seem to want to do is kill us. You have to admit that some people are beyond repair. Suicide bombers are beyond repair. No amount of therapy will help them from driving truck full of explosives into your hotel lobby. Your intentions are good, but good intentions are what failures look at. Winners look at results. And results take time.

If you live a life of hate, usually on some level there is a need to break free of said hate. A proper psychologist would be able to explore that need and help the potential terrorist to deal with the feelings behind the hate. People aren't born with hate. You say no amount of therepy will help them, I say that I've seen therepy do some pretty unbelievable things, and it's worth a try. Either way, you're right about one thing. We need results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Well, there aren't very many former suicide bombers around to try and cure. I'm not sure who else would be in need of curing. Are we talking about the folks in charge of the terrorists like bin Laden? They're not gonna change their minds. Are we talking about Joe Camel, the average terrorist? That might work, but how would we get any sort of message across to them?

We're talking about those who we would normally ship off and tortured. We're talking about those who are currently growing in their hate of us because we are treating them like shit on a stick, without the stick. Talk with anyone involved in information gathering in one of the prisons involved in the Iraq conflict and they'll tell you that the information they get is unreliable at best, and usually worthless. We've known that torture was unreliable in gathering information for hundreds of years anyway. I think both parties would be better off if we dealt with this the right way.

roachboy · 07-25-2005, 01:09 PM

here you have it.

there is an US and there is a THEM and ustwo imagines himself personally at war with THEM.

the THEM is distinguished from the US because they are BAD BAD PEOPLE who do not play the game of conflict by the rules that conservatives have stipulated as legitimate--which i assume would entail staying in your social place, not complaining about injustice too loudly, and either confining such activity as you might undertake to interest group politics--or not doing anything because, following the bizarre logic of the right, the social order is a moral order and if you are screwed in that moral order then, well, you deserve it.

a special exception is made, of course, for the "pulling themselves up by the bootstraps" argument because it provides a reassuring myth of social mobility and an affirmation of the reasonableness of any and all status quo ante at the same time. the heroic individual plays by "the rules" insofar as if there are victims of "entrepreneurial drive" they are silent and invisible. and that, it seems, is how it should be.

the possibility that the cards in the deck that are dealt acorss any given social order might not only fuck over large numbers of people, but also give them no recourse, no way to seek redress within the system, is inconceivable for conservatives like ustwo, for whom the existing order is an unqualifed good so long as he and people like him benefit from it (and run it politically). that is one way of seeing why ustwo might prefer the obviously reductive theological interpretation of the war on terror to actually thinking about it in political terms.

but i would hazard something: there are political and economic situations all around the world, often in contexts that directly involve american interests, that so thorughly pulverize anything like a decent life for large numbers of people and whic leave them no recourse, no way to address their situation from within the existing order. these are the people who would perhaps consider desperate, occaisonally terrible act. and if you do not think suicide bombing, for example, to be an act of desperation at some level, then i do not see where any debate would be possible.

but that requires looking at what these factors might be, where they obtain, and thinking about the question of whether there might be ways to ameliorate those situations.

so maybe it is easiest to accept this kind of white hat/black hat world-as-western-film vision of the "war on terror" if you do not now any muslim people--that way the black hats/bad guys can be reduced to brown peoiple far away whose primary function it is to die in great slient number before the Avenging Hand of the Righteous (white hats, good guys). mine is not that situation, so all i see in ustwo's position is a figleaf placed before racism. nothing more. nothing less.

Superbelt · 07-25-2005, 01:21 PM

Ustwo is right, diplomacy didn't start in 2001.

But when did it start?
Did it start when we propped up Iran's Shah? Did it start when we helped Saddam rise to power and had him use Iraq as a weapon against Iran for no better reason than we were pissed that they overthrew the brutal regime backed by us? Did it start when we forged our long standing affair with the Saudi royal family where we protected them from the Arabian people they were opporessing for influence over their oil reserves? Did it start recently when we decided that a strategic alliance with Islam Karimov was more important than the suffering of the Uzbeki people? Did it start with Laurent Kabila, General Sani Abacha, General Suharto, Qaddafi, Saddat, Mubarak, King Hussein, King Abdullah, or Musharraf?

Yes, we have a long illustrious history of diplomacy in the middle east. Unfortunately it is not with the muslim people, it's with the people who oppress them.

