Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Can terrorism be cured?
Steven Metz is Research Professor and Chairman of the Department of Regional Strategy and Planning at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.
by Steven Metz
Terrorism is likely to define the year 2006 as much as it has every year since 2001. Years from now, historians will likely label the opening years of the twenty-first century the “Age of Terrorism.” As with any new era, we do not yet fully understand what is happening and why. While most of the world recognises the problem, there are very different views on its causes and cures.
This much we know: terrorism is fueled by anger and frustration. Radicals use the inability to attain political objectives peacefully to inspire fanatical action and to justify forms of violence normally considered unacceptable. Beyond this basic point, however, there is less agreement on why frustration and anger lead to terrorism in some cases but not in others. Moreover, there are two broad schools of thought as to the appropriate response when they do fuel extremist violence.
One school believes that modern terrorism cannot be eradicated, or that the costs of doing so are unacceptably high. For this group, the only logical policy is to “ride out the storm” by ending policies which increase anger and frustration, and improving intelligence and defenses.
The second school of thought contends that terrorism can be eradicated by addressing its root causes. Ironically, its adherents include both George W Bush and Osama bin Laden. For bin Laden and those who share his ideas, anger and frustration in the Islamic world stem from outside repression and exploitation of Muslims. If the repression ends, so, too, will terrorism. Until then, all means are legitimate when fighting a powerful and wicked enemy. Terrorism, for bin Laden and his allies, is the only method available to strike at the West effectively. “It is permissible,” according to bin Laden’s ally in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, “to spill infidel blood.”
Bush, in contrast, believes that terrorism is rooted in the absence of political and economic opportunity. Rather than grappling with this, radicals like bin Laden blame outsiders, particularly the United States and Europe. But the ultimate solution, according to Bush, is the creation of fair and open political and economic systems that can eliminate anger and frustration through peaceful means. Extremists might still exist, but they would be marginalised, finding few recruits or supporters.
Unfortunately, every approach has shortcomings. The belief that terrorism cannot be eradicated assumes that the ability to tolerate terrorist attacks – to “ride out the storm” – is greater than the willingness of terrorists to persist, or even escalate the attacks. By taking an essentially passive position, this approach might merely prolong the Age of Terrorism needlessly. Moreover, appeasement is based on the dangerous assumption that the extremists’ objectives are limited – that once they attain their stated goals by using violence, they will become responsible members of the world community.
Bin Laden’s position – that terrorism will end when the Islamic world expels outside influence – is ethically and analytically flawed. On the one hand, it would condemn hundreds of millions to live in repressive Iranian- or Taliban-style theocracies. On the other hand, the idea that poverty and repression in the Islamic world are engineered from outside simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
Finally, the belief that democracy and economic reform will undercut terrorism is based on a series of assumptions that may or may not prove accurate. For instance, it assumes that terrorists and their supporters do not understand their own anger. But extremists say explicitly that their anger is caused by the injustice of the global system and the repressive policies of powerful states. Closed political systems and stagnant economies in the Muslim world, they contend, are symptoms, not causes.
The Bush position also assumes that fundamental political and economic change is feasible and affordable – that open political and economic systems can be sustained with only modest effort – because the desire for freedom and prosperity is universal. While true, it is not clear that a willingness to tolerate the freedom of others, which democracy requires, is equally widespread. In some societies, democracy is simply a way for the majority to repress the minority. In others, stability or justice is more important than political freedom.
Finally, this perspective assumes that democracies will be willing or able to control radicalism and crack down on extremists. But history suggests that new, fragile democracies are more likely to attempt to placate radicals than to eliminate them, and that terrorists can exploit democratic governments’ respect for civil rights and the rule of law.
The horrible truth is that failure to eradicate the root causes of terrorism is almost certain to extend the Age of Terrorism, it is not clear that they really can be eradicated. To appease the extremists might be easy but may not work. To allow them to win would be to accept the supremacy of evil. To promote democracy and open government might be the ultimate solution, but it stands on a shaky conceptual foundation of untested assumptions about the nature of the world and diverse cultures.
Unfortunately, the world is at a point where it can see the danger from terrorism but not the cure. Worse still, a cure may not exist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Shoe-Bomber - Another Production From The Pentagon Dreamworks!
Gareth Eastwood, so the bombers were going blow the nose of the front of the aircraft (which would have been the resultant of a bomb attack on the flight deck door). This is impressive and totally believable planning from the Dreamworks team at the Pentagon.
As far as I’m aware no one has actually been ‘caught’ for this incident as you imply. Apparently the information was gained (one can only imagine how) from ‘an al Qaeda operative arrested in a South East Asian nation’.
And if you want to take the word of a proven liar who starts wars and kills ten of thousands of innocent people as a result of those lies, then I would suggest, as you yourself say, it is unfortunate.
Bush And Truth
Gareth, "I'm certainly going to take the word of the American president over the words of an Australian blogger."
Why? Since when did being the US President give you an automatic leave pass to believed?
Alice's Shoes
George will save us
George Bush has taken that quantam leap and is curing trerrorism quicker than you can bat a fly. Ten so far and now a plane prevented-shoe bombs and all, from flying into the SF's Liberty Tower, errr make that the Library Tower. Whatever, now we can see the strategy for not going after Usama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. Better to keep them in the game until they've used up all their terrorist plots.
The very least thing the government could do for us is provide those giant TV screens everywhere so the public can be kept appraised of the neverending war.
More Crap Under The Bush
How on earth is someone with a shoe-bomb going to hijack an aircraft and then fly it into a tall building? What's the point of the shoe-bomb? What does he do? Walk up to the flight deck and tell them he wants control of the aircraft otherwise he'll blow it up with his shoe-bomb.
And Bush expects the world to believe this crap?
Quantum world
Maybe terrorism is a quantum phenomenon mediated with a bit of chaos theory. With all the ideas put forward in this thread, who knows?
Fiona: Plus a dollop of dark matter?
Cosmology
closer to truth
Bernard, you may be closer to the truth than you know. It’s so hard to pin down what is actually causing this growing confusion, chaos, and emotional insanity. Maybe there are quantum effects coming into action. Of course we may be going through a similar situation to that faced by some past societies that collapsed because of poisoning from the metals they used. It may be microwaves, estrogen overload, electronic pollution affecting our minds, or poisoning from the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of unburnt kerosene dumped on cities daily by aircraft.
I could go on listing possibilities, but I'll stop before I scare myself in some deluded illusion.
good grief,how trusting we are!
Good grief Alga, next you'll be saying Sydney Harbour is full of Dioxins and they knew about it and didn't tell us for a decade! And that dioxins are a very potent carcinogen. No, they wouldn't be so irresponsible.
Or that the winds changed during the British nuke testing and the cloud was carried over Coffs harbour, did there occur a bleep in thyroid cancer or did the pushing of iodised salt help prevent it?
