"War on Terrorism" - is it hopeless ?

[Dandyman]

Not sure if anyone has ever read "The Secret Agent" by Joseph Conrad. It was written in the Edwardian (?) era of the early 1900's and shows terrorism is rather older than people sometimes think.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Re: Re: Re: "War on Terrorism" - is it hopeless ?

As always there are 2 sides to every argument, and I won't pretend to know exactly how many of the anti-Western arguments you list above are actually accurate. Clearly attacks such as 9/11 and Madrid are not without motive, not without Cause, and there's always a queue of people lining up to criticise who's sold arms to who in the past, who's funded this, who's trained who etc etc, as a reason to justify why innocent civilians keep getting blown up in retaliation.

All I would say is this - NO cause is justifiable by murdering innocent people who are just going about their daily business. Suicide bombers, and the perpetrators of acts which destroy innocent lives, are scum of the highest order. Whether they be black, white, Arab, Basque, whatever. Not one single life is worth any political agenda or statement to make a point.

Firstly, thanks for not blasting me, I expected plenty of e-mails along the lines of 'Bin Laden sympathiser' etc.

So to be clear, of course I don't support those attacks, indeed I abhor them.

The crux of my argument is - are we the innocents we portray ourselves to be. Not us, but our countries, our governments, our fellow people we rally around. Why are the 2500 deaths in the twin towers felt so much more strongly than 500,000 deaths in Iraq as the result of sanctions?

You point out people justifying why innocents are killed in revenge. Well, I'm not justifying as such, but pointing out that we have caused the deaths of many hundreds of innocents in the name of our, and the US, governments' cause. The 100,000 in Sudan, 20,000 in Laos, 500,000 in Iraq, 10,000 in Indonesia, god knows how many in Afghanistan. The perpatrators of acts that destroy innocent lives - Bin laden, certainly, Hussain, no doubt. But add Kennedy Nixon, Johnson, Wilson, Heath, Reagan, a couple of Bush's, Thatcher, Clinton, Blair to the list.

You're right you don't know about these facts. I didn't know until a month ago. I supported the bloody wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I defended our actions. Then I found out we were lied to, I had been made a fool of, and determined to find out what else we have been lied to about. Its scared me to the bone.

 

[fatbadger]

Well, for a start, Conrad's Secret Agent was a pure hack-piece. Don't trust anything it says!

But, you're right. Terrorism (or rather, what we have, in the twentieth-century, decided to call 'terrorism') is very old. In fact, we should be lucky and realise just how little occurs now compared to the nineteenth century!

 

[berkshire seagull]

Mostly all down to religion and power freaks and terrorism will never go.

 

[Sorrel]

Or if western secularism hadn't been invented.

Exactly. I know which I prefer.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

If this is all revenge for decades of repression and exploitation then I want to know what all those hundreds of Africans who died in the embassy bombings in Nairobi had to do with it. Or the Turks who died in the bombing of the HSBC building in Istanbul? The people in power are never touched by this stuff, it's always us poor bastards in the middle who get it. Same thing goes for al-qaeda, you don't see their "commanders" donning the explosive belts, they always get some poor kids who think they've got nothing to live for and will die a "heroes" death. If it's so heroic why don't their commanders put on the bombs?

No, there is probably no direct connection. Nevertheless years of repression spawns ideology and fanatics who then plan terrorist attacks. It is always the poor bastards in the middle who get it, the Iraqi's killed by sanctions whilst Hussain was living it up, the Indonesians rounded up by death squads whilst their leaders were given exile.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Ex Shelton Seagull
Oh and Bin Laden and al-qaeda were more than happy to see the Indonesian government repressing the people of East Timor. The people of East Timor are christians and therefore deserve to be crushed by the muslim Indonesian government in their eyes. [/QUOTE]

too true. But we are supposed to be better than them

To me this is a fight between religion and secular democracy - i.e. Western values. The way to win such a fight is to promote the ideals of human rights, and secular legal systems. Obviously you can't stop determined terrorists if they want to create violence, but you can turn the general climate of public opinion in places where terrorism is tolerated against such actions.

To do this you need to blunt the edge of religious fanaticism, removing the drive that encourages people to kill themselves believing that some "god" will reward them, and treat people fairly. Obviously giving equal rights to the Palestinians would be a good start for this, but I don't believe it's the root cause of the conflict. The problem is that some people believe that religion is more important than human rights, which we in the west believe is wrong.

The vast majority of us believe in human rights, the vast majority of muslims believe in human rights - but our leaders believe in global influence, economic strength and military power way before human rights.

Sorry if the record is getting scratched....

 

[Curious Orange]

So we're all agreed that a tolerant society is difficult to maintain when some members of that society have intolerant views?

 

[US Seagull]

To me this is a fight between religion and secular democracy - i.e. Western values. The way to win such a fight is to promote the ideals of human rights, and secular legal systems. Obviously you can't stop determined terrorists if they want to create violence, but you can turn the general climate of public opinion in places where terrorism is tolerated against such actions.

To do this you need to blunt the edge of religious fanaticism, removing the drive that encourages people to kill themselves believing that some "god" will reward them, and treat people fairly. Obviously giving equal rights to the Palestinians would be a good start for this, but I don't believe it's the root cause of the conflict. The problem is that some people believe that religion is more important than human rights, which we in the west believe is wrong.

Totally agree there. Religion is the problem and that's why Bush, seemingly trying to turn the US into a christian theocracy, is not the right man for the job. Fighting their extremists with our own extremists will just lead to decades of bloodshed (see Israel).

 

[US Seagull]

Should mention one thing. Moslem suicide bomers are not martyrs as we know it because their religion makes them believe that they are going to their version of heaven where a number of virgins are waiting for them to carry out their every whim. Let's say that they have some incentive.

Still, I've always wondered what female suicide bombers get ......

It must suck to die a Muslim virgin though. Years of living a virtuous life and your reward is to end up as the sex slave of a terrorist!

 

[fatbadger]

Exactly. I know which I prefer.

Despite the fact it has been responsible for more wars? That the philosophies of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot etc were all based on it?

(I'm assuming that you were meaning western secularism, anyway)

 

[y2dave]

Not sure if any of have you have seen
this:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

From reading the piece the 'reasons' Al Queda consider western civillians such as the Spanish fair game seem to be:

The American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will

The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates

 

[readingstockport]

While I don't like the American war machine and aggressive attitude at all, and I'm not impressed with Blair in any way either, I do consider myself on the same side as them when it comes to global politics - i.e. the side of western secular values. I don't know if you've read the original constitution of the United States, but it is something worth fighting for IMO. To me, the terrorists are the forces of conservatism.

Western Secular values

Sorry but there is a christian fundamentalist in the White house, there is a christian (almost) fundamentalist in Downing Street. How the hell is that secular. Members of the Bush administration have openly stated that they believe we are in the 'end times'.

The head of the US Environment Protection Agency has defended the selling off of nature reserves for commercial exploitation because 'there wont be many more generations' before the rapture anyway. The Bush adminisitrations is engaged in the bigest rolling back of secualar values within America EVER, replacing them with their own particular brand of idiotic, simplistic and naieve christianity, hence the current attempt to amend the constitution to ban 'gay' marriage.

There is no way either of these administrations are remotely secular.

 

[Sorrel]

but our leaders believe in global influence, economic strength and military power way before human rights

It's probably true of some of them, but they certainly are all in favour of human rights within their own contries - which is more than can be said for many Muslims (or we wouldn't have Sharia law in places like Nigeria).

I would be interested in what you suggest we do as a first step to align ourselves with this "vast majority of muslims [that] believe in human rights". Because that is what I'd like to do too.

I just think that the first step is to have a constitution that puts government above religion. Like the Americans have been trying to do in Iraq.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

I find it incredible that in the 21st century peoplle are still continuing to slaughter each other based on primitive religous beliefs. For f***s sake, these fairy stories have their roots in ancient Mesopotamian/Babylonian/Sumerian and Egyptian cult religions which spawned Paganism of which Christianity and Islam are but two derivitives. We are talking between 5,000 and 2,000 years ago!

I sincerely hope that evidence of intelligent life is found on Mars (although I feel that this discovery will be suppressed) as this will once and for all shatter the foundation of the beliefs used to justify the excuse to murder in Gods/Allahs/Yahwehs name.

 

[readingstockport]

I just think that the first step is to have a constitution that puts government above religion. Like the Americans have been trying to do in Iraq.

Sorry but again I disagree totally. The only thing America is trying to do with the government in Iraq is install an administration that will be sympathetic to American (and other western) companies.

Otherwise why if there a convicted fraudster in charge of Iraq currently?

 

[Curious Orange]

Totally agree there. Religion is the problem and that's why Bush, seemingly trying to turn the US into a christian theocracy, is not the right man for the job. Fighting their extremists with our own extremists will just lead to decades of bloodshed (see Israel).

The problem isn't religion per-se, indeed religions are of benefit to millions of people worldwide because of the moral framework they provide for their lives. Don't forget that the principles of most religions are broadly similar, be good, get a place in heaven etc. The problem is where religion is manipulated for political ends, a problem that has been going on for centuries. Religion can be manipulated, interpretted if you like, to provide a moral justification for pretty much anything. And because of this it worries me that we see any religious inflection in any system of governance, government and law should be about what society believes is right and wrong, not what a specific religion thinks, as this is clearly not inclusive of all aspects of society (particularly in a country like ours were all religions together are in the minority).

 

[Sorrel]

There is no way either of these administrations are remotely secular.

But the American constitution is. I know that the Republican Party has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians, but I think you over-estimate the extent to which America is a theocracy. It is not like Iran, or Saudi Arabia - it's a different scale entirely.

One is a country that guarantees freedom of religion and speech to all its inhabitants, but has religious people in government, while the others have the religion as their law and basis of the constitution.

 

[Sorrel]

Sorry but again I disagree totally. The only thing America is trying to do with the government in Iraq is install an administration that will be sympathetic to American (and other western) companies

I was being slightly disengenious there as I agree that the Americans are after a pro-American government first. However, it does occur to me that they are also trying to make it democratic - they're not suggesting that a dictator be installed (this time) - which to me is something worth aiming for.

While I can understand an objection to American troops in Iraq, do you actully object to the aims of the draft Iraqi constitution? If so, what would you suggest?

 

[fatbadger]

Yes, Duncan H (although, actually, your thesis as applied to Saudi (certainly) and Iran (probably) is rather questionable - both are actually based on specific legal systems within Islam, rather than Islam itself).

But can you really let me know what the difference is between a constitution based on an interpretation of the belief system known as Islam and a constitution based on an interpretation of the belief systems known as Chrisitianity and rationalism?

 

[fatbadger]

they are also trying to make it democratic

Oh no they're not - they are very specifically trying to avoid the rule of the Shia (which has been constructed as a 'religious' rule), that is the majority. Majority rule in Iraq would mean Shia rule, and they don't want that at all. So, no democracy for Iraq.