Btw, everything in bold... Study our relationship with THAT, and then you can understand this.
Not saying this is all one way our fault, but that there is the catalyst.

powerclown · 07-25-2005, 01:35 PM

I'm convinced that the islamic fundamentalist terrorists' motivations don't stem from any perceived injustices in the external world - this is a smokescreen and a copout. These things are used by cynical religious leaders to fuel and perpetuate their agendas, but the real reason for their actions stem from religious intolerance. Does anyone really think that if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, terrorism would stop? Does anyone really think that if the coalition left Iraq tomorrow, terrorism would stop?

For example, the Saudi Islamicists in Saudi Arabia have wanted the Saudi Royal family dead for decades. Same story in Egypt. Same story in Jordan. They think that trade, mutually beneficial relations, and technological collaboration with the West is apostasy (abandonement of religious belief). Foreign countries don't want to deal with religious extremists. So, within these religiously schizophrenic countries, there is an ongoing struggle between the rule of secular law, and the rule of the koran. We saw how Saddam Hussein dealt with such division. Governments of moderation are the exception to the rule in these troubled areas.

Nothing gets under the skin of the islamic fundamentalists more than seeing their own governments involved in relations with "infidels". Then, on top of this, when these governments don't adequately provide for their own people, the economy languishes, unemployment rises, tensions are inflamed, fingers start to point, and eventually the pressure builds to breaking point. The problem of islamic fundamentalist terrorism is rooted primarily in the foreign and domestic policies of their own governments.

roachboy · 07-25-2005, 01:52 PM

um...i dont think that is adequate, powerclown.
it is certainly better than some of the stuff offered earlier, but still--on what grounds do you make a seperation between the domestic policies of particular states (and which ones are you talking about) and the foreign policy of the united states/europe. etc.?

where do you think this "religious intolerance" comes from? you provide no analysis of it, so i can only assume that you think it something that is intrinsic to islam. on what basis?

who are these "fundamentalists" socially/economically? you act as though there is no economic dimension to it, and that such economic factors as enter the thinking of these unnamed folk are refracted entirely through some reductive interpretation of the koran--which i think may well be yours more than that of any particular group.

one thing seems to me clear: whomever launches attacks like those which you are grouping together, none of these people accept the argument that you outline above that the problem lay with the particular nation-states in the middle east and their policies to the exclusion of the foreign powers that more often than not propr up these states. why do you think that is? do you imagine that islam somehow gets in the way of a rational interpretation of social, political, economic and religious questions? or are you arguing that these folk should have called you on the phone, so that you could have set them straight about the source of their troubles?

i am confused--the most confusing aspect of your post comes when you characterize attempts to understand how the general situation works that might foment such actions as a "cop out"--i have no idea what possible basis you could have for making that argument.

powerclown · 07-25-2005, 02:32 PM

There absolutely is an economic aspect to it, especially in Saudi Arabia, where the oil boom of the late 70s was used by the Saudi Royals not to properly develop the country, but to instead primarily enrich themselves and in the process create a huge chasm between rich and poor.

When I mention religious intolerance, I meant it in the context of the institutional rejection of moderate forces being allowed to take hold. I'm talking about Wahhabi clerics stifling islamic reform, while simultaneously spreading the call to jihad. I'm talking about oil profits being used by the clerics to spread their intolerant and anti-Semitic rhetoric with impunity, pouring billions into the establishment of Wahhabi schools and mosques around the world.

As further background material, I would recommend historian Bernard Lewis' "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror ".

In it, he argues that such factors as the repressive nature of many Arab governments and the sense of aggrievement that has plagued Muslim societies since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire plays a part in fueling virulent Islam. He also goes on to say that radical Islam holds, for some, the attractions of any other faith: a world view, a strict discipline and order to life, a reason to live and an alluring vision of an afterlife.

Elphaba · 07-25-2005, 04:02 PM

I found that to be a very helpful clarification, PowerClown, and the book you recommended is something I will look into. I read an interesting article this weekend (by a Muslim) that asked the "elephant in the living room question." Why has the peaceful adherents to Islam and the Koren not publically challenged/condemned the virulent form? My western naivete regarding religious sects of a mainstream religion is missing a relevant example.

I'm not being clear, so allow me to offer a silly analogy. There are two fundamentally similar sects of the Lutheran church, but what if one took a violent Old Testiment turn?
Wouldn't our Christianity based religions openly condemn a "perversion" of the Bible?