Or that for a few years the Salk vaccine was given to children in Australia until early 1962, despite knowing that it was contaminated with the monkey virus that was known to be carcinogenic in a few decades. Early breast cancer anyone? Or Leukemia maybe, depends upon what the mutation was that was triggered.
Or that the 1973 cabinet discussion papers on Antartica were reclassified top secret in 2003. Why? Was it the garnets? The cosmic ray studies? Why? I know a space ship-this time, just joking.
Or that there were still over a thousand BSE positive cows found in UK early this century(about 2002 stats), only about 20 last year, and it has been falling exponentially since the Great Cull. This was esplained / blamed upon "Foot and Mouth" (a disease normally treatable with antibiotics, yet no-one questions this) which means an awful lot of cows infected and eaten and milk drunk. A lot of prions in the environment for native animals to breed too. Who sold them the feed? Will there be a human BSE epidemic in about 5 years, depending upon the dose? Aren't you glad you're Hindu-oh, not. Sorry to hear it. Maybe it was just Foot and Mouth with a new way of fixing it. Maybe one day British Beef will be back in France. Maybe they will forgive the authorities for wiping out the British Herds. I still can't give blood due to BSE concerns as I was in the UK in the mid eighties. Imagine knowing you were going demented, so young. The US now have established prion disease in the wild species. Maybe they always did? Would explain an awful lot about the population's selection of leader. If it can't be destroyed in the environment and is excreted on the grass etc, are we taking it seriously enough here?
Just one more to ponder. Ever considered why the HIV virus is prevalent amongst heterosexuals in Africa and Europe, but a disease mainly of homosexuals in the US?
Also the latest growth hormone approved by the government to give cattle to encourage the huge amounts of milk each day. This one is different. It is GM and has a thousand times higher result in the drinker of the milk in stimulating a response hormone. How is that allowed?
Or that our very precious last line antibiotics for MRSA and Clostridium difficile is Vancomycin, thrown to the Chickens and pigs to promote growth. Now we have finally had reports of resistant bacteria. That's it. No treament available now for humans who get it.
Thanks guys, so smart. cheers all. Breath deep and feed the man meat.
Can war be cured?
Tony Phillips makes a good point about what’s glaringly absent from the article – terror is merely a tactic. Metz might as well have asked: Can war be cured?
I think Arundhati Roy put it best in her Peace Prize lecture:
(And C Parsons, before you start on the Left’s support of the terrorist ‘resistance’ in Iraq, please read Roy’s second paragraph. I think we’ve done that subject to death, so to speak.)
Worthy of her purity
Do you mean this paragraph, David?
- Arundhati Roy at her Peace prize lecture.
Or this one from the same lecture;
- Arundhati Roy, explaining 'Why we should support the Iraqi Resistance'?
So, you concede Ms Roy was speaking on behalf of the Left when she said that?
If so, why would you want me to not mention it?
Whose purity?
CP - come on, mate, we’re really flogging a dead horse on this one. We did it to death many threads ago, let it go!
To very briefly go there again: Arundhati Roy speaks for no-one but herself.
(And who the hell is ‘the Left’, anyway? Is there a card they’re all supposed to carry?)
Roy clearly does NOT support violence, however you might try to twist her words.
As for the ‘purity’ quote, I saw that coming a mile away. But you know what, CP? You’ve completely misread it. If you can’t pick the sarcasm in her use of the word ‘purity’ then you’re less astute that I have previously given you credit for.
This is the quote that follows, in the GLW story:
“Before we prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end of the resistance by forcing the US and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq.”
And from the Peace Prize lecture:
“The bad news is that colorful demonstrations, weekend marches and annual trips to the World Social Forum are not enough. There have to be targeted acts of real civil disobedience with real consequences.”
When Roy says “no resistance will be worthy of our purity” her tongue is lodged firmly in her cheek.
CP, say what you like about GLW and Pilger, but please, stop misrepresenting Roy's views.
Astuteness
CP, I might get in pre-emptively here to apologise for impugning your astuteness. Sorry, it was late. I didn’t pick it up Roy's underlying sarcasm the first time either, but put it in context and it rings like a bell.
Misdiagnosis
So Steven Metz wants to cure terrorism as though it were some sort of disease.
Silly fool. Terrorism is not a disease. It's an allergic reaction.
Stuart...
Stuart, I feel that psychological injury is a part of life, it is how we ourselves repair the injury, that determines the extent of how far our human condition has progressed. I believe that the need for reliance on any god ideology, is a sign of fearing to take control of our “primitive emotions; greed, hate, jealousy”. Most ideologies are based on fear, fear of not being accepted, fear of not being part of the accepted. Plus the fear to be honest and act on that honesty, with ourselves firstly and others. It allows us to use those primitive emotions justifying them because we are sinners and as long as we believe, we will be forgiven.
To me that shows gross irresponsibility and weakness. In clarification, we all have those emotions sitting right on our shoulders and will never remove them. But once we are prepared to recognise and accept the primitive animal that dwells within us, we can take it in hand and move it to the background where it belongs. Once that's achieved, we have nothing to fear and the need to express and defend our fears no longer exits. As the song goes, freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose. Thats why the religious must resort to their emotions, they have so much to lose. That fear, results in terrorism.
Stuart, there are times when I happen to see a religious advert or program, or those promoting intelligent design, I feel terrorised as do lots of others. You see there is no verifiable proof for the origins of the Bible, nor the Koran. Which by the way is derived from the Old Testament and some aspects of the New. If you can't verify the source of ID, what hope do you have with ID? But then again that's the primitive mind isn't it, superstitious and fearful, tending to violence.
I do agree with the content and aim of what you write, you aim is very honorable, your methods your own. But as with Freud and Jung, the truth of their works, is in the outcomes. How's the psychology of the human race today, not looking very good psychologically on the whole is it. I never tell the truth to go away, some times I wish it would. I've learnt to let it come no matter what, just try to be prepared for it, so it doesn't scare me and awaken the beast. I do have faith (semantic) in my ability to reasonably accept it. I call it passive resistance or working within the law of cause and effect.
Yes the “neo-cons or Strauss-cons” do have a lot to answer for, however you have to look at their support base and where they derive their faith source from, to really determine their full agendas and how well they marry with other major agenda sources. After all they practise another form of terror, just use different methods and vehicles.
Thank you Alga
Thank you kindly, Alga Kavanagh, for your reply and in no way do I intend to laugh at your contribution. Non injury also includes psychological injury as well as physical injury. Just to be a little picky but in a cuddly sort of way I did not say that Buddhism is monotheistic, however in the context of our discussion that is neither here nor there.
It would appear that we are on the same wavelength regarding the demise of our environment, however initially, I would like to address a couple of the issues you raised in your reply, of course in a friendly cuddly sort of way ;-)
You use the term civilised, yet offer no definition. Allow me to offer this from Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain); “The only very marked difference between the average civilised man and the average savage is that the one is gilded and the other is painted.”
