|
Terrorism Requires Police States?
there’s no question the security threat of islamism in europe requires
an unpleasant, illiberal solution: surveillance, deportation,
ghettoization.
The above was written in a recent valuable comment here. In my view the diagnosis therein as well as the prescribed therapy is wrong. But of course, that is discussable.
There have been and are threats to security all my life. Lots of bacteria and viruses, my smoking addiction, a cold war that by accident could have gone hot, whatever. But let’s assume the "security threat of islamism" is somehow supposed to be more related to terrorism by a non-state actor than to the driving style of my next door shopkeeper who was by some chance born in Pakistan.
There has been terrorism in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere throughout my life. There have been IRA bombings in Ireland and the UK, the Red Brigades in Italy, Action Direct in France, ETA in Spain, Palestinian actions against Israelis at the Olympics 1968 in Munich, RAF and various neo-nazi groups in Germany, the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, some British folks of Pakistani descent in London’s tube and daily lots of such stuff is happening in Iraq.
All of these have taken some lives. None of the groups involved or their actions ever were a serious danger to a big mass of people. Statistically, the chance of dying from terrorism was very, very, very low. Currently there is no serious security threat either. The chance to being killed in an accident while crossing a road is much higher than of being wounded in a terrorism incident.
But there are such incidents and some risk and thereby reason to consider how such risk might be lowered.
The second point of the comment asserts that "illiberal solutions" are required. It is simple to reject that with just one question. Have any of the above mentioned historic threats ever been solved through the application of "illiberal solutions?" Not to my knowledge, but if you know any example please tell us about it.
As far as I can tell, all of the people in these terrorist groups were and are some
more or less out-of-norm crazies who justify their doings with an
extreme version and reference to one or another legitimate cause and political movement of their
times.
In the historic norm the extreme crazies lose support and go away when the legitimate movement they are riding on gets integrated into the democratic process.
Giving the movement and its cause the political room it needs takes away the support and justification for the crazies. That does not mean to "give in" to such folks but to include and consider the points they make within the wider political discussion.
For Europe I can identify three issues which need to be accepted and integrated into the regular political discussion and democratic processes:
- egalitarian integration for second generation immigrants,
- acceptance of the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause and support for a just solution,
- the inherent human criminality of neo-colonial tendencies and actions.
Just allowing these points to be discussed openly will help. From that discussion, understanding, adopting, integrating will follow and the "threat" will die away.
Applying an "illiberal solution" will not diminish the threat it is said to fight, but brings up the much bigger threat of police states and militant, undemocratic rulers in our countries.
Looking at the historic data, such seem to be the real dangers to our well-being and lives.
Iran* State: the hidden power “Iran’s leadership proclaims its confidence and ambition but it draws power from a western threat that enables it to target and crush grassroots protest.” Opinion and analysis from the authors of Iran on the Brink
The war in Iran has already begun*. Its first victims are not laid to rest in the mournful martyrs’ cemeteries that dot the country, but are locked up behind the concrete walls, barbed-wire and steel gates of Tehran’s Evin prison: the latest contingent of striking workers, imprisoned in their hundreds for serving the foreign enemy.
As above so below. In other words, it is a binary dynamic, you can’t have one without ther other, they reinforce each other.
Salafi extremist groups like the so called, “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” follow the model of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia (in which we support) which is in turn a reaction to oppression (zulm). According to many, this oppression is of great of offense against the “true” teachings of both Mohamed (peace be upon his name) and the profit Jesus. The powers that be know this and use it to their advantage. Thus the war profiteers behave in such a fashion as to empower the hardliners ON BOTH SIDES. Here (in America) by pretending to NOT SEE other forms of isms, terrorism, race, etc..
A friend sums it up in this example, Years ago, during his first marriage, when he had to deal with the IRS, he had three different appointments with the same agent, but at three different addresses over a 6 month period. he asked why the constant moves and was told quite candidly that the previous offices had been firebombed. He told the agent he must have missed that in the news, and the agent told him that attacks on IRS offices are never reported by the news media.
That is why I have been saying for years that it is an ideology war. It is not about terrorism, it’s about using the ideal of terrorism as a means to amplify control. Thereby focusing on certain crimes while not paying attention to certain other crimes.
…”the gangsters, kidnappers, and thieves can be dealt with the same way we have always dealt with them, simply arrest them, try them, and put them in jail if convicted.”