Mantus · 07-25-2005, 06:43 PM

Oh boy this again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

We need to figure out the terrorists reason, their motivations, right. And then they'll stop once we've figured them out.

I am sick of this strawman argument. No one is advocating hading out dassies to violent fundamentalist organizations. Every sane person will tell you that we have to deal with them by aresting them or shooting them because they won't turn back.

The idea behind the "understand them" argument is to actually SOLVE the problem of terrorism at its roots. To stop fundamentalism from spawning and/or getting out of control. BOTH actions have to be undertaken. Otherwise we will be stuck in an endless loop of police action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The solution is to remove the institutions that educate people in such a way as to make suicide bombing an acceptable course of action, and kill those already infected. Harsh, brutal and simple, but we are dealing with a harsh, brutal, and simple philosophy.

Simple? Extreamists can arise from any religious or political groups. How do propose to control people in such a way? How do you separate the inocent fundamentalists from the one's who will become extreamists? Simple to say.

Quote:

In our attempts to be diplomatic and more understanding we have only made things worse.

I am not quite sure of what you are talking about here Ustwo.

roachboy · 07-25-2005, 08:06 PM

i think he is paraphrasing cromwell: kill them all and let god sort them out.

07-26-2005, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Simple? Extreamists can arise from any religious or political groups. How do propose to control people in such a way? How do you separate the inocent fundamentalists from the one's who will become extreamists? Simple to say.

That was the question I was trying to ask Ustwo, but he started giving bold, colourful examples of things he dislikes.

Listen Ustwo, just for you, so you can understand my question, I'll spell it out in short, easy words. I'll even colour them in for you since you seem to like that so much!

How do you tell a bad guy from a good guy during your culling of the "infected"?

AVoiceOfReason · 07-26-2005, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Why not play doctor instead of executioner? Instead of killing someone with an infection, why not try to cure them? In this hypothetical solution in post #10, perhapse we can replace the institutions of hate with institutions of learning. I do not hold people responsible for being indoctrinated. I onyl want to help them break free.

I tend to agree that the folks that are being schooled by the terrorists as young children are brainwashed and the only way to ultimately get a handle on this is to have the education changed. Unfortunately, those in charge of the school teaching hate and terror aren't going to hand over the keys to the academies without a fight. I think that's part of the overall plan in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it? Get the schools in the hands of someone that isn't looney. If the local governments of Saudi, Libya, Iran, Syria, etc. can get control of the problem, great--and our willingness to do it if they won't is going to be a prime motivator for them to do so.

stevo · 07-26-2005, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

I tend to agree that the folks that are being schooled by the terrorists as young children are brainwashed and the only way to ultimately get a handle on this is to have the education changed. Unfortunately, those in charge of the school teaching hate and terror aren't going to hand over the keys to the academies without a fight. I think that's part of the overall plan in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it? Get the schools in the hands of someone that isn't looney. If the local governments of Saudi, Libya, Iran, Syria, etc. can get control of the problem, great--and our willingness to do it if they won't is going to be a prime motivator for them to do so.

A voice of reason indeed.

politicophile · 07-26-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

I tend to agree that the folks that are being schooled by the terrorists as young children are brainwashed and the only way to ultimately get a handle on this is to have the education changed. Unfortunately, those in charge of the school teaching hate and terror aren't going to hand over the keys to the academies without a fight. I think that's part of the overall plan in Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it? Get the schools in the hands of someone that isn't looney. If the local governments of Saudi, Libya, Iran, Syria, etc. can get control of the problem, great--and our willingness to do it if they won't is going to be a prime motivator for them to do so.

In my view, this strategy would involve having Western nations invade additional muslim countries. While I don't have any sort of moral objection to invading autocracies and transforming them into democracies, I have to say that there are some significant practical barriers to this strategy. To begin, some democratization efforts are bound to fail: witness how much faster western efforts are proceeding in Afghanistan versus Iraq. If we were to attempt to democratize, say, ten countries, I think the odds of at least one dreaded "quagmire" occurring are better than one would hope.

Furthermore, the West simply lacks the resources to conduct so many invasions. I fear that the United States and Co. are simply incapable of pulling off such a transformation. And if you think that invading one or two countries would set off a chain reaction of democratization in the Middle East... well, at the very least, it takes several years.