We tend to view “civilised” as things, ie technology and stuff yet psychologically the human condition has not progressed in the same way as we have in the technological sense. It could be argued that our basic emotions and management of same are still rather primitive. The dangerous thing here is we have highly sophisticated “things” which are killing us, controlled by people motivated by primitive emotions; greed, hate, jealousy and of course the grand daddy of all emotions, fear.
What we are really dealing with in this thread (as I see it) is fear. Fear of ourselves, each other and our conflicting interests which are being (easily) manipulated by those in power for their own agendas, agendas which in turn are motivated by the (out of control) emotions and interests of those in power. Of course politicians and religious leaders are the prime culprits in the administration of fear. Also businesses use fear to market products and services but in a more subtle manner.
So how do we deal with fear? In fact we have been dealing with fear since the year dot. The religions of the East, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and so on have taken the cerebral path ie "know thyself" or as the ancient Greeks such as Socrates would say gnoti seauton. Much of our present day psychology has been greatly influenced by Eastern religion and a look at the backgrounds and influences of people such as Freud and Jung will verify this. And in spite of all that, that has been written and discussed, the human condition is and remains the problem.
It does not take long to realise this, just look at point scoring and comments made in this forum. I see pride, narcissism, egocentricity and downright bloody mindedness all at work. We can all be accused at some time or another of these traits, myself included.
Alga, you asked; “I would be interested in what your solution or outcomes would be, that hasn't been tried before.” Sadly, the solution that will lead to just and decent outcomes has also been with us from the year dot. There is nothing that we discuss today that has not been discussed and mulled over through the centuries and eons. The truth is contained within us, it looks us in the face every day, every moment yet we keep telling the truth to go away. A little bit like Saint Augustine “Oh Lord, please make me pure - but not yet”.
Well, the time has come for the human condition to come to terms with fear and our own delusions. We will not do this using the intellectual process, it can only be done using the psychological process, in a very personal and if need be brutally honest manner. We have to take a journey into the corridors and alley ways of our own minds and reclaim our souls from other people’s fears and dishonesty.
If we don’t achieve this then I’m afraid the game is up, for with all our knowledge, all our technology and all our sophisticated "things" we will simply make ourselves extinct, yet in our arrogance we think that we will live and dominate this world, this universe, forever.
You infer the problem with the world today has a lot to do with Middle Eastern religions and it would appear there is much truth in your observation, yet we also have to appreciate that the western powers that be, especially the neo-cons or Strauss-cons have their own insidious agenda that is designed to inflame an already delicate relationship.
Their formula for doing this is has to a great extent been modelled on the observations of Plato who uses noble lies, myths and so on to control the mind of the masses; such an ancient formula yet potent one, for Plato knew all too well the weaknesses of the human condition.
The only way we will overcome global terror is to purge the terror within ourselves and have the courage to tell the powers that be, “you're full of shit”.
Alga, I suspect that we have a lot in common. Take care and thanks sincerely for your assistance.
mis-diagnosis, misunderstanding, positively misleading
When one considers how many lengthy and long discussions there have been on terrorism on the Webdiary site, this piece should be quickly dismissed for the lightweight fluff that it is. At best it stands as an example of the poverty of thought that seems to underlie the current Anglo-Saxon Establishment view of the world. Simply focusing on "terrorism" as the problem illustrates the article's simplicity and naivety. At best we might say the Metz approach is necessary because this is the only paradigm within which the establishment will accept discussion.
Terror is a tactic, not a strategy or a cause. It is a worthwhile question to ask why terror is chosen as a tactic by a group in pursuit of a strategy or cause. Why a group chooses a cause is a related and important question. But to confuse terror the tactic with terror as a cause in itself is a sin forgivable in
Different "terrorists" around the world are motivated by different causes. Understanding and developing policies for the contexts they operate in should be the main objective. This is where keys to reducing terror will be found, rather than in some grand (actually childish) notions of "Terror". The main effect of such theories is to create hamfisted foreign policies that do create alliances where previously none existed, eg
Moreover, studies of what groups/causes choose terror shows that, while they may cite injustice, poverty etc., their practitioners are normally educated, frequently comparatively privileged, and usually socially marginalised. In addition their cause invariably has little support, either due to lack of resonance, or perhaps because of effective repression of their targeted population. Either way terror is largely a tactic of the marginal.
Attempts to blame monotheism, clashes of civilisations, the broad sects of Islam, or godless atheism, are all intellectually discredited approaches that have little productive to add. Indeed in their underlying stereotyping they share more with the absolutist mindsets of practitioners of terror than with the "civilised society" those spouting them seek to identify with.
Why? Please support your argument.
"Attempts to blame monotheism, clashes of civilisations, the broad sects of Islam, or godless atheism, are all intellectually discredited approaches that have little productive to add."
When the terrorists themselves frame their acts as part of a "Holy War" against the infidels, why is stating the obvious so non-productive? Are you saying you know the terrorists' motives better than they themselves do?
THE terrorists?
Hi Mike, it seems things aren't so simple, are they? Holy war is the term often propagated by the PNAc supporting warmongers and their radical hate filled ideologues on both sides of the equation. Perhaps we should use some tips from Rumsfeld in his terminology battles. Perhaps the terrorist groups you are referring to are those Not of official government military who are from predominantly Moslem background though not necessarily fundamentalist but united in opposing the occupation and control of their land and countries by western dominated elite usually corrupt with poor human rights records and excessive military force against civilians. That way there is no confusion, just as Mr Rumsfeld doesn't confuse.
Of course, there are so many studies now on "terrorism" that we know it is misleading by any alleged expert to lump them as any one religious group or ethnic group. Commonality just seems to be occupation or oppression by violent unjust group. Yep, that seems to for most. Of course, the road ragers of our community would perhaps be the angry vengeance seekers of the damaged communities but it is important that such actions are seen for what they are: desperate violence that begets more violence, as does the excessive force used by every government in response to such. Lovely cycle of hate.
There are also the extremist political wings and all countries have had experience with those of all religions. So by "the Terrorists" are you referring to...? The ex CIA/MI5 Reagan invented Al Qaida? Thanks Mr Reagan, the world seems to have forgotten this part of your legacy, arming and training, with Maggie, oppressed freedom fighters of the Moslem world who developed into what they are today. Thanks Ronnie. And your little backroom team. Do you still have links with them? Islam is just as much a part of this terrorism as Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism and ....antartican, and atheism in that people tend to have a religion to which to cling and find ways for it to justify killing others - look at good old Clementine changing thou shalt not kill to thou shalt not murder to allow easy conscience in the butchering of the crusades.
