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.
Posted by b on April 15, 2007 at 18:37 UTC | Permalink
« previous page@jcairo (#100)
This is a pretty accurate description of what many of them believe. Good for a few laughs. At least a crusade against evil fans hasn't led to the invasion of any fan's homeland to plunder their resources.
Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 17 2007 4:45 utc | 104
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPstB-1TXGU>for mono.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 4:49 utc | 105
the people i respect here, know who they are.
fuck you.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 4:51 utc | 106
against evil fans hasn't led to the invasion
what does that mean? is it sanskrit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogCfjuwaZo>for mono
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 4:58 utc | 107
@104 - jeez what a useless, irrational fear. perhaps they read marx
Posted by: jcairo | Apr 17 2007 4:59 utc | 108
slothrop @86 -
surveillance, deportation, ghettoization
i don't want think about what you would suggest if you felt fear.
Posted by: conchita | Apr 17 2007 5:07 utc | 109
one lesson i've learned here is that many, many people who are "leftists" have never read marx. this fact is astonishing to me.
amazing. how is this possible, rgiap? how?
expropriation. it's like mono in the moshpit at a public enemy concert screaming "fight the power" w/ chuck d.
sound & fury.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 5:16 utc | 110
juannie
you'll notice only in one thread in three years have i started this ad hominem attack. only once.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 5:23 utc | 111
@Conchita, is DiD on the mend? Have you any word of Malooga? I'm Seriously Worried about him?
Posted by: jj | Apr 17 2007 5:45 utc | 112
I'll post here just to say I was witness to the final crash and burn, but please can I can get a parting 'fuck you' from slothrop as well. I'll miss scrolling past your drivel.
Posted by: biklett | Apr 17 2007 5:53 utc | 113
hi sloth,
but, if the mood here must be supercilious, then I'll admit my own
revulsion to your arrogance, an arrogance achieved at the expense of
hundreds of thousands of noirette's million dead Iraqis slaughtered like
lambs by religious kooks.
peace brother.
what any of us says here has precious little effect on what's out there,
so is not worth poisoning our souls over.
on the religious kooks though... surely you remember who funded Usama
bin Laden in Afghanistan? Seymour Hersh says they're at it again:
' To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with
Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al
Qaeda.'
Elliot Abrams and Negroponte are pulling another Iran-Contra. They're
funding Al Qaeda... again.
Maybe the people who just got a three month extension of their tours in
Iraq ought to know that?
That the people who are trying to kill them are funded by their real
enemies, and yours... the ones in Washington DC?!
---
above comment came per mail from John Francis Lee (who has some access problems)
jj, i'm worried about malooga too. plus i really miss his contribution. he is a brilliant thinker and writer..i have thought of him many times.
did, hi bro, i know you are listening in...
Posted by: annie | Apr 17 2007 7:24 utc | 115
Briton Criticizes U.S.’s Use of ‘War on Terror’
“In the U.K. we do not use the phrase ‘war on terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone and because this isn’t one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,” the politician, Hilary Benn, said at Center on International Cooperation of New York University.
@Annie, for some reason I thght. you knew. Didn't you say you were in contact w/him, or something along those lines? Yes, I really miss his contributions.
Posted by: jj | Apr 17 2007 9:01 utc | 117
The 'War on Terra' is not a war of idealogies, nor of ideas or civilizations, nor any other use of semantics or euphemisms that may come to mind.
What has been occuring for many decades, but has in the last decade become starkly blatant, is a Resource War.
A dominant state, in this case an empire, and it's dependent and interdependent vassel states, requires overwhelming military power to sustain its position. For almost two centuries that has been determined by a combination of all aspect superiority by primarily technology, and specifically military technology, supplemented by the quality of quantity. :)
To maintain military technological and relative quantititve dominance requires economic might in order to conduct and sustain the long term R&D and ongoing (unproductive ?) dedication of industrial capacity, let alone 'soft' costs such as personnel, training, tactical and doctrinal development ... especially given the public doctrine of being able to sustain and WIN a two front/simultaneous war.
Large scale successful long term economies, may I suggest, require huge and ongoing access to natural resources to create and continaully grow and accumulate capital ... and empire doesn't come cheap.
If the economic power cannot be sustained, the technological and military power inevitably declines, resulting in the disintegration of the 'Hammer' of the empire ... its military dominance ... damn, no more 'gunboat/airborne diplomacy' in support of economic and political objectives.