07-26-2005, 06:10 AM

The schooling aspect is the right way to go - as is the winning of the moral argument (not something you can do if you openly advocate murdering people - you can think it if you want, but in gaining the moral high-ground, you must refrain from expressing, or carrying out those opinions) The high-ground is necessary if we wish to gain the support of the reasonable majority of the non-western population.

This has started happening in Britain, Iraq, the US, and all around the world where revulsion against the cynical and repugnant sickness that is radical, murderous fundamentalism in the form of suicide bombing has grown. The more innocent people who are killed, the further underground the extremists will be pushed - by their own people. They will become further isolated by their own evil actions. This is a far more effective way of dealing with the threat than marching in ourselves. What we need to do is keep the pressure on those who engage in criminal activity, making arrests, conducting intelligence etc - everything you would do when conducting a regular, due process police investigation against criminals of any other kind.

What I would like to see in the near future is more declarations of Fatwa against the usage of Islamic suicide bombing - the declaration of the British Muslim clerics was a good start.

roachboy · 07-26-2005, 06:31 AM

the kind of responses to "terrorism" above from the right tend to generate this kind of result more reliably than any other:

Quote:

Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK

Download today's poll in full (pdf)

Vikram Dodd
Tuesday July 26, 2005
The Guardian

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.

The figure illustrates how widespread fears are of an anti-Muslim backlash following the July 7 bombings which were carried out by British born suicide bombers.

The poll also shows that tens of thousands of Muslims have suffered from increased Islamophobia, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks.

Police have recorded more than 1,200 suspected Islamophobic incidents across the country ranging from verbal abuse to one murder in the past three weeks. The poll suggests the headline figure is a large underestimate.

The poll came as British Islamic leaders and police met to try to boost recruitment of Muslim officers, improve efforts to protect Muslims from a backlash, and improve the flow of information from Muslims to the police about suspected terrorist activity.

Nearly two-thirds of Muslims told pollsters that they had thought about their future in Britain after the attacks, with 63% saying they had considered whether they wanted to remain in the UK. Older Muslims were more uneasy about their future, with 67% of those 35 or over having contemplated their future home country compared to 61% among those 34 or under.

Britain's Muslim population is estimated at 1.6million, with 1.1million over 18, meaning more than half a million may have considered the possibility of leaving.

Three in 10 are pessimistic about their children's future in Britain, while 56% said they were optimistic.

Nearly eight in 10 Muslims believe Britain's participation in invading Iraq was a factor leading to the bombings, compared to nearly two-thirds of all Britons surveyed for the Guardian earlier this month. Tony Blair has repeatedly denied such a link.

Muslim clerics' and leaders' failure to root out extremists is a factor behind the attacks identified by 57% of Muslims, compared to 68% of all Britons, and nearly two-thirds of Muslims identify racist and Islamophobic behaviour as a cause compared to 57% of all Britons.

The general population and Muslims apportion virtually the same amount of blame to the bombers and their handlers, with eight in 10 or more citing these as factors.

The poll finds a huge rejection of violence by Muslims with nine in 10 believing it has no place in a political struggle. Nearly nine out of 10 said they should help the police tackle extremists in the Islamic communities in Britain.

A small rump, potentially running into thousands, told ICM of their support for the attacks on July 7 which killed 56 and left hundreds wounded - and 5% said that more attacks would be justified. Those findings are troubling for those urgently trying to assess the pool of potential suicide bombers.

One in five polled said Muslim communities had integrated with society too much already, while 40% said more was needed and a third said the level was about right.

More than half wanted foreign Muslim clerics barred or thrown out of Britain, but a very sizeable minority, 38%, opposed that.

Half of Muslims thought that they needed to do more to prevent extremists infiltrating their community.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults aged 18+ by telephone on July 15-17 2005. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

· Further information at www.icmresearch.co.uk

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlo...536222,00.html
more detailed poll results at the link above (end of the quoted article).

the bottom line of my objections to this entire way of refusing to think in anything like adequate detail about "terrorism"--particularly in the ways you see in the states--is that the signifier "terrorist" ends up being a buzzword for mobilizing racism. period. totally ineffectual as a way of confronting an enemy that the notion of "terrorism" itself prevents you from understanding, useless analytically, the notion of "terorrism" does have this one seemingly inevitable outcome in these sorry times--innocent muslims end up living in fear. i am sure that if you are a conservative and are not muslim or dont know anyone who is, then this outcome would not effect you--but iun any number of previous racist outbreaks, the majority did not really feel the implications of what it was doing, did it?