The spin is used to give a simple target and stop people thinking the real WHY? That might be awkward for those benefiting from the arrangements. Most people are too lazy to be bothered researching so easy meat for spinners. Let's not help the warmongers, eh, Mike?? Their budget is huge enough as it is. I wouldn't want another Holocaust on my conscience. I hope I would have had the courage to speak out against religious hate speak in Germany, but ....I can see how hard it is going to get and the orchestra is playing such a symphony with few notes wrong. like a death march.
Fiona: Hi Angela, great to have you and your passion back again! Just a plea from this poor editor - a few paragraphs and a bit of spellchecking, eh? By the way, this comment is not directed solely at you - you're just the last in a fairly long line of serial offenders this afternoon - and you out there all know who you are!
reply to Mike
Thanks for you reply Mike, it's worth teasing out why they are unproductive.
Monotheism - nearly all montheists are not terrorists, though a lot of terrorists are monotheists so monotheism may be an enabling factor, something that frames a discourse or action but it is hardly a determining or vital one.
Clash of Civilisations - Terrorists such as those coming from al Qaeda hardly represent a "civilisation" (though they may be seen as coming from, though not representing, a distinct culture). They do often recruit from those who are caught up in major cultural and economic change, often as a result of exposure to the culture of the West. Clash of civilisations is primarily an ideological and emotive term and of little use for grappling with the problem except in a confrontational way. This may suit al Qaeda and various others but it’s not analytically useful since it is an inaccurate description of anything other than an ideological position - they/we believe their is a clash of civilisations because they/we believe there are two civilisations which are incompatible.
The "broad sects of Islam" - Islam is as broad or broader a church than Protestantism, blaming "Islam" is simply foolish stereotyping. Like all religions (especially monotheistic ones) it is somewhat at odds with a liberal society since it thinks its revealed truth is superior. But again not all religious people are terrorists, most are not. Religions learning to live beside one another and in a secular state is a not uncommon historical occurance. We have to burrow into the specific ideas much deeper than "Islam" to find answers.
Godless atheism - I was thinking of the religious right's polemics on communism. Soviet and Chinese communism were guilty of massive crimes against humanity and atheism may have played a part but any study of the history (and this is one of my major areas of expertise) shows it can only a be a framing discourse. Though it did play a part in persecution of religions even here it was not all the reason by any means. Again most atheists are neither terrorists nor abusers of human rights.
Do I know more about the terrorists motives than they do? I observe their statements and their actions, I'm interested in the contexts they operate in and their sociological and psychological profiles. In a sense this is a way to know more about terrorists as a (series) of groups than they themselves know. On another level of course they know more about themselves than I can. But then how much does your brother/mother/shrink know about you that you don't?
And finally, to add some philosophical whimsy, it is very debatable whether the "I" is more than a mentally sustaining fiction our minds carry. Who the terrorists, or anyone, "are" is possibly so constantly in flux as to make "knowing one's self" a continually moot point.
Hmmm
Hi Tony, yes but to be "I" one has to "think", therefore most are eliminated as "I" and are therefore just "them"."We", I guess, are many "I"s all thinking, hence "We" are here (at Webdiary).
What does that make chocolate? Not for them.
chockie for all
Hi Angela good point, I'm all for virtual chocolate if it can be done (zero cals for starters). I'm even happy to share it around.
Though on the "I", that ever puzzling subjectivity, I think it was Kundera who said, "a man who says I think therefore I am is a man who seriously underestimates the power of toothaches."
Thanks for your points re Tibet, I think on the whole "we" (or do I presume too much, if so take it as a "we" representing a consensus of my "I"s) might say our ideology bends to circumstances and capacities while still framing our perceptions and evaluations of the same circumstances and capacities. The willingness of Thai Buddhists to crack down on Muslim activists in response to terrorist acts also indicates some limits or flexibilities in that ideology as well.
A religion of peace....
Hmmm.....I wonder why, say, the Tibetans don't go around blowing up all things Chinese. After all, their entire country has suffered for decades under a brutal occupying force, and their culture has been all but annihilated.
Could it be that, perhaps, their religion - Buddhism - really IS a "religion of peace" that actually promotes pacifism rather than war? Whereas Islam, despite some (such as George Dubya Dunce) defending it as a "religion of peace," is in essence a warrior religion? This doesn't mean all Muslims want to wage war, just that the religious system is set up in such a way as to promote conflict with other faiths (Christianity certainly is set up like that as well). "O Believer, never make friends with Christians or Jews" (from the Koran) for example.
We could go deeper into the psychology here but I'll stop for now.
History is ever so much more than dates.
The Tibetans pursued such actions against the Chinese invaders with covert US support initially.
They were called Guerilla tactics, resistance, rebellion etc. See Peter Harcleode's Book Fighting Dirty, 2001 for an excellent in depth description. Eisenhower authorised the arming and training and support despite no formal request from the Dalai lama(not from want of requesting the request). 1959, Operation St Circus, trained in all such skills in Camp Hale in Colorado over seven years including bombing-demolitions and sabotage, booby trapsmine laying, and field craft etc. Parachutung these guys back into Tibet took some amazing flying over the Himalayas from Okinawa base. The people who live in Mustang in nepal are some of these guerillas. I have been there, more Tibetan than Tibet they say now.
"occupation and oppression is resisted by the ones with the most to lose often using the ones with the least."
Angela Ryan,
Webdiary
Today, now.
Refuse to write the date. History is ever so much more than dates. No-one learns the lessons of history from the dates either.
Angela, there are no Tibetan terrorists as far as I know.
God Loves You
Religion is a very personal thing, and I'm reluctant to expose mine here.
Nevertheless, it's time to challenge all those anti-religious on this blog who seem to believe that not only is religion in its entirety a crock - but that it's also feasible to somehow "eliminate" them from human consciousness.
First I want to deal with the false dichotony of science v religion. Like many Australians of my generation I was funneled into the study of science from Grade 8 on. I never became a professional scientist (my talents lie elsewhere), but I remain interested in the field, and in what constitutes good science.
There is nothing I know of in science that is contrary to a belief in God. When people say God is a "supernatural" being, they are only revealing their own orientation. God is as natural as they come.
When Einstein says the act of observation affects the phenomenon observed, I extend it to saying that consciousness affects everything around it. God created and is embodied in the Universe surrounding us. God is the dynamic stability of nature, and is in everything. The rocks and trees themselves begin to sing.
Now I don't know God's consciousness, I know only scraps of my own. I find that close observation of what is happening in and around me, and contemplation on Jesus' (and others) message that "God is Love", allows me to discern answers to problems, directions to move forward, and an ever-growing commitment to nonviolence.
In this regard "the cure" to terrorism is "love the terrorist, resist all acts of terrorism". Try that Sid Drate, Mike Lyvers, Alga Kavenagh.
Anyone who's tried will know just how hard this is, particularly with a hysteric raging babble of hatred being generated around us all the time. I could refer here to Satan, the Prince of Liars, but I'm happy just to say "Rupert Murdoch" and "Post-Modernism".
When I went to Pine Gap as a Christian/Pagan, I put my best and most sustained energy behind "the cure" for terrorism. I learned a lot, and I saw God's hand at work. Hallelujah!
To those of you who'd abolish faith in others, for whatever reason, God loves you too.
For God's sake
Hey Bryan, can't resist a challenge re religion.
This is an issue that has been in my mind for a long time but specifically over the last few weeks as I think about it. Still thinking.
One thing I cannot reconcile is the apparent need of the range of "believers" in shoving their message down the throats of all who have other opinions. Are they scared others will ruin their beliefs? Do they need everyone to believe what they believe in order to accept them?
It just makes no sense to me that so many religions with so many varied beliefs apparently seem to be worshipping the same thing. Being, a GOD. Not, by the way, the same god either.
Evidence either way is not available so it comes down to a person making the leap of faith to believe whatever. In other words there is no proof of a god and this is where believers simply smile and say "You just have to have faith". Why? Do we think this way on any other issue? Or rather, do we accept discovered and proven facts and theories until proven otherwise?
I agree with Syd. If your god does love me then he does indeed move in mysterious ways. Nasty ones too. I too will have a few words if...
On topic clearly terrorism can't be cured. It's not an illness. Equally religion is not the cause or reason for terrorism, political and social injustices are closer to the truth. Religion though, is certainly the tool that is used to motivate terrorists or mob action which we are seeing re the cartoons.
Religion has been the tool for as long as it has existed. It is used to control and scare populations rather than to help and make them happy.
I don't want to take anyone's belief away from them and I can't (thank whoever) do so. But I would like to see religion practised privately, much as other personal habits are.
Bryan Law , I don't
Bryan Law, I don't recall saying anything about abolishing faiths. If you read what I wrote, you will note that I said the energy of these faiths needs to be dissipated. A per history, that comes in the form of war, not love. 2000 or more years of it. Everyone has to have a belief system, even if that is the belief in nothing. To be otherwise, would mean you are empty, not a nice thought.
I'm not going to argue with you about religion, your statement, 'message that "God is Love"', is enough for me. When you consider the evidence of its application, it doesn't look good. My experience shows me that for god religions to be seen as they express themselves to be, a proper example needs to be shown. In some individuals you can see that, but in the Middle East -isms as a whole, the opposite is portrayed.
The solution I can see for this country to avoid what appears to be sweeping the world, irrelevant to why, is to take religion out of the picture. Keeping it in the home and in places of worship, in worship, expression and culture. Your belief in God, is a personal experience, you can't share it with anyone else, no matter how hard you try. The books even express this, yet its adherents constantly push it into everyone else's face, by whatever means possible. One outcome, conflict. Particularly between those who disagree with the others interpretation of the same faith. Unbelievers, just go yep whatever, just leave me out of it. But you all continue to war, year in year out, no let up for anyone.
Maybe this time you will do the job properly, for everyones sake, I hope not. I'm sure, that if your christ returned, you would all line up to hang him. Why, because you would refuse to believe him when he told you that you had the wrong approach to faith. You did it last time, and nothing has changed. If anything it's got worse.
Stop terror, don't give them a reason.
Religion is not the reason for the season of terror
Hi Alga, nice idea, bit impractical but heck, think of the real estate available! But as a solution to "terrorism" ... well, is it the "root cause"? Naaah. Debunked that one with plenty of available history and studies, only spinners fixate on that one.
So, after you've performed your mammoth task, and religion is gone, none of this terror would be stopped as it aint the problem is it? It is just where some seek sanctuary from the horrors of state and individual sponsored and covert and gang sponsored terrorism. Yep, a number of "terrorism" scenarios and sometimes impossible to distinguish, as they may be meant to be. One should not jump to conclusions nor extrapolate from poor evidence when an event occurs. Isn't it amazing how fast some of these are miraculously solved, any other case would take at least the time to analyse and collect evidence/ forensics. Just so clever. Considerable errors are risked in such haste. Especially if one is threatening to nuke a country.
The problematic cause of the second form of terrorism is oppression, usually violent, disposession, freedom loss, injustice with no hope of accountability and just and simply hopelessness. Desperation and hopelessness, with a manipulative group aiding a violent reprisal. I wonder what we would do in their situation. If your children had just been murdered, if your family destroyed, if in the depths of misery you are taunted or frustrated further to anger. There can be madness in bereavement. When there is so much violence it only takes one not to take the forgiving pathway and the whole cycle cranks up.
If one looks at suicide bombings, perfected in horror in Sri lanka and India, one has a cross religious application, including atheists during communist times, Palestinians, and Jews for Israel statehood, and spies to kill Hitler during WW2 and all those Kamikazis and any soldier facing certain death in battle, all suiciding and killing in a mass of mush for their dictated cause. All promoting further killing.
One could even compare military attacks against civllians with a suicide bomber and clearly the military is far more deadly, yet we are guilty of that and we hear nothing about this. Just the suicide bombers, not the military war crimes daily in Iraq and elsewhere, like Sudan and Indonesia. Are we deliberately turning a blind eye to a greater evil we are part of?
And yet we hear it is it just the religious doing the sucicide bombing. Not just Religion and the religious by a long shot. After all Atta can't have been very religious if he shaves, wears jewellry, goes to a girlie bar and gambling boat (of Abramoff) and drinks alcohol and eats pork just before a suicide run of the (PNAC) century. He sounds more like a florida Cocaine smuggling pilot for the mob.
So it ain't religion per se, although plenty have found any excuse to do bad things, I think Bush even invoked his god in the bombing of Baghdad. Work that one out. Bombing civilians in a city like Sydney. Our Airforce refused runs. I salute the refusniks. Not terrorists.
It ain't any religion that bombs, it is the religions that gives the support through all these horror lives these people struggle through. Some snap.
Here, it is just road rage for pulling out too sharply... Snap.
Cheers.
Angela
Atta acted like a non-Muslim to disguise himself and his intentions, a strategy described in various terrorist training manuals.
But there is another aspect to all this that your post fails to address. I've been reading the Koran, and came across a passage where God states the following: "O Believers, you must never become friends with Christians or Jews." What could be more divisive than that - the very Word of God (as Muslims believe)? What does this imply for the future of multiculturalism, particularly in the face of Islamic fundamentalism?
Atta,the psychology
Hi Mike, just about Atta, I don’t wish to go off thread but a study of the psychology of his deeds does indeed send a shard of light into the whole action. Interesting you have an answer for that one. How about this: his will and farewell letter in the case that was supposed to be on the plane he was flying into the WTC? That was cute, eh? So lucky it missed the flight or we wouldn’t know about Atta, would we, as the security footage didn't catch him getting on. How slack, eh? The dead speak.
