Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:06:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
589 times
|
| |
|
|
You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in
defence here.
Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign.
This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so
lyrical, but it is a deep and personal concern to me that the popular media
seems to do little to inform our thinking on the social forces at work. Instead
we focus on the endless supply of terrorist incidents, which to my mind are far
removed from the seat of the problem, and are just the visible and threatening
consequence of a far larger and deeper ugliness that needs to be dragged out
into the light and cleaned up.
And don't let me be misunderstood. I'm a fan of many things American, and a big
fan of Americans generally. I am just not a fan of American foreign policy. I
am also a fan of John in that he is at least prepared to be out here engaging.
Worse are those not prepared to engage.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
>
> "Loving Freedom" doesn't mean "Loving Freedom {for me}". Denying others'
> rights to win your own hardly qualifies someone as a "freedom lover"-- more
> like a disgusting hypocrite.
It is said that Americans lack a sense of irony. I had never really thought of
it as a serious jibe.
How does the Guantanamo Bay gulag fit in with this? This is denying others'
rights in a vain attempt to win improved security and thereby freedom.
Surely John is not accusing the American administration of being disgusting
hypocrites.
> > 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.
>
> Oppression [never] justifies the murder of innocents.
Interesting theory. No sense in it at all in relation to adult 'innocents'.
The brutally and mercilessly oppressed could well be open to the entirely
sensible argument that those who take benefit from the oppression are guilty
nonetheless. This isn't a supposition of mine - this is part of the
indoctrination.
> What is the gain?
I don't want to labour obvious points, or rehash what the American
administration has already been at pains to explain, but it is the 'shock and
awe' factor that causes people to radically review their thinking.
> Liberation from Evil = Evil from Liberation.
I don't get this, sorry.
> > 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 brinkmanship, 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.
>
> What you are failing to take into account is that Evil Leaders do not
> {represent} their countries, they {oppress} them.
Not failing to appreciate this at all. I'm not sure I follow how this relates
to anything I said. Evil leaders do not prevent other leaders from acting out
the principles for which they stand, nor prevent them from actively pursuing
social change through international bodies like the UN.
> Iraq is a good country with good people; we always believed that.
> The problem was their leader.
If this were true (the part about the problem being their leader), one might
have thought that taking him out would have seen the end of conflict. Obviously
this is not all there is to it.
> North Korea is a hell-hole of oppression {because} of KIJ. This is why
> Democracy is so important-- it gives the power to the {people}!
I am a fan of democracy. A big fan. I don't believe in forcing on people, and
I don't believe in simply giving it to people. Democracy has to be won.
Democracy carries a great deal of responsibility. It requires a great deal of
tolerance and a commitment that many simply do not grasp. Waltzing in and
passing it out like lollipops is not helpful in the mid to long term.
> > 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.
>
> I'm sorry Richard, but you are simply wrong. You cannot negotiate with
> terrorists.
I wish I was wrong. Then I could sit back and relax and enjoy the sense of my
military going forth as the emissaries of goodness and light to destroy evil and
darkness. But that's just a fairytale.
Nowhere did I suggest negotiating with terrorists. I am not suggesting
negotiation. We have nothing to negotiate with unless we can present a real
alternative to the systematic injustices that create the suffering and
hopelessness.
When we have the alternative, and a perceptible commitment to delivering on our
side, then the negotiation will happen all by itself. Not necessarily with the
titular leaders of the 'terrorist' movements, but certainly with their
operatives and their support base.
> You think, to your credit, that if everyone were just rational
> and all viewpoints were considered, a peace can be formed. The problem is
> that there are people in this world who don't value rational thought.
Its true, there are some. But not many. Over time (even if its generations),
and on the evidence of their own eyes, almost everyone can be engaged in a
reappraisal of their ideas. Hopefully even you can come to see the humanity in
these 'terrorists'.
> > 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.