the same kind of thing happened across the united states in the period right after 9/11/2001. if folk who find themselves very taken up in the thrill and adventure of total mobilization cannot distinguish "terrorists" from the muslim family that has lived down the street for x number of years--that is if this category is not even useful in sorting out already known information, how on earth would any of you expect it to be useful in sorting information about people and places you do not know?

but maybe you could fill me in on how exactly beating up someone because they look lik en arab that you happen to run into on the street solely because he or she looks lke an arab helps anyone feel safer about anything?

if you think that this kind of idiotic usage of the blanket term "terrorism" such that it can be associated without problem with an entire religion, with an entire ethnicity, is not problematic, then i dont think you are looking real hard.

========================================================
about these schools that "the voice of reason" is on about:

that's really funny--you too make no distinction between types of schools, between locations--you offer nothing that would focus or narrow what is otherwise a series of arbitrary assertions about "hatred being taught to children"---you seem to dislike the functional equivalent of sunday school in mosques that you know nothing about.

let's think about this. if the problem you have is with relgious schools that teach "hatred" or at least suspcion of that which is other, then you really should apply the same logic to fundamentalist protestant schools in which the political line "we are in a spritual war with the forces of satan, secularism, liberalism, etc." is being taught in the states.....

if your real argument, voice of reason, is against religious based education, then i am in your corner...

but i do not think it is--you only have a problem with muslim education.
the other problem in your post is that you make no distinctions--if you make no distinctions between types of schools etc., what you are in effect arguing is that every muslim country should be invaded by Heroic Christian Americans behind the fig leaf of changing education. it seems to me that you are of the ann coulter school of crazed imperialist programs for america---your "reasonable" post is in effect a rationale for unlimited american military action against any and all muslim countries...and as such is wholly nuts.

that such a thing would be found "reasonable" by anyone is yet another example of the problems this way of thinking creates.

07-25-2005, 06:43 AM	#1 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Let's understand this We need to figure out the terrorists reason, their motivations, right. And then they'll stop once we've figured them out. Well figure this. Suicide bombings in Egypt over the weekend that have the hallmark of al-qaeda, suicide bombers, synchronized attacks, economic significance. So if Britain asked for it by backing the US and the US asked for it from years of foriegn policy, then why attack Sharm al-Sheikh. Reports give credit to an organization that wants all jews out of egypt. But their bombs didn't target Jews, but anyone in the vicinity. Their bombs killed more egyptians than anyone else. How can you try to understand an irrational people? Did egypt ask for this as well? __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-25-2005, 07:19 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The motivation for evil is irrelivant. Islmofacists will murder innocents as their very philosophy makes no room for innocents, and if the motivation for Egypts attacks are due to local politics, while Britians are due to its forigen policy, it makes no difference. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 07-25-2005 at 07:30 AM..

07-25-2005, 07:37 AM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	My opinion...... some of these bombs are set up for certain targets and not necessarily all the same terrorist sect or possibly not all terrorist planted. There is more terror in random bombings. And what better way to get rid of an opposition leader than to make it look like a terrorist act? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-25-2005, 09:27 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'm sorry Labell but I don't see it that way. While undoubtedly the mind makes excuses for evil, and as you said I am sure Hitler thought he as a great guy, but that doesn't change the fact they are in fact evil. If you are willing to do evil such as this your goals will be inflexable. Someone willing to strap a bomb on his back and blow up a area full of adults/children etc is not going to be swayed by compromise. The solution is to remove the institutions that educate people in such a way as to make suicide bombing an acceptable course of action, and kill those already infected. Harsh, brutal and simple, but we are dealing with a harsh, brutal, and simple philosophy. In our attempts to be diplomatic and more understanding we have only made things worse. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