Why did he need to go out to a bar anyway, and, if he was in disguise, why leave a Koran on the bar? Weird, eh?
tsk tsk. A budding scholar are we becoming? not methinks
Hi Mike, reading the Koran? That is impressive. It is always good to read and talk to others to understand one's religion. I presume you have spoken to an Imam or learned Koran scholar about the passage to again understanding of the text,and put it into context both religious and cultural?? You ask me?
Let me ask you this. What would a person who had never read the Bible think of the cursing of the Jews in the "New Testament", or the ethnic cleansing and genocide on the "Old Testament" or the writings about goyim in the Talmud etc? Ancient religious texts require years of scholarship to understand and then wisdom to put in context. It is a favourite trick of people sowing hate to pull out lines from religious texts to make hateful points.Are you doing that, Mike? Do you talk to Jews about blood libel and all that crap? Give unto the experts the questions that belong to them. cheers cheers
Learned scholars of the Koran?
I understand that Abu Bakir Bashir is one such scholar, and I have certainly heard his interpretation of that passage in an interview on Australian TV.
There are terrible passages in all the dumb religious books you cited, and they have inspired hatred and violence for millenia. Have you tried reading the Koran Angela? Or are you reluctant to do so without the guidance of a kindly "expert" who can whitewash the difficult stuff for you?
Proof in facts.
Firstly I must apologise, as I addressed my lost post to Stuart, whoever that is, instead of Phil, but then I think I was also talking to Bryan. Which means, oops failed again. I still haven't got used to posts appearing at different places instead one after the other, quite confusing at first.
Angela: “Debunked that one with plenty of available history and studies, only spinners fixate on that one.”
Can you point me to these historical facts, I am always willing to learn.
“The problematic cause of the second form of terrorism is oppression, usually violent, dispossession, freedom loss, injustice with no hope of accountability and just and simply hopelessness”
This is very true, considering that most of the oppression is ideologically orientated and mostly religious. It is the superiority complex of the religious that inspires repression, that can be seen by the way religions have treated indigenous peoples throughout history. How can anyone justify their religious position when you see the state of the animist and indigenous populations if the world in their current situation, after being converted to monotheistic beleifs. I would hazard a guess, that its not good, in fact it deplorable. The amount of differing peoples on the world that have been dispossessed by religious cultures, as well as their resources, lifestyles and lands. Does nothing to inspire faith in religious belief systems. Even though we have the ability, there is no real move to alleviate these situations, just make them worse.
“One could even compare military attacks against civilians with a suicide bomber and clearly the military is far more deadly, yet we are guilty of that and we hear nothing about this.”
Again this is true. But again most military is under the control of religiously backed governments, even Stalin was heavily backed by the orthodox church, as was Hitler a very christian man heavily backed by religion in the form of, the catholics, and I may remind you that muslims sided with Hitler and the Imam of Jerusalem spent a lot of his time during the war in Germany. In communist countries, less that 10% supported the system, and then only to survive. Name me a war that has not be instigated, or supported by religion.
“It ain't any religion that bombs, it is the religions that gives the support through all these horror lives these people struggle through. Some snap.”
Looking at my comments above, may well give you the answer to your statement. If you have ever been on active service, which I doubt, then you would understand what non-support is given by religion. Just the opposite in my experience. I am more than happy for you to show me where I am mistaken.
Religion as an instiution or a template to seek G-d and spirit
Hi Alga, thanks for taking so much effort to respond to my ideas that I was sharing. I apologise for not giving a response of equal quality, I am often writing as I rush around completing other demanding tasks.
Briefly the neocon Struass lot are quite happy for us all to consider the current conflicts as clashes of peoples too different to get along due to religious reasons or ethnic reasons. These assumptions would prevent people on the street asking the real questions one should always make in any forensic analysis, who benefits and who had opportunity and means and don't we have a great deal in common?
We are both, I think, against religion used as a weapon for imperialism, both cultural and financial, both disempowering, and war promotion. Certainly the Catholic church was notorious for this, such as in South and Central America, but also the prostestant in Virginia.
Wherever a dominant militarily culture goes its religion frequently becomes dominant while it absorbs something of those it occupies. Romans and Greek were an interesting example and others could give a more elaborate and clever answer there, I have read many such here on Webdiary.
The US and Soviets both used dogma as well, but "political" dogma, that of "democracy and freedom" and that of collective "ownership and benfit for the people", both ideas have great value but both were significantly corrupted once persons were in power without open givernment and accountability. Just as religion is used to dominate and control, so are political ideals. The people at the top rarely live by the rules that those inspired below are functioning at. The old Inner and Outer and commoner circles seem to be the perrenial theme in power. I remember travelling to Russia in the 80s and in first class I sat next to Soviet ministers, as they went through customs they had electronic goods from Singapore pilled on trolleys twice my height. Once in Soviet Russia I saw what the people had, nothing at all in the shops and centres. Says it all non?
Both forms of political dogma being perverted for power to benefit the elite. Democracy soon becomes controlled if the people don't vote as demanded by the US regime of the day. Chili is a nice example. As is Haiti and Venezuela and so on. Watch Mexico soon.
I agree with you about religion being used to control and continue a group's power base. Just as money and resources and information and media (inc movies) are used to influence policy and thinking, usually for the ultimate benefit of the currently empowered group. Do you disagree with this? Regardless of the religions.
The military forever has been a tool of the power holders. At time that overlaps. In general the role of military is welll described in Sun Tzu's Art of War, I am sure you have studied it too, and Machiavelli (although I think he lacked log term wisdom in his suggested methods, history supports this. The Peace is the most important battle to be won for those wishing to gain benefit from a compliant population).
It is sad what you said about spiritual support on the field, I agree and wonder really why some people take such a vocation. Some thoughts here to share: of what value is a damaged soldier to the elite? Once a military person can no longer serve they are of no value as many vets have found here and in the US - huge funding cuts again just announced - even a political liability as the true horror of war may be transmitted to the people who think it is all about bands and uniform. Another consideration is what kind of a religious person who believed in the message that Jesus gave could in all faith actually come and support the killing in a war? Especailly when no major religious Christian leader gave "sanctified Just War " status to the Iraq invasion. I imagine it takes real mind gymnastics.
I also suspect, for the serving soldier, one's peers give better support as they have BEEN there. Sorry I cannot share my own experiences. My compassion lies with the real veteran who has been there. On Anzac day I think it is a travesty that those who have not been at war should march at all. Only true vets should be there in my view. They alone really know that war is not to be glorified nor rushed into. This courage to face the horror of war, once it has been decided by others to be absolutely necessary, is the very basis of the bravery required and should be acknowledged in those who serve.
As to our discussion about Religion. True religion, such as Christianity has little do with power-weilding and more to do with the individual's relationship with their god. That is why I would like to distinguish between religion as above and religion when manipulated and interpreted in ways to control population thinking as a group for power play. That is why the head of state is wise to be head of the majority religion.