Indeed, had we reacted to Sept, 11th 2001 as a crime and investigated it, (which Cheneyco was adamantly opposed to) instead of a military action we would be in a much different place today. Instead we got Prop-agenda, mind control and framing. Finally, to steal the words from slothrop, ‘so here we are’.
Also see, The battle for the soul of Islam
The Great Theft attempts to inform Muslims of a grave threat to Islam’s moral centre
Sound familiar?
Kettle, black, mote in eye…
*Emphasis mine.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 16 2007 0:19 utc | 16
“Enlightened” vs. “Medieval,” the “secular” vs. the “religious,” “East” vs. “West,” “fanaticism” vs. “rational conversation,” “war” vs. “peace,” “rich” vs. “poor,” “strong” vs. “weak,” “terrorism” vs. “diplomacy” (or “terrorism” vs. “frontal warfare”?), “Islam” vs. “Judaism,” “Islam” vs. “Christianity,” “Christianity” vs. “Judaism,” “left” vs. “right,” “democracy” vs. “despotism,” “freedom” vs. “imprisonment,” “ownership” vs. “enslavement,” “nihilism” vs. “value,” “extremism” vs. “moderation,” “inner” vs. “outer,” “mad” vs. “sane,” “good” vs. “evil”…….
As of post #23, this is a fairly complete inventory of the concepts circulating on this thread.
And does anyone really suppose that these concepts, various and descriptive as they certainly are, actually speak to a problem comprehending them all?
Each member of the given pair–each the negative of the other–struggles against its opposite, not only to survive, but to prevail. A Manichean arrangement, with three variations on the theme: in a Manichean division, opposite forces are of equal strength, neither of the opposites prevails, and the struggle does not progress–it does not follow a line of progression or regression.
The postings above all presume (a.) that each member of an opposing pair is struggling to dominate, and that one or the other, in the passing of time, may even come to do so. When we worry about the fate of the member we favor–“good,” for example, or “freedom”–then the success of its opposite frightens us. The prospect indeed is terrifying (and this is a post about “terror,” by the way), because such a “success” means the death of all that we value. It’s an apocalypse.
But what does this style of thinking disregard?
It disregards the following: each term is afflicted by something akin an auto-immune disease, wherein its own strengths are at war against its own strengths: “freedom” weakens itself with “freedom,” “wealth” with “wealth,” “Christianity” with “Christianity,” “Islam” with “Islam,” “Judaism” with “Judaism”….
Taken singly, the self-affliction of each term is clear to see, but not so clear is the import of this process for the status of the warring pair itself. In effect, while each member, suffering a kind of suicide, achieves the aim of its opposite, the pair itself is disabled by this very process–its authority (as an all-embracing explanation of how things work) dwindles down to a kind of gossip, a plausible model whose pertinence grows weaker and weaker.
Multiplying the opposites in our discourse, mixing and matching them in every way we can, does nothing to arrest or reverse this process–which is truly a mortal disease. Nietzsche never tires of studying this process with the fascinated elation we feel when passing (slowly, slowly!) a truly spectacular crash on the side of the highway.
“Terror,” it seems, is a name for the thing we feel when watching our dearest values kill themselves with themselves, killing our own identity in the process.
The upshot of which is this: as organisms we may, for a while, survive; but our thinking will change in ways that we can’t imagine. But terror only accelerates this process; in fact, I suspect that we resort to terror–letting ourselves be terrified, and letting ourselves be terrifying–so as to speed this process along to an early end.
Posted by: alabama | Apr 16 2007 4:08 utc | 28
B, my blood was boiling (long story..), and you took the brunt. I am just so despairing about all this terrorism crap, and the various mixtures ppl make of it. I apologise for the miniskirts – silly.
from the ground: I even posted about the swimming issue way back – it is of course, as in Germany, a major problem (worse, actually, because there is more water, the danger is higher.) To recap: if muslim girls cannot take swimming lessons because of modesty concerns (as well as the refusal, in Switz. by teachers to teach girls who won’t wear a swimsuit; which is very shortsighted as various accepted clothing, some of it very modern, thus also expensive, does exist) it endangers them, and creates endless problems for others, who are either ‘trivially’ bothered (no school trips near water, how limiting, etc. etc.), or afraid and guilty before the fact..