07-25-2005, 11:14 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	"understanding" the bush administration's "war on terror" as a "war against Evil" is consistent with the outlines of the admninstration's marketing campaign for war---but it is particularly dangerous in the context of this "war" because the boundary that seperates response from racism is so fine, and so difficult to manage. importing theological categories, here as elsewhere, functions to erase and/or transpose racism shifting it from a choice to something that appears necessary--as such it is a really dangerous move. and totally uninformative as a matter of thinking about policy, about politics, etc. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-25-2005, 06:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Everyone has their own reasons for doing something. One thing about suicide bombing is that it's a relatively cheap way to make a huge impact (either politically, socially or just being able to kill lots of people you hate) - Especially since the west started responding to it so overtly (i.e. by invading other countries) a criminal act such as this will be viewed on TV screens around the world and people will wonder what country might get invaded next, or is it linked to this group or that etc. Years ago, a bomb such as this would be viewed as a separate incident, with separate politics and separate motivations. The problem is with our response, we've used the word 'terrorists' so much, that whenever a bomb goes off, we will think (as you appear to have done in your initial post) that usage of this tactic means that those behind it are part of a single, global conspiracy against the west. Yes, the blast may show the hallmarks of Al Quaida, but since anyone who watches the news knows what those 'hallmarks' are, they can be easily duplicated. It doesn't mean that the people behind it believe in the same things - they may well do, but we just don't know. I find it hard to understand why anyone commits such acts, against anyone - but I suppose it's a cheap alternative to tanks, aircraft and all the ammunition etc that goes with it. There will always be conflict, and in the economic climate at the moment, it's just cheaper to blow yourself up than it is to equip an army.

07-25-2005, 07:10 AM	#4 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	Attention seeking. Every bombing is followed by an insane amount of news coverage. If I were to strap a bomb to myself and cry out "Free milk for schools!" ...then detonate, may not achieve free milk for schools but it would certainly get people talking about it.

07-25-2005, 08:02 AM	#8 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	In my way of thinking, suicide bombing can only be understood in the context of an afterlife. If there were no such thing as life after death, then being a suicide bomber would make absolutely no sense. Once the 72 Virgin Reward Program is taken into account, however, you see that if you accept the same premises as the suidice bombers, you can understand their conclusions. There is a reason why a lot of the terrorists' more disposable members are short, unattractive, poor, young, sexually frustrated men intent on getting themselves a better sexual status in the next life.

07-25-2005, 09:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	thank you, lebell. for clearly articulating that 'understanding' is a useful tool in the process. i keep trying for that clarity (and largely failing)- it's always nice to see a good example of it. i have new found hope for dialogue (and understanding!).

07-25-2005, 10:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	True terrorism spawns from desperation. When you have no great army to defend you or your people, you have to use whatever tactics are at your disposal. In the case of real terrorists, we are talking about home made bombs and small arms that are available on the black market. Imagine you live in a small country that is being bullied around by a large country with a great military (not America/Iraq, this is purely hypothetical). Imagine that this country, in it's puchiness, has killed many innocent people. You know what they are doing is wrong, but the rest of the world is either unwilling or unable to stop them or prove their wrong doing. You either lay back and risk death or you fight back. Now, I don't support either side of this equasion. As someone who detests violence and invites peace as much as possible, I'd look for every possible route of negotiation and compromise, but when you are worried for the safety of your and your loved ones, many of us would feel the need to fight back. This hypothetical man knows that taking on the oppressive army head on would be suicide and would accomplish nothing. He knows that he has to make them want to stop what thery are doing in the most efficent way possible. He must strike fear into the minds of his enemies. Therefore he becomes a terrorist, one who attacks with the goal of spreading fear. That's how I understand the motivations. (I know I left out religion, but honestly that would have only started an argument and acomplished nothing.)

07-25-2005, 11:45 AM	#19 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	"Have you been in control of your luggage at all times?" "Have you been approached by anyone asking you to put items in your baggage?"

07-25-2005, 12:34 PM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I also dislike carrots, but I eat them anyway because they're good for you and I want my daughter to eat them. I know that despite my dislike (I could go as far as hatred) of carrots, it is for the common good that I eat them. Of course, that's neither here nor there. In actuality that comparison is incorrect, as carrots, opera, and diet coke pose no immediate risk to you. I'd even say that they probably don't pose any risk to you at all, immediate or otherwise (save for the coke giving you diabetes or something). Why not play doctor instead of executioner? Instead of killing someone with an infection, why not try to cure them? In this hypothetical solution in post #10, perhapse we can replace the institutions of hate with institutions of learning. I do not hold people responsible for being indoctrinated. I onyl want to help them break free.