It is about power. That is why we may be at cross purposes in what we are each saying yet meaning the same thing.
Chrisianity was hijacked by Constantine and I believe perverted to a form that suits those in power. Dissenters were routed out. When duty is to the Church, rather than God, or duty and relationship to God is controlled/accessed by church channels. This monopoly on the path to god was one thing that Jesus challenged and hence was dangerous to the power base of the Priest class in Jerusalem.
While the message of G-d and the rules proscribed are only known by those who read Latin and Greek, power can be enormous for those controlling it. Thus the long resistance to publish in the vernacular. What their priest said could not be argued with as only he knew what God said as written in his holy book.
Didn't the debate change and the power of the Church when the local vernacular was used?
I have to disagree with you about WW2 and the alliances there being based upon religious lines. I think that religion per se had nothing to do with it, but power base and dogma had everything, sometimes this was along religious groupings. Arabs, of whom most, but significantly not all, were Moslem allied with both Germans and English. The latter were promised various things, such as national recognition that was later twisted. This is just now evident in the recently released cabinet documents that make very interesting reading from 1942 from memory. It also discusses the promises and conflict with Zionist aspirations and shows the duplicit game the UK played with both groups.
Not about religion, but power and keeping it, that is what I humbly think determined the motives for WW2. Hitler was supported by many Lutheran and Catholic, and some didn't. Like Neimoller who went to concentration camp for opposing Hitler as did my own relative. As did the enemies of Hitler like the communists and socialists and those his nasty bigoted mind could harm like Jewish Germans and Gypsies and homosexuals and the mentally damaged - the latter were the first to be gassed in portable train carriages, according to Professor Martin Gilbert. He gives a very interesting and detailed analysis of historical events and I recomend it - 1933 to 1951 tome. His study clearly shows the power issues. That is the reason, may I suggest, for the the Vatican support of Franco and Mussolini and Hitler, the communists and socialists would remove or limit the power of the Church to dictate policy and wealth distribution and movement. Communsim per se, should it have allowed the existance of G-d is surprisingly close to Jesus's early message and how the disciples are descirbed as living.
Opus Dei had it's roots in the Franco war as Escriva escaped. That organisation is a very good example of how power is gained from a pyramid of believers where those at the top are corrupted and compromised by deeds to maintain power and money. May I suggest "Their Kingdom Come" by Robert Hutchison,once of many books about this group, but well researched with interesting historical perspectives. Very relevent today I am sadly afraid to say. So many good people are at the bottom it is a shame it is poisoned so at the top. I guess the adage 'power corrupts' is so very true.
So in basic summary, the spin required is that this is a "Clash of Civilisations" and this spin has come to maturity from the "conservative"/necon think tanks and the ideas promoted by their tools in the media and unaware. It is template for a long war to replace the benefits that the Cold War gave to the power group and to justify the resource grabs and hegemonism and military spending - unncecessary and wasteful. No full scale war can ever ocur without MAD. We are safe as long as people do not want MAD for religious reasons.
The War of Terror was such a furfy. Such a "war" as many military leaders and policing have said, is best fought by policing methods and cutting funding via open international banking and removal of organised crime which facilitate, and remove the cause of the suffering - the occupations and oppressive often US supported governments, including Saddam, Saudis, Jordanaians, and other ME. Thus give economic stability and quality of life and security. Does this not make such sense?
Then ask why is it not implemented? Because the whole thing is a power tool(worse than any boring drill).
Have you not asked why Afghanistan was "regime changed" and Iraq and Libya tamed. "I was an economic hit man" - forget the writers name, gives an incredible insight into what goes on. Have you not asked yourself why excessive military force has been repeatedly used as a tactic? Is this the usual tactic for a force that wants a cooperative peoples as their realm? You may have some insight as to what I am saying here and what the questions lead one to conclude as alternative assesments.
It has happened before in history, usually near the end of an era.
One takes a great journey if one enters the realm of power flux analysis without professional training, and many changes in direction and assesments may be needed. Partial access to information is a limitation. Basic analysis principles are invaluable along with logic training. It really is a bit like the Matrix two tablets. One has to make one's own choice which one you dare take, or really want to.
You have such an abiltiy to share ideas and express them, that is not my talent at all, analysis is more my area, fraught with uncertainties. Please consider what you read and what the authors want the message, both subconsciously and intellectually, to be.
I truly think this century will be the age of the Spin Meisters.
Cheers.
Forgive a lack of quality I have tried to cover quickly all the areas mentioned with some basic sources that I have found invaluable. There are plenty of directions to take through the internet but tend to be a little superficial without a good grounding in the area and easy to be manipulated.
God loves you
Bryan Law, you say "Religion is a very personal thing, and I'm reluctant to expose mine here". Well I am willing to expose mine.
I am one of the "Chosen People", and ever since I witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust I have wished that God had chosen someone else.
"To those of you who'd abolish faith in others, for whatever reason, God loves you too". For your information I do not think he does love me, I have suffered a painful and debilitating illness for the past 2 years and have at the most 2 months to live. But thanks to god and the legislators, none of my loving family can assist me to end this painful existence. I am told by my doctors that when the end is near it will be very painful but they will be able to give me drugs to give me some relief. However, I have no wish to lie there without being able to do things for myself. A pox on all religions.
If I am wrong and there is a god and I get to meet him, as my rabbi has told me I will, I will give him a mouthful he will not forget in a hurry.
I will ask him about all the "miracles" he was supposed to have performed, and tell him to get his backside down to earth now, because mankind could sure use some of his magic right now. Especially in his "Holy Land" where everything is going wrong, boy was that ever a misnomer for a piece of land.
It's got to be a better
It's got to be a better bet Syd. And I am not being at all flippant. By all means give him both barrels. And then some more from the rest of us. You're entitled.
Bryan and Angela, for what it is worth my respect for you just went up enormously.
Geoff
Hi Geoff, we may differ on some points, but I have always greatly respected your views as genuine and heartfelt and seeking. You are so much like some very dear friends that I have that your words have helped me understand them better on topics one can barely talk of. Do you know what I mean?
cheers
hi
It is so sad to read of your suffering and anger, thankyou for sharing it.
At December a friend lost his beautiful wife and three little kids lost their Mum. Car accident. Boom. Gone ... Our time here is so unknown.
I hope you are able to do all you wish to. How inspiring that you share some thoughts about the problems here in such times.
I always wonder if we are held to account, and what would I say? Did I know? Did I do my best, really, to stop it or make it happen? Are we in the West or the Chosen with more power saddled also with more mortal responsibility for the wellbeing of others? Heck, so often hedonism rules so much. The dolphins shall definitely inherit my laptop.
But I don't think it is like that. I think it is much more simple. But we need to go on the last great journey to really find out. I think we make too many rules and barriers as people...
Cheers.