>
> Anyone who suggests that negotiating with terrorists will achieve peace has
> simply failed to learn the lessons of other conflicts in other places in
> other times
I couldn't agree more. Simply negotiating to give away whatever petty demand
some tin pot terrorist leader might think would be nice today is not a strategy.
I did not suggest it was. But working up a viable offering that removes the
oppression and addresses the hopelessness is an entirely sensible negotiation
process. As others have already indicated, this approach is the one that
delivers positive and stable outcomes, and has done so in other places.
> > 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?
>
> So what are you suggesting???? Not oppose terrorism because you fear that you
> might make it worse??? Give in to terrorism?
Of course not. It is a mistake to think that everyone else also sees the
options in black versus white, or all or nothing.
Of course we must be vigilant, defend ourselves and our way of life. What we
must not do is simply inflame the problem. Despite the sandbox mentality of
hurting those who have hurt us, we must instead work to build an alternative
that addresses the hopelessness, all the while defending ourselves.
> I'm sorry, but the only solution is to fight it until those who desire change
> are willing to go about it in a civil manner.
'I will hurt you and hurt you and hurt you until you do things my way'. This is
the very definition of a bully isn't it? And what is civil if not simply the
modus operandi dictated by the state? And if the state is the oppressor, what
does 'civil' have to do with justice or fairness?
> > 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.
>
> That's the point!!!! There is [NOTHING] that would ever motivate me to
> deliberately and savagely kill [INNOCENT CHILDREN]! These people are {beyond
> rational thinking}.
I am pleased for you that your life has never exposed you the kind of injustice
that much of the rest of the (mainly non-western) world lives with every day.
It will make it harder for you to understand. Even so, it is a worthy
endeavour.
And this is part of what makes the argument about 'innocents' (other than
children) rather thin. It is possible to live in such a nice and mentally
undemanding world for so long that it is not possible to imagine it could be any
other way for anyone else. And by this lack of imagination, we can fail to
appreciate issues. And by failing to appreciate the issues, we fail to address
them. By failing to address them we support the very systems that cause the
problem. Its only a short skip and a rhetorical jump to find these happy,
unimaginative people just as guilty as those who participate knowingly.
> > Discover that the things that would make you
> > behave the way they do
>
> That's a profoundly offensive and disgusting lie!
I agree that that there are some people who could simply not countenance the
idea of striking another, and maybe you are one of these. In my time I have
found myself in situations where I knew that if I did not act, and hurt someone,
a much greater hurt would be done. To my own surprise, I have found it in
myself to act. As I read about the day to day lives of people living in the
hopelessness of the areas of the world that are the 'breeding grounds' for
terrorists, I wonder whether in their world, I might not find myself driven to
act. And I am not suggesting I want to go around putting bombs on trains,
letting saran gass loose on subways. But far lesser actions, actions directed
at the oppression have unfortunate side-effects for your 'innocents', and have
been lumped in with what we call 'terrorism'. I would hope that I could find
other more useful and less violent things I could do that might actually make a
difference, but if I couldn't, if there weren't, what then?
> {Think} what you are saying!
Its a mistake to assume that other people don't think what they are saying.
> > 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.
>
> You do not understand the problem of Islamo-terrorism I am afraid.
I desperately hope that you are right. Your view is so much simpler.
> The simple truth is that it has {nothing} to do with economics. This
> is about {religious intolerance}; you are a target because you are not one
> of them, not because you oppress them in some way.
Goodness gracious. Can anyone seriously ascribe to this painfully simplistic
and jingoistic view? Its nice, because you don't have to think too hard, you
can just work out what religion or club or lodge someone belongs to, and on that
basis, support them or shun them.
The Anglo-Irish issue used to be painted in these terms (Protestant and
Catholic). Town after town, year after year this has been shown to be nothing
but the empty rattling of extremists invested in violence (on both sides).
Islam is not new. Its been around for considerably longer than western
democracy, and even longer than the United States of America. Yet the faith has
not been driving people to ruthlessly and violently lash out. For a time, it
was the Muslim world that was the scientific and philosophical light of
humanity. So why has it suddenly reared up now?
This is not a religious issue.
> > 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.
>
> So what? It doesn't negate the Truth of the statement.
No of course not, but it points out that those who espouse it have a vested
interest that likely overcomes their interest in the truth or falsity of it.
And I suggest that there is an excuse for terrorism, there is a reason for
terrorism, and until we acknowledge it, fail to be shocked by it, and deal with
it, then we're stuck with it.
> > It fails to realise that this is no answer for those who are abjectly
> > prevented from sharing in the bounty of the status quo.
>
> Again, you fail to comprehend the situation.
Mmmmmm.
> > Terrorism is a perfectly logical and inevitable result of a resilient,
> > clever, passionate and aspiring humanity
>
> [Seriously, this is one of the most offensive things I have ever seen
> printed!] God, I hope you reconsider and retract what you just wrote.
>
> > 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.
I know, it runs counter to established fear based and populist mantras.
And I'm not surprised that you in particular haven't seen it in print (or even
on the screen). One might suggest you read more widely.
I don't understand why it should offend you though, although obviously I feel
for you that it does. All this idle taking offence at things is only a
distraction from addressing the issues. Preening and posturing is not helpful.
And it is scary as hell, because it points out that in these 'terrorist's'
minds, they are mostly everyday people, with an extraordinary conviction. But
we can't simply kill or imprison them all, even though we seem keen to spend a
great deal of money, and undermine a great many personal liberties in an attempt
to do just this. We really need to find a way to understand.
> > ...who say things like 'terrorists hate freedom'.
> >
> > Perhaps John meant it as a light-hearted poke.
>
> Absolutely not! I stand by that statement. Perhaps you'd like to explain
> how the killing of innocent people is an example of "freedom loving"
Well let's see.
If you loved freedom so, so much that the oppression of other people who you
didn't know from Adam, in a whole other country, half a world away was just
intolerable to you. They were being imprisoned unfairly, killed
indiscriminately. The terrible people who were doing this to them were building
up their weapons so they could do more of this oppression, and kill more people.
And you've tried everything. You've taken these terrible people to court, and
the court agreed that what was being done was wrong, but the court didn't DO
anything that stopped it. And you'd tried to starve these nasty people out by
siege, but this didn't work. And you knew that the only way to restore freedom
to these oppressed people, which freedom you love so well, was to storm the
terrible people, to attack them, to bomb them, and inspire shock and awe in
these nasty people. And you knew full well that in doing so you would also be
killing some innocent civilians nearby, and innocent young soldiers earnestly
doing their jobs in the national defence forces manning anti-aircraft positions,
who had never personally committed any crimes. To restore freedom to these
oppressed people, the only way was to kill some innocent people.
Wouldn't that be an example of how the killing of innocent people is an example
of "freedom loving".
If nothing else, surely America is 'freedom loving'.
> Evil is evil Richard. Perpetrating evil to combat evil results in evil--
> there is no difference.
There's that thing about irony again.
Many count invading a sovereign nation an evil thing to do. And contrary to you
view, I think that it is not necessarily so that this must result in evil.
Whether it results in evil in Iraq depends on what we do next, not what was done
before.
As long as we go on with the 'there is nothing I ought to do other than hurt
(persecute/imprison/kill) you until you agree to my terms' the problem cannot be
resolved. The sooner we can understand the social undercurrents that bring us
to where we stand, the sooner we can seek to restore hope, and undermine the
human resources that support terrorism. Then, like a plant deprived of
nutrients, terrorism simply withers and dies. Continue on our current course,
evading understanding, thinking that 'terrorists hate freedom' only adds
fertiliser around the plant, and makes it grow stronger and larger.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) De plane, boss, de plane! De fence, boss, de fence! Oh, sorry, defense. Ummmmmmmm, okay, maybe if I knew what I was supposed to be defending. Perhaps if I read on and not pick on a minor error... :-) (...) I find something ironic in that (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) (snippage) (...) First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US. That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don't believe that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