07-25-2005, 12:39 PM	#23 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	They have to want to break free, but all they seem to want to do is kill us. You have to admit that some people are beyond repair. Suicide bombers are beyond repair. No amount of therapy will help them from driving truck full of explosives into your hotel lobby. Your intentions are good, but good intentions are what failures look at. Winners look at results. And results take time. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

07-25-2005, 01:09 PM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here you have it. there is an US and there is a THEM and ustwo imagines himself personally at war with THEM. the THEM is distinguished from the US because they are BAD BAD PEOPLE who do not play the game of conflict by the rules that conservatives have stipulated as legitimate--which i assume would entail staying in your social place, not complaining about injustice too loudly, and either confining such activity as you might undertake to interest group politics--or not doing anything because, following the bizarre logic of the right, the social order is a moral order and if you are screwed in that moral order then, well, you deserve it. a special exception is made, of course, for the "pulling themselves up by the bootstraps" argument because it provides a reassuring myth of social mobility and an affirmation of the reasonableness of any and all status quo ante at the same time. the heroic individual plays by "the rules" insofar as if there are victims of "entrepreneurial drive" they are silent and invisible. and that, it seems, is how it should be. the possibility that the cards in the deck that are dealt acorss any given social order might not only fuck over large numbers of people, but also give them no recourse, no way to seek redress within the system, is inconceivable for conservatives like ustwo, for whom the existing order is an unqualifed good so long as he and people like him benefit from it (and run it politically). that is one way of seeing why ustwo might prefer the obviously reductive theological interpretation of the war on terror to actually thinking about it in political terms. but i would hazard something: there are political and economic situations all around the world, often in contexts that directly involve american interests, that so thorughly pulverize anything like a decent life for large numbers of people and whic leave them no recourse, no way to address their situation from within the existing order. these are the people who would perhaps consider desperate, occaisonally terrible act. and if you do not think suicide bombing, for example, to be an act of desperation at some level, then i do not see where any debate would be possible. but that requires looking at what these factors might be, where they obtain, and thinking about the question of whether there might be ways to ameliorate those situations. so maybe it is easiest to accept this kind of white hat/black hat world-as-western-film vision of the "war on terror" if you do not now any muslim people--that way the black hats/bad guys can be reduced to brown peoiple far away whose primary function it is to die in great slient number before the Avenging Hand of the Righteous (white hats, good guys). mine is not that situation, so all i see in ustwo's position is a figleaf placed before racism. nothing more. nothing less. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-25-2005 at 01:15 PM.. Reason: toning down

07-25-2005, 01:21 PM	#28 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ustwo is right, diplomacy didn't start in 2001. But when did it start? Did it start when we propped up Iran's Shah? Did it start when we helped Saddam rise to power and had him use Iraq as a weapon against Iran for no better reason than we were pissed that they overthrew the brutal regime backed by us? Did it start when we forged our long standing affair with the Saudi royal family where we protected them from the Arabian people they were opporessing for influence over their oil reserves? Did it start recently when we decided that a strategic alliance with Islam Karimov was more important than the suffering of the Uzbeki people? Did it start with Laurent Kabila, General Sani Abacha, General Suharto, Qaddafi, Saddat, Mubarak, King Hussein, King Abdullah, or Musharraf? Yes, we have a long illustrious history of diplomacy in the middle east. Unfortunately it is not with the muslim people, it's with the people who oppress them. Btw, everything in bold... Study our relationship with THAT, and then you can understand this. Not saying this is all one way our fault, but that there is the catalyst.

07-25-2005, 01:35 PM	#29 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I'm convinced that the islamic fundamentalist terrorists' motivations don't stem from any perceived injustices in the external world - this is a smokescreen and a copout. These things are used by cynical religious leaders to fuel and perpetuate their agendas, but the real reason for their actions stem from religious intolerance. Does anyone really think that if Israel disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, terrorism would stop? Does anyone really think that if the coalition left Iraq tomorrow, terrorism would stop? For example, the Saudi Islamicists in Saudi Arabia have wanted the Saudi Royal family dead for decades. Same story in Egypt. Same story in Jordan. They think that trade, mutually beneficial relations, and technological collaboration with the West is apostasy (abandonement of religious belief). Foreign countries don't want to deal with religious extremists. So, within these religiously schizophrenic countries, there is an ongoing struggle between the rule of secular law, and the rule of the koran. We saw how Saddam Hussein dealt with such division. Governments of moderation are the exception to the rule in these troubled areas. Nothing gets under the skin of the islamic fundamentalists more than seeing their own governments involved in relations with "infidels". Then, on top of this, when these governments don't adequately provide for their own people, the economy languishes, unemployment rises, tensions are inflamed, fingers start to point, and eventually the pressure builds to breaking point. The problem of islamic fundamentalist terrorism is rooted primarily in the foreign and domestic policies of their own governments. Last edited by powerclown; 07-25-2005 at 04:30 PM..