That's a tough place Syd.
I have no advice or good tidings for you Syd. You have my respect, and my good wishes (for what they're worth).
In your situation I don't know what I'd do. In my situation I'm in the last ten years of life if I manage my health well. I feel pain every time I look at my son and wonder if I'll be here for him when he goes through that painful part of life called adolescence.
Thanks for sharing. I'll shut up for a while now.
Tough place
Bryan, please do not "shut up" on my account, Margo would be horrified if you did that.
Thanks for your good wishes, and if there is a god I will certainly mention your name when I see him.
Angela gave me a good idea, maybe I can take my laptop with me when the time comes. Boy I would love to see all your faces when I manage to send you an email.
Hamish: keep Webdiary updated on the heavenly goss too Syd. Thanks.
Heavenly goss
Hamish, I will do what I can about the goss.
I will also have a word with Him about Webdiary and see if he can help, however there are about 3 other things I want to talk to him about first.
What happens if I am wrong and I finish up in the other place?. I am sure there will be a lot of people I know there.
Fiona: From what I've observed of you, Syd, you'd be shanghai'd out of the "other place" for being disruptive! As for words with 'Im Upstairs, you might take heart from Disraeli's alleged comment on his deathbed (after being told that Viccy wished to see him):
“What's the use? She would only want me to take a message to dear Albert.”
I wish you a gentle passing - yet beseech you to rage, rage....
I have no problem with your comment above, Bryan.
There is zero objective evidence for the existence of God, and plenty of evidence against the existence of the sort of God imagined by most Middle Eastern monotheists. (Note my careful phrasing of that sentence.) That doesn't mean there is no evidence for the existence of a transcendental Reality called God. A fascinating issue but a bit off topic.
Cause of Islamic terrorism identified:
Melanie Phillips has identified the primary cause of Islamofascist terrorism in today's Australian:
Ah ,our enmiring media reference.Thank g-d for the internet !
Melanie Phillips, from the Murdoch Press. Hmmm. Hardly worth interrupting my weaties over her but... let's think now, Murdoch, the press who brought us the last war of lies about Iraq and still hasn't retracted them. Ho hum. I suppose most of her readership would be ignorant of the enlightening study contradicting her banal initial assertion.
Why do people so compromise themselves professionally by writing propaganda? What else was there? Victims? The Danish? Methinks the Danish Military have been on active duty as occupiers in Iraq and in lockstep with Bush. that's the trouble with facts ain't it. So simple and unemotive. Pity about the Danish dairy industry exports to Iran, gone now methinks. I wonder if our live exports in the ME will be well received after Murdoch published here and Fairfax published in New Zealand. Maybe Woodside will be kicked out of new Kurdistan. Maybe the Iraqis will kick us out and my mates can come home. Back to me Weaties.
But dear Melanie comes to mind again,it is such a similar name to Miranda, both so like Melaena, I wonder if she was a PNAC sympathiser and keen on the" war between civilisations" as Mr Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish paper alleg is. If you have a mo, Google him, it's all out now. The kind of chap who, inspired perhaps by the thought of the Paris riots, has a competition for cartoonists to illustrate denigrating pictures about Islam. Nice guy. Not.
I have seen them, the cartoons and did not see one drab bit of humour but just nasty racism and hate. The people who did them have real problems. Did dear Melanie mention the refusal to publish Jesus cartoon by the same rag as it "might offend"?
Old story now, but shows to what depths hatred mongers will sink. There were plenty of denigrating cartoons of Jews before WW2 and the fascists revelled in them. And yes,there were responding and activiating violent events, not just protests, if I remember correctly from those already raw from world events. Just as now. Suicide bombing is bad enough without dickheads dabbling where so many have been harmed. What next topic eh? Not many 911 funny cartoons about the victims are there?
Raw areas should be respected. Religious sacred points need not be antagonised for political gain, free speech should not be used as a weapon of mass dissolution and denigration. Free speech is a precious right we have already lost about other topics. We cannot even criticise our government with impunity.
I think George Bush was right, You are either for us or against us, for peace or war. One can stoke the flames or build harmony. Choose Mike, eh?
Cheers
PS Angela
Perhaps you should try attacking Melanie Phillips' arguments instead of attacking her personally. The latter accomplishes nothing.
Angela, for clarification
absolutely correct.
Syd Drate is absolutely correct. In the Middle Eastern monotheisms, which are essentially fascist models of the universe, the authority of God trumps all other considerations and therein lies the danger. One's understanding of what God wants (an absurdity in itself) can lead to any sort of action against one's fellow humans, however horrific. Thus we have Jihad, Islamofascist terrorism, and people sawing off the heads of innocents while shouting "God is Great!" And in the past we saw the ultimate horrors of the Holocaust, and prior to that the Crusades, burning of "witches," etc.
Eliminating the "great" and utterly divisive Middle Eastern monotheisms would almost certainly eliminate terrorism as well as a host of other ills. One can only dream though. Maybe in a few thousand years, all traces of these hateful ideologies will be gone.
It is enormously encouraging
For me, the concept that is missing from Metz's analysis, which I think is otherwise an intelligent summation, is that dealing positively and proactively with the causes of terrorism will not bring instantaneous results. If a new US President were inaugurated tomorrow and immediately offered to sit down and negotiate any or all claims of terrorist organisations in the Middle East, there would be some members of those organisations for whom no offer could be accepted—people whose immediate family had been brutally killed for instance—just as there are, presumably, Americans whose nearest and dearest died in the WTC attacks for whom the terrorists can never be forgiven.
The net result is that terrorism CAN be eradicated, but it's likely to be generations before the bitterness and hatred bred by both terrorist organisations and their opponents subsides to a level where reason has a chance. In the intervening period, the world community must make a clear statement that acts of terrorism are considered crimes and those committing such acts should, of course, be sought and prosecuted by scrupulously fair and open means. At the same time, the causes of the anger and frustration, which Metz, correctly in my view, identifies as the root cause of terrorism, must also be removed by scrupulously fair and open means.
Clearly this idealist scenario is unlikely to occur. Realpolitik will mean that secret deals are done, governments and organisations will have both public and secret agendas, assassinations will continue, innocents will be killed on both sides and the spectre of terrorism will continue to hang like a pall over humanity.
Dancing around the truth a bit here.
Terry, you ignore the fundamental role (pun intended) of the Islamic religion in Islamic terrorism. You suggest that "there would be some members of those organisations for whom no offer could be accepted — people whose immediate family had been brutally killed for instance" - but I'm not aware of any immediate members of, for example, Osama bin Laden's family that were "brutally killed."
For many, and perhaps most, Islamic terrorists their motive - as they themselves frequently assert - is religious in nature. They are waging a "Holy War" with the stated aim of imposing fundamentalist Islam on much of the world - and eventually all of it. This is what Abu Bakir Bashir has said in interviews, for example.