At a geopolitical level, there is one and only one driving motivation behind the recent policies (post 9/11) of the U.S. ... the limited window of opportunity available in this decade (?) to utilize the currently overwhelming combat power of the empire to WIN the Resource War, by creating 21st century colonies for resource extraction and control ... before the ability to sustain that combat power into the long term, is lost or is no longer sufficiently powerful comparitively ...
An accelerant to the above is the calculation that the inevitable rise of China (regardless of the gradual recovery of Russia's power) as, first and foremost, an economic superpower is a given because of a decade old ongoing and foreseably sustained GDP growth of ~10%+. Chinese access to raw resources (primarily POL), the fuel critical for its economic engines expansion, must be denied before its too late ... much like U.S. policies towards Japan in the years leading up to WWII ...
All other matters of Law, morality, politics, Human Rights, the environment, religion, culture, ethnicity, sovereignity, terrorism, etc, are a distant secondary consideration and largely only in so far as they can contribute, or be manipulated, to achieving the primary objective.
A brief, rambling, holistic assessment ... your mileage may vary ...
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 17 2007 11:12 utc | 119
That's it in a nutshell. The rest is commentary. Probably between slothrop and his lawyers (Cant & Argot).
Posted by: an old friend | Apr 17 2007 12:47 utc | 120
I am not paranoid, b. how many times here, and i assume in the comments on the vicksburg shootings, will people discover in the event this or that conspiracy intended to distract the "masses" from critical asessment of power? I'd say the "left" is far more distracted by paranoid conspiracy-mongering. hence, any and all conflict is easily explained as the eventual result of a plan designed and set into motion by aipac, pnac, dick cheney, the neocons.
oh brother. hehehe. just took a peak at uncle's responses to the shootings, and voila! and mono too? oh my. o, i can't believe it.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 15:29 utc | 121
................... .. ... /´ /)
.................... ..,../¯ ..//
.................... ..../... ./ /
.................... ..,/¯ ..//
.................... ./... ./ /
............./´¯/' ...'/´¯`•¸
........../'/.../... ./... ..../¨¯\
........('(...´(... ....... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........''...\.... ..... . _.•´
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\
To slothrop with love...
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 17 2007 17:15 utc | 122
that's the spirit. but, how can i know it's you, uncle, and not a cia spook?
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 17:25 utc | 123
The PTB have forever tried to split ordinary people along ehtnic/reiligious/other belonging lines.
Labelling anything that Arabs, or Muslims, or ‘sympathisers’ do, only bad stuff is picked out, as the mark of AlQ (“affiliated to AlQ” is a favorite media thing) is pathetic.
@ an old friend at 80:
debs is dead left. I miss him. (see conchita at 82)
Of course, 9/11 remains a sort of taboo topic (not for all), and it is a crux. Either ‘muslim fundamentalists’ did it; or if not, well, kinda complex! 9/11 was a hoax. Denouncing it, or even gently questioning the US Gvmt. scenario, except as the usual ‘movement types’ such as families of victims who have questions and want closure, have meets and strum guitars, cuts to the heart of belonging to the ‘West’ and most? or many cannot see their way round to that, so take off from false premises.
- No EU Gvmt has publicly questioned this particular atrocity. All the secret services know the official tale is BS.
Leftists, particularly Brits (Americans are more genuine and sloppy, as far as I can see, Ok there are more of them...) are very fond of the ‘bad apples’ argument.
Sheesh.
And so it goes. (Vonnegut. RIP...)
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 17 2007 17:26 utc | 124
indeed, noirette. the paranoia among "leftists" is so extreme they climb over each other to reach the most absurd theories for 9/11. visions of grandeur. whatever is required to affirm the u.s. epitomizes every conceivable evil.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 17:39 utc | 125
@jj, that was along time ago. i haven't had contact w/him since before he posted here he felt like he was watching the pavement fast approaching. he ended his email account.
w/extraordinary efforts there is a way one could possibly track him down but feel he may consider it a total invasion of his privacy. however, if you feel so inclined i could set you on a path if you want to email me. (place malooga in capitals in the subject line as i get so much spam i would most likely not see it otherwise).
oh, and i forgot to say hi to theodor.. hi theodor.
i practically spit up on my keyboard rotfl a few times on this thread so thanxs for this at the minimum
Posted by: annie | Apr 17 2007 17:44 utc | 126
It is interesting to see how many of you regular posters have totally fragmented in these last few days.... interesting because it appears the glue that binds has been anti-US sentiments, and now the arena has widened. lol
Posted by: SoandSo | Apr 17 2007 20:06 utc | 127
interesting because it appears the glue that binds has been anti-US sentiments, and now the arena has widened. lol
No, what's interesting is your insinuation that that is so. I see no distention as of yet. Aside from those whom would that it be so and so. Further, what I find even more interesting is that you would find that amusing.
*waves at the cross-dressing hoover brigade* (not that there is anything wrong with cross dressing) but there damn sure was something wrong with hoover.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 17 2007 20:53 utc | 128
one's perspective is everything. one person's 'anti american' is another's pro american.
Posted by: annie | Apr 17 2007 21:44 utc | 130
so and so- I read through this thread and the only thing I read was slothrop arguing with various ppl and various ppl responding in varying ways: questioning, anger, taunting, insults.
if people have a difference of opinion does it require that they hate each other?
there have plenty of disagreements on this site, believe me. sometimes ppl get really angry and leave (I've been one of those.) there is no one opinion here, tho the opinion here is most surely less accepting of the mainstream american view than many others... and no wonder since there are many here from other nations who don't have a vested interest in defending themselves against accusations that they are "unAmerican." -- they're not american.
I'm sorry to see the level of animosity here and think that b real had the most important thing to say about dealing with disagreements.
Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 17 2007 23:09 utc | 131
slothrop,
I apologize for my #94 & 96 and offer a full retraction . I have felt bad about my flippant posts to you ever since and faux just helped bring me back to my senses as well.
I have to admit when I wrote it I really felt what I wrote. But your reminder that it has mostly been others who have initiated the ad hominems reminded me of how much I have gleaned from you over time on this blog (and WB).
Anyway I hope you don’t leave this blog and it’s not goodby. I think you stimulate a lot of important discussions here and I know you have stimulated many of my neurons that needed to start firing.
signed,
The Old Buzzard (thanks I like that, haven’t shared it with my wife yet but I’ll give you 10:1 she loves it and I’ve often wondered if having to survive by living on carrion might be a quick path to enlightenment)
Posted by: Juannie | Apr 18 2007 12:30 utc | 132
@Jaunnie (#132)
"...it has mostly been others who have initiated the ad hominems"
Shenanigans. You'd almost think this place didn't have archives, the way these claims get made.
@Faux (#131)
"if people have a difference of opinion does it require that they hate each other?"
This is all just way too disingenuous. There's been too many below-the-belts, calculated distractions and behaviour-to-make-you-grow-hair-on-your-palms from the same sources for far too long for me to have anything BUT animosity and contempt for some... and the fact that I'm a vertebrate forbids me from retracting a single thing. As a matter of fact, my respect for b has prevented me from having anything to retract in the first place. It's not my site, so my kid gloves have never come off.
"...think that b real had the most important thing to say about dealing with disagreements."
I recall all too well how he deals with disagreements in practice to be all that impressed with pretty quotations from ethnographies.
Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 18 2007 13:11 utc | 133
juannie, didn't think nothing of it.
no grudges. my goodness. though mono, markfromireland, groucho, bob m, should be made to play a marathom match of twister in public, in the nude, against there grandmothers, who are nude also.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 15:21 utc | 134
Aw jeez, juannie, fauxreal, thanks a bunch. That's all we need to do - encourage the little shit.
Posted by: DM | Apr 18 2007 17:39 utc | 137
http://antiwar.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Cheney+Does+Africa+-+by+Philip+Giraldi&expire=&urlID=21991848&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.antiwar.com%2Forig%2Fgiraldi.php%3Farticleid%3D10830&partnerID=16>an article from antiwar.com on salafist thrteat in africa, and cheney admin's hamhanded approach, like the harrassment of islamic court in somalia.
there is a "threat" to be sure, clearly made worse by the morons who rule us.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 17:58 utc | 138
dm
i don't have an opinion of you really. you seem sort of on again of again libertarian scold. not sure. i don't think you contribute very much. that's for sure.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 18:01 utc | 139
i grew up in a family w/a bunch of kids and sometimes my parents just let us have at eachother to slug it out. that was when the fangs came out. uncle, the graphics... i'm shocked.
Posted by: annie | Apr 18 2007 18:05 utc | 140
dm
your recent potshots at citizen k are typical. i don't agree w/ ck all the time, but he defends his position, and you respond with little meaningless insults.
my hunch is you're not very bright.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 18:08 utc | 141
slothrop- that giraldi opinion is not very well informed on some issues and, i feel, drawing some sensational conclusions.
for instance, he writes
"The Ethiopians are now withdrawing, and Mogadishu has reached a tipping point in instability, experiencing a wave of warlord generated violence that virtually guarantees chaos for the foreseeable future. It also increases the likelihood that Somalia will again become a "failed state," allowing genuine extremists with a jihadist agenda to take advantage of the instability and assume control."
aside from ocassional rpts of ethiopian soldiers defecting, the reality is that more troops have moved into somalia since march. and the only "warlord generated violence" on any significant scale is that of the warlords who comprise the transitional federal govt (TFG). there have been reports of armed robbery by bandits across the country, which was one of the main reasons that the islamic courts union was formed & supported. but the waves of violence in somalia are due to in aggressive invasion & occupation of somalia by the u.s. & ethiopian govt forces. and to claim that "genuine extremists with a jihadist agenda" now have the opportunity to assume control is not only GWOT propaganda, it ignores the extremists that the u.s. & ethiopians are actually attempting to seat in control of the country right now.
i know that u.s. sales reps are currently out on a PR tour of africa to sell AFRICOM to civil, military & media officials across the continent. sounds like the (ex-)cia op giraldi would fit right in.
Recent developments indicate that cooperation and guidance from al-Qaeda have already created a more potent and effective terrorist force in North Africa and that the Maghreb has now become the focus of efforts to pursue global jihad.
...
There has also been a recent surge overall in successful terrorist attacks countrywide, though most have taken place in remote regions.
...
There are concerns that new bombings, now employing the difficult-to-prevent suicide technique, will again focus on urban centers, leading to an enormous increase in both casualties and the resulting political instability.
...
And so the story of Bush administration ineptitude in its self-proclaimed war against terrorism continues as Africa heats up. The ideologically driven GWOT is a war that always prefers the exercise of a military option and ends up creating more terrorists and terrorism-supporters than it eliminates. Afghanistan and Iraq pose little in the way of a terrorist threat outside their own borders, but they dissolve into chaos while a new, genuine threat grows stronger in Africa.
i'll dig up more specific counters to some of his spiel later when i have more time.
Posted by: b real | Apr 18 2007 19:42 utc | 142
interesting because it appears the glue that binds has been anti-US sentiments,
gee, I don't see that at all. nearly everyone here has fond thoughts of the US and I believe they are troubled at what has happened/is happening to the United States.
there are some who can accept no criticism of their homeland and are quick to lash out at anyone who might see something that could be better. I spose that is normal but it certainly is not healthy.
tho I haven't lived in the states since 1983 I still consider them my home and want the best for my fellow countrymen. If I happen to think what is best is different from what some of them may think is best does not make me anti-US.
Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 18 2007 19:52 utc | 143
i think i might win the prize for chief anti-us imperialist here & that is colored by some very personal/political experience but even that is enaged with a deep love of what the indians of america gave the world, of the heroism of john brown, paul robeson & fred hampton, i imagine i have a very complicated but long relation with the literature inside the beast. i am as influenced as any one my age by the music that opened up so many doors
& i think from us imperialism i began to deeply understand what mao tse tung wrote in his essays, 'on contradiction' & 'where do correct ideas come from?' the almost transmutative nature of contradiction are so clear under the empire - less so with us in europe
i think what gives distress to a person like myself, to a debs or a malooga is that none of us could have predicted the savagery & consequences of the policies of the u s empire. in the midst of our lives - the slaughterhouse doors are open & it really seems as if the gates of hell have been opened
the barbarity of u s imperialism is qualitatively different from vietnam or even central or latin america ( where today thank god there is at least a little light on our species) & i think frankly that has taken many, many political people of my generation by surprise
& having lived throug multiplicities i do not think people like myself could have imagined how cruelly our public lives would be so determined by the crude absolutes that are the current coin
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 18 2007 20:09 utc | 144
based on the info you've provided re: africonm, it seems the u.s. has made a huge blunder by pulling the rug out from under islamic courts. doing so only radicalizes these political movements. this is a more clearcut instance of u.s. policy nourishing the islamist "threat."
but also a dialectic here: the radicalization is also motivated by the threat to radicalism islamists perceive in moderate forms of political islam. salafist orientations want to detach themselves from the political realm in order to achieve a state of social instability justifying martyrdom. the question is, in a case like somalia, how much did this internal dynamic of destabilization affect the movement? I've tried to read every link you've offered here, but don't know the answer to this question.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 20:15 utc | 145
Right on DM, #137. I wrote the following before reading anything after mono's #133 but even after your gentle and appropriate admonition I think I’ll take a chance and post it anyway:
mono,
I glean and learn a lot from slothrop’s posts and even though SHe has totally frustrated me with Hir obtuse (to me) vocabulary and difficult style (to me) I have also been challenged and grown in some way from the git-go from Hir posts.
slothrop,
I glean and learn a lot from mono’s posts and even though he has totally frustrated me and in some ways alienated me, in others ways I have also been challenged and grown in some way from his posts.
mono & sloth,
I fucked up (from my standpoint) in my “flippant” post to sloth. After I accepted that, I apologized and tried my best to make no reference or inference to any particular personality involved beforehand but I fucked up again.
So what sould I expect if after being present to a pissing (into the wind) contest I found myself a little damp.
So now I’m pissing into the wind again with my best shot and WTF should I expect but to get a little more soggy, but WTF, a lot of us in this thread are already a little wet.
My wildest wet dream about the MoA is that we all here will eventually cut through all the distractions and concentrate on what we do best, whatever that may be. I’m a lightweight here but I gain a little everyday, almost without exception and appreciate all you who freely feed me. I like to think that what it’s all about is helping each other cut through this thick cultural fog of ignorance.
Amen, and I’m going to take a shower and play my guitar for the next day or so. I hope this my resolution to this thread.
Posted by: Juannie | Apr 18 2007 20:31 utc | 146
rgiap
but you'd agree no option to "empire" presently exists in what passes as insurrectionary political islam?
i don't see it, except in the "quietist" anti-khomeni shiism of sistani and hiz. but as we saw today, it's the death-suckers of takfiri ideology murdering iraqis, delaying any solutions offered by shiite moderation, let alone anything like a interfaith defense of iraq itself. that's the truth.
and let's also not forget, if "sistanism" prevails, some thanks will be owed to, albeit inadvertent, intervention of "empire."
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 20:35 utc | 147
sloth
simply put, i think you overstate the importance of political islam & again the problems whether that they are in indonesia, pakistan, somalia, egypt ot iraq are social - their specificities far outweigh any similitudes
& speaking of specificities - i coounsel you to read 'irak inc' - which dettails specifically who ise benefiting from the bloodbath that is iraq
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 18 2007 20:35 utc | 148
well, you advocated the fisk book. i'm reading that. all thrteequarters of a million words in 8 pt type.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 20:42 utc | 149
once again i think we have enough proof the temporary abnegation of the political/theoretical and pursuit of revolutionary practice has not resulted, as among others fannon insisted, in the purification of violence leading to political enlightenment. daily in iraq we see that the purification of violence has become an end in itself.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 20:54 utc | 150
DM- I'm not encouraging anyone. I think the insults that slothrop posts are just as bad as the ones he/she gets. In this case, b responded to a post of slothrop's on a thread. when I read the post in question... I thought about how I wanted to respond before I did because it bothered me to read and I didn't want to just let the comment stand.
it was a comment made to provoke... why, I don't know.
I guess I've been through some changes lately, and I hope they last. I don't want to flame. I don't want to insist to myself that any insult has to be greeted with a greater one. Not to say I don't want to say something if I feel attacked, but what I say doesn't have to be flammable.
I'm not encouraging anyone. in the past when this has happened I have expressed my sorrow to see slothrop and others hurt each other on purpose....but for what good purpose? I don't know.
mono- yes, people have been insulted and it makes me sad to see, as I've said in the past. it's unnecessary. we all start somewhere to create some peace in our own lives. I'm trying to do that with mine. ymmv.
Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 18 2007 21:05 utc | 151
irak inc is by the guy who runs corpwatch.org - pratap chaterjee (seven stories press) - a pamphlet by comparison 264 pages
he has a new book - saw him speaking on al jazeera - impressive fellow
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 18 2007 21:11 utc | 152
faux
i stick by the original comment. the fact of the matter is radical forms of islam reject integration