07-25-2005, 01:52 PM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	um...i dont think that is adequate, powerclown. it is certainly better than some of the stuff offered earlier, but still--on what grounds do you make a seperation between the domestic policies of particular states (and which ones are you talking about) and the foreign policy of the united states/europe. etc.? where do you think this "religious intolerance" comes from? you provide no analysis of it, so i can only assume that you think it something that is intrinsic to islam. on what basis? who are these "fundamentalists" socially/economically? you act as though there is no economic dimension to it, and that such economic factors as enter the thinking of these unnamed folk are refracted entirely through some reductive interpretation of the koran--which i think may well be yours more than that of any particular group. one thing seems to me clear: whomever launches attacks like those which you are grouping together, none of these people accept the argument that you outline above that the problem lay with the particular nation-states in the middle east and their policies to the exclusion of the foreign powers that more often than not propr up these states. why do you think that is? do you imagine that islam somehow gets in the way of a rational interpretation of social, political, economic and religious questions? or are you arguing that these folk should have called you on the phone, so that you could have set them straight about the source of their troubles? i am confused--the most confusing aspect of your post comes when you characterize attempts to understand how the general situation works that might foment such actions as a "cop out"--i have no idea what possible basis you could have for making that argument. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-25-2005, 02:32 PM	#31 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	There absolutely is an economic aspect to it, especially in Saudi Arabia, where the oil boom of the late 70s was used by the Saudi Royals not to properly develop the country, but to instead primarily enrich themselves and in the process create a huge chasm between rich and poor. When I mention religious intolerance, I meant it in the context of the institutional rejection of moderate forces being allowed to take hold. I'm talking about Wahhabi clerics stifling islamic reform, while simultaneously spreading the call to jihad. I'm talking about oil profits being used by the clerics to spread their intolerant and anti-Semitic rhetoric with impunity, pouring billions into the establishment of Wahhabi schools and mosques around the world. As further background material, I would recommend historian Bernard Lewis' "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror ". In it, he argues that such factors as the repressive nature of many Arab governments and the sense of aggrievement that has plagued Muslim societies since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire plays a part in fueling virulent Islam. He also goes on to say that radical Islam holds, for some, the attractions of any other faith: a world view, a strict discipline and order to life, a reason to live and an alluring vision of an afterlife.

07-25-2005, 04:02 PM	#32 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I found that to be a very helpful clarification, PowerClown, and the book you recommended is something I will look into. I read an interesting article this weekend (by a Muslim) that asked the "elephant in the living room question." Why has the peaceful adherents to Islam and the Koren not publically challenged/condemned the virulent form? My western naivete regarding religious sects of a mainstream religion is missing a relevant example. I'm not being clear, so allow me to offer a silly analogy. There are two fundamentally similar sects of the Lutheran church, but what if one took a violent Old Testiment turn? Wouldn't our Christianity based religions openly condemn a "perversion" of the Bible?

07-25-2005, 08:06 PM	#34 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think he is paraphrasing cromwell: kill them all and let god sort them out. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-26-2005, 06:10 AM	#39 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	The schooling aspect is the right way to go - as is the winning of the moral argument (not something you can do if you openly advocate murdering people - you can think it if you want, but in gaining the moral high-ground, you must refrain from expressing, or carrying out those opinions) The high-ground is necessary if we wish to gain the support of the reasonable majority of the non-western population. This has started happening in Britain, Iraq, the US, and all around the world where revulsion against the cynical and repugnant sickness that is radical, murderous fundamentalism in the form of suicide bombing has grown. The more innocent people who are killed, the further underground the extremists will be pushed - by their own people. They will become further isolated by their own evil actions. This is a far more effective way of dealing with the threat than marching in ourselves. What we need to do is keep the pressure on those who engage in criminal activity, making arrests, conducting intelligence etc - everything you would do when conducting a regular, due process police investigation against criminals of any other kind. What I would like to see in the near future is more declarations of Fatwa against the usage of Islamic suicide bombing - the declaration of the British Muslim clerics was a good start.