In Switz. a main problem, which cuts to the core of the culture, is that equality and uni-sex lessons/schooling are stipulated by the law. It is not possible, within the state system, to create special ed. for girls, or blacks, or the Portuguese (who also don’t like to swim), or anyone else, unless they have a physical or mental handicap – being severely retarded or missing arms / legs gives the right to have closed, special, ed.
There is no room for cultural exceptions whatsoever. Naturally, teachers don’t take kindly, at all, to even considering them; it would never end. Girls would not do gym (as it is, a large proportion of over 12’s are menstruating all the time, with doc certificates – and anorexia and obesity are on the rise), Africans would be excused math lessons as not part of ‘their culture’ – that is an extreme example, but teachers are very afraid of that kind of thing, and rightly so.
So nobody knows what to do. Passions run high. Where to fix limits? How to make exceptions? In a world where ppl muddled along with little supervision, with face to face interaction regulating things (for sure, there were losers, but also many saved..) things were quiet. Now, with the victimology mind set becoming respectable, many groups are demanding special treatment or ‘reparation’ or indulgence of a kind, and the upper class will not resist for long..
90% (guess number) of Gvmt. officials, Pols, and teachers, are against a two- or three- tiered system of education (it exists already of course, but is not that visible or important.)
Ok…nuff about that.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 16 2007 15:25 utc | 36
slothrop,
I have finally decided that you are a troll. I have never seen someone who can toss around so many big words so easily, and yet, understand so little.
the threat is vastly more serious, expecially for europeans, and most routinely the transgressions of actual violence visited upon shia, black africans, jews proves the magnitude of the islamist threat. why? because the ideology purveyed by osama et al. is cathected upon disintegrating states in yemen, iraq, pakistan, sudan, somalia, afghanistan, and to central asia states. the threat is mobilized by instruments of modern warfare made available to terrorists by deteriorating nation-states. this is a core feature of what i understand as 4th gen warfare: the ability of non-state actors to pursue total war.
Non-state 4th generation warfare is a myth foisted upon the credulous intellectual class — which your labyrinthine language betrays you to be a pathetic aspiring member of.
The largest instigator of violence in the world is the CIA, followed by the secret agencies of other large countries.
Together, they control the world drug and weapons trade, and its phenomenal profits. They fund and arm these mysterious “non-state” actors, and direct their actions and their targets.
It has always been the modus of empire, and particularly the US, to destroy any successful alternatives. History bears this out: Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, Central America, US sanctioned terrorism directed at Cuba, Iraq, etc. This is clearly stated in PNAC documents.
Failed states are consciously created by the US empire, and to a much lesser extent, other imperialist actors.
It has been well documented that Osama and Zawahiri began their careers as CIA plants, and that their actions have continued to serve the interests of empire ever since.
A brief examination of Robb’s curricula vitae will easily reveal to the more percipient that he, too, is a CIA agent. (No one builds a career as his without such help.) His purpose is/has been to create this shiny new mythical ideology of “4th generation warfare” and sell it to the ever-gullible co-ordinator class, to deflect attention from the massive, and very real, depredations, machinations, and murderous destabilizations which are the very lifeblood of empire. Empire is always built upon inequality, blood, and death.
You subscribe to this blood ideology, and frankly, slothrop, you sicken me.
added to this sad state of affairs is that islamist values, as anti-enlightenment critique, provide no salient political alternatives to global capitalist domination.
Huh? Islamist values ARE the alternative, or did your royal thickness somehow miss the over-obvious?
The so-called “enlightenment,” by the way, you idiot, was a veneer to the depredations of the French Empire. While the periwigged intellectuals of France were sitting around their salons thinking up all this enlightenment b.s., their comforts were provided by the systematic rape of Haiti, at the time the richest resource in the world. Yet nary a complaint was voiced by said intellectuals. Just like the state-flunky intellectuals this generation lives with, their purpose was to provide a veneer of nobility to mask the heart of savagery which pumps blood through the body empire.
There are a multitude of alternatives to global capitalist domination, ever burgeoning up spontaneously from the wellspring of the heart of common humanity. (Whether they are political, salient, and pro-enlightenment, I’ll leave for you, in your infinite deluded wisdom, to decide.) It is the task of Empire to methodically crush these vital sprouts at the first possible opportunity.
Posted by: an old friend | Apr 16 2007 16:26 utc | 44
|
