Mycroft said:
You don't consider the 80s and 90s recent history?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Orwell said:
I'm not aware of Nepalese suicide-bombers, but assuming there are some they're still limited to a relatively small geographic area. That doesn't make them any less of a problem locally, but being local, they're less of a global threat.
Also, I don't believe anyone limited the scope of this discussion to suicide bombings. The topic here is terrorism in general.
Third, the existence of Tamil Tigers or Nepalese Maoists doesn't make Islamic terror any less of a threat, it only illustrates that Islam is not the only source of brutally violent ideologies, which we knew already and was never in dispute. Militant Islam still deserves the greater part of our concern because that is the danger that directly threatens us.
Fourth, I would postulate that a phenomena doesn't need to be "purely a Muslim thing" in order for it to be a problem worth serious attention. If Muslim preachers are preaching hate, they are a problem that needs to be dealt with. If there are non-Muslim preachers who are also preaching hate, they also need to be dealt with, but that's in addition to, not in place of the Muslim preachers, and their hatred doesn't make the Muslim hatred any less of a threat.
Mycroft said:
Yet you seem to be able to be confident that there is something unique about Islam that is responsible for the change in scale? In the other thread you maintained this as well and yet so far no evidence has been produced about this uniqueness that Islam has for producing suicide bombers.
Mtcroft, regarding "the war against terrorism" (aka T.W.A.T.) 
:
When the IRA set off bombs in London, Britain could have, for instance, destroyed Boston, which was the source of a lot of their financing. And of course, they could have wiped out West Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the fact that this is unfeasible, it would have been criminal idiocy. Terrorism doesn't appear in a vacuum. I think that the way to deal with terrorism was pretty much what the british did in Ireland: find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for the reasons. These things don’t come out of nowhere. And usually if you look at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently of the crime. For the most part, this isn't military work, this doesn't call for a "war". If it wasn't for the occupation of Iraq, the military part of the so called "war against terror" would be over by now.
When it comes to fighting terrorism, we all know what the stick is. Where's the carrot?
: When the IRA set off bombs in London, Britain could have, for instance, destroyed Boston, which was the source of a lot of their financing. And of course, they could have wiped out West Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the fact that this is unfeasible, it would have been criminal idiocy. Terrorism doesn't appear in a vacuum. I think that the way to deal with terrorism was pretty much what the british did in Ireland: find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for the reasons. These things don’t come out of nowhere. And usually if you look at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently of the crime. For the most part, this isn't military work, this doesn't call for a "war". If it wasn't for the occupation of Iraq, the military part of the so called "war against terror" would be over by now.
When it comes to fighting terrorism, we all know what the stick is. Where's the carrot?
Orwell said:Mtcroft, regarding "the war against terrorism" (aka T.W.A.T.)
When the IRA set off bombs in London, Britain could have, for instance, destroyed Boston, which was the source of a lot of their financing. And of course, they could have wiped out West Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the fact that this is unfeasible, it would have been criminal idiocy. Terrorism doesn't appear in a vacuum. I think that the way to deal with terrorism was pretty much what the british did in Ireland: find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for the reasons. These things don’t come out of nowhere. And usually if you look at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently of the crime. For the most part, this isn't military work, this doesn't call for a "war". If it wasn't for the occupation of Iraq, the military part of the so called "war against terror" would be over by now.
When it comes to fighting terrorism, we all know what the stick is. Where's the carrot?
I think we have to be very careful with these analogies and I don’t believe we can compare the “Al Qaeda†terrorists to some other terrorist organisations such as the IRA (Provisional)
If there is a goal that the terrorist could achieve via a political solution (which was and is the case in Northern Ireland) then you can, no matter how distasteful it may be, negotiate with the terrorist. In NI by maintaining a solid front to the terrorist’s actions it was still possible to open negotiations with them since there was something that can be negotiated.
At the moment the terrorists we are dealing with (e.g. the like of Al Qaeda) do not have goals that we (non-Islamic states) can negotiate i.e what they want is the complete abdication of our principles and our beliefs in the rights of the individual. So how can we negotiate with them since there is no political solution to what they want from us? (And in fact although we hear about Al Qaeda all the time there isn’t apparently a leadership to negotiate with.)
If we look at some recent and pas terror organisations we can see the differences.
There are groups like the various IRAs, ETA and the Tamil Tigers who have a goal that could be achieved in principle via legal means in the countries in which they operate, therefore I say they can be negotiated with.
Then I think there are some groups that at least some of their goals can be achieved via negotiations, and I would include say the Palestine Authority (although I know many people disagree with me).
Then there are groups like Hamas and " Al Qaeda " whose aims cannot be accommodated because they just seek the destruction of their enemies, they have no goals that can be negotiated.
(Edited for words.)
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The issue they use in France is Algeria. The recent war in Algeria has claimed tens of thousands of lives and caused a great deal of hardship. The French are accused of supporting the secular government, and suffered a number of subway bombings in the 90's. France has a long history of involvement in Algeria, rather longer than the UK has in Iraq and more violent.Darat said:
CapelDodger said:
As an aside - "tens of thousands" - where's that figure from?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
WikipediaDarat said:
There's strong evidence - from what I've read - that some massacres have been carried out by Algerian security forces as black propaganda and cover-ups of their own brutality. It was a very, very nasty war involving some of the most crazy Islamism Ive heard of. For instance, some Algerian jihadists claimed the right to enjoy any virgin they found this side of heaven. That beefed-up recruitment no end, I imagine.
The conflict spilled over into France as terrorism, but it was before 9/11 so not much attention was paid to it in the wider world. It involved bombs that were planted rather than suicide-bombs, but to be honest I don't really see the distinction. The intention was maximum mayhem against soft targets.
Darat, my comment referred to the methods used to fight terrorism, not to the motives behind terrorism. You're right, we should be careful to differentiate between "terrorisms". The P.L.O. was a terrorist group once, and although their methods were similar to those of Al-Quaeda, their politics and objectives were quite different. I wasn't trying to suggest that it is possible to negotiate with Islamic extremists. I'm saying that there are reasons why their particular kind of imbecility is popular among many middle easterners, there are reasons why they manage to find willing to do their bidding. And, as I said before, if you look at the reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently of the crime.
CapelDodger said:
Sorry I totally misread your post. I read it as if you was saying “tens of thousands†of deaths from terrorism in France!
Algeria certainly has had a very unpleasant history both recently and as a French colony. I lived in Algeria in the late seventies for a few years and have kept in touch with some people and over the years I’ve heard and read first hand accounts of some of the terrible events that have happened, and it has to be said on the whole not considered particularly newsworthy by the mainstream media.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Darat said:
The only thing unique about Islam is you have a small number of people who, for various motivations, are stoking the fires of radical violent fundamentalism.
Today, July 30th, 2005 this is unique to Islam, but it could happen in any religion from Christianity to Scientology. It's unique to Islam only in the sense that it's not happening within other religions.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
I remember when Noam Chomsky said that. I'd just discovered him and had been infatuated with his writings for a couple of weeks, but it was hearing that exact piece of idiocy that broke the spell.
Britain had every right to be upset with the United States for allowing so much fund raising for the IRA. Logically, however, it does not follow that the solution would be to bomb Boston. What makes the suggestion absurd, and gets a laugh, is the idea of doing it when there are so many better and easier solutions available.
What Britain should have done is insist that the United States put a stop to it.
Logically, it does not follow that if Britain bombing Boston is silly, that anyone bombing any city is silly. Britain and the United States are allies that share many common goals and have very close relations. That's not true of nations like Libya or Syria.
Which is fine so long as when you "look for the reasons" you keep an open mind. If you presuppose them to be valid grievances against the west, then all you're doing is trying to appease the problem away.
Nobody should need a carrot not to murder civilians.
Chomsky said that? I didn't know. I actually picked that up from arguing with a friend. I guess he must have picked that up from Chomsky.Mycroft said:
Of course it doesn't follow that the solution would be to bomb Boston! That's my point all along! The "bombing Boston" thing is just an example of an inappropriate reaction to terrorism. Yes, there are "so many better and easier solutions available", but your government isn't following them. Why did the US invade Iraq? Some people have suggested that it had something to do with the "war against terrorism". I know it doesn't, and I think you do too. Your government's misguided policies are actually greatly helping the terrorists to convince people that they were right all along!Mycroft said:
I'm not talking about past Libyan and Syrian terrorism. What do the governments of Libya or Syria have to do with the present "war on terrorism"? The present day "war on terrorism" isn't sponsored by a single state. Actually, all middle eastern governments more or less officially oppose Islamic extremism! Also, your government pretty much already has the collaboration of most of these states, for a simple reason: they have been victims of Islamic terrorism too! You can't put the blame on one country for this one. There's no city to bomb this time. The usual methods aren't going to work.Mycroft said:
I don't presuppose anything. I know enough about the history of the Middle East to know that there are valid grievances against the West. I also know that Islamic Fundamentalists are using them to get support and volunteers. By not addressing these grievances, the west is alienating the more moderate muslims and, consequently, helping the terrorists. It has nothing to do with appeasement and everything to do with actually efficiently fighting terrorism.Mycroft said:
That's not what I intended to say. Remember, I am not giving much consideration to what the terrorists think! What I am doing is worrying about the opinion of the so called "middle eastern man on the street": ultimately, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism cannot exist without the tacit support of a significant number of these people. Now, these people are aware of the price they risk paying for supporting terrorism (i.e. the stick). But what do they gain for opposing terrorism (i.e. the carrot)? How do you propose to counteract all the nifty promises of fundamentalist propaganda?Mycroft said:
Flo
Illuminator
Sarkozy is grandstanding, as usual. Fanatic imams have been deported before for the same reasons (there are at least 5 rotting somewhere in Mali, for exemple), and French laws against terrorism and banditism allow for the jailing for an undefined period of time of people accused of conspiring to commit a crime (association de malfaiteurs en vue de commettre un crime), without an actual crime being committed, etc. The guys sent back from Guantanamo have been jailed under this law since their return , for exemple.
The recruiting of jihadists in France has started with the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, the Bosnia, Algeria, and now Iraq (at least a couple French muslims have been killed there).
We know full well that our non participation in the Iraqi adventure doesn't protect us from islamist terrorist, due to our colonial past among other things.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Flo said:
That's a good point.
The thing is that some people insist that the bombings in London were caused by British involvement in Iraq, to the point of saying that, if the British hadn't been involved in Iraq, they wouldn't have happened. (Oddly enough, the same set of people don't say that the reason that the US hasn't been bombed since 9/11 is because of the involvement in Iraq.)
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Maybe the three Pakistanis who were involved had just learned of Britain's history in India. Or something. In any event, it's hardly axiomatic.
Instead, it comes across that it is simply the most visible thing that the speaker objects to and seems a plausible argument. Before Iraq it was Afghanistan. Before Afghanistan it was Palestine or sanctions. (Sometimes it still is Palestine or Afghanistan.) Before that, it was the end of the Gulf War and the "abandonment" of the Kurds. Before that it was the Gulf War itself. Before that it was Palestine again. And so forth and so on, going back to the Crusades.
Hell, the US signed the Treaty of Tripoly in 1796 to give Muslims from what is now Libya money to stop attacking our ships. I think it likely there were bunches of people who had something to blame the attacks on.
At the same time, these ideas, promulgated by people who also say that we should listen to the terrorists, curiously leave out things that terrorists actually have said, if they don't fit the blame target of the day.
Mycroft said:
Which I in broad terms I agree with.
However I think that view is too simplistic to use as a way of trying to understand why we have suicide bombers. It’s almost like saying “If Islam wasn’t the relgion of these people there would be no suicide bombersâ€. Yet given what we know of the history of suicide bombings over the last 25 years we know that Islam is not required for the production of suicide bombings, and as far as I am aware, no one has yet provided any evidence that there is something unique about Islam with regards to producing suicide bombers.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Two word's, "shahada", (the concept of martyrdom), & "jihad", (a holy struggle in the cause of Allah, AKA "holy war").Darat said: