Subject:
|
Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:16:38 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
369 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> because the terrorists hate freedom.
Now THERE is a peculiarly American point of view.
On the basis that terrorists are those who forsake non-violent means of change,
and violently target combatants and non-combatants alike to coerce changes in
state policy, I'd have thought that terrorists love freedom, and fight for their
right to share in it, against a state that systematically marginalises them.
The 'terrorists', so labelled by the states they attempt(ed) to coerce, of
revolutionary (C18) America, republican (C20) Ireland, or modern Palestine,
Israel, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq among others would all likely ascribe to
a love of freedom as their prime motivation. Each would claim with some
justification that their freedoms and aspirations are being significantly
impaired by the freedoms the state in question chooses to exercise in the name
of national security, defending (privileged) minority groups, civil liberties,
or good administration.
And this attitude of 'I can do anything I like in the name of my own national
security' just fuels the fire. No wonder the North Koreans are rattling their
nuclear sabre. Presumably, with any sense of balance at all, you would find
this entirely reasonable on their part, what with them doing it in order to
defend their national security from an openly predatory United States. And that
once the sabre rattling is done, we can get down to the inevitable business of
brinksmanship, and depending on who blinks first or not, nuclear war. The path
has been well worn, and one would have hoped by now that we might have
recognised that it is in co-operation (through more independent bodies like the
UN) and not competitive urination that stable results can come.
So its a slow process. And bad stuff can happen in the meantime.
But its an alternative process to armed conflict. And the quality of this
process, its inclusivity, transparency and equity is what guarantees a stand
down of hostility by terrorists. It is the absence of a perception of a viable
alternative that drives violent insurrection.
Now true international co-operation (in contrast to 'coalition of the willing'
lynch mobs) is not the most attractive solution. Its long and its hard and it
gets cerebral sometimes and it lacks the chest thumping bravado of storm
troopers on beaches and 'mission accomplished' and 'we got him'. But its the
only lasting solution.
Anyone who suggests that urban terrorism can be defeated by tighter security and
increased brutality on the part of the state has simply failed to learn the
lessons of other conflicts in other places in other times. When it comes to the
test, against all odds, it is more likely that body that overpowers the lash.
Terrorism can be reduced in this way, sure, but not vanquished, and it can get a
lot worse, and any improvement comes at what cost to the cherished freedoms of
the community?
And for those who are already stinging, and want to point out that my country
(Australia) is not necessarily a leading light on some of these things, I am
entirely ready to agree. Australia still has a lot of problems in working out
how to support and empower our own marginalised and disenfranchised people. But
I am absolutely certain that simply increasing brutality and trampling the
personal freedoms of the marginalised in the name of community security, or more
obscenely 'in best interests of the marginalised', is not the answer.
So put away your tribal colours and big guns and crotch-first gait, and start
thinking about what could possibly motivate you to behave like the people you
call terrorists, to sacrifice your life in the service of something that will
likely not benefit you at all. Discover that the things that would make you
behave the way they do have probably already happened to them, and much much
worse. And start working out how you can deliver on a process that shares
opportunity and wealth more widely and inclusively, one that would undo the
systematic obstacles put in front of some peoples, and which would reduce and
ameliorate the pressures that lead some to feel that their only option is to
burn it all down.
The litany 'there is simply no excuse for terrorism' echoes loud from those who
stand to gain the most from the preservation of the status quo. It fails to
realise that this is no answer for those who are abjectly prevented from sharing
in the bounty of the status quo. Terrorism is a perfectly logical and
inevitable result of a resilient, clever, passionate and aspiring humanity
constrained by a system that offers no hope. The materialisation of it then is
only a question of how long before a sufficient number of marginalised people,
with sufficient strength and energy appreciate their hopelessness, and muster
the courage and organisation to oppose it.
And no, I am not tarring all Americans with the same brush. I read some very
sensible and balanced things here. But I also read some scary, short sighted,
chest thumping and jingoistic rubbish. Now maybe its a faulty sample that I
have happened to read, but most of the rubbish seems to be coming from
Americans, who say things like 'terrorists hate freedom'.
Nor am I blaming the Americans or anyone in particular for how we got here. The
blame thingie is just unhelpful. What is helpful is thinking about what is the
smartest thing to do next.
Perhaps John meant it as a light-hearted poke. I seem to read similar things
said in all seriousness, and I feel the blood drain from my face in fear.
Terrorism is a scary thing, but the state that fails to recognise the humanity
of everyone, and institutionalises the imbalances and social injustices that
creates the need for terrorism, is only scarier.
"imagine a boot, stamping on a human face - forever"
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) lol What are you talking about?? I thought you wanted to know if church leaders' comments were politically motivated? To which political comment of mine are you referring? As far as your question about church leaders' motivation-- I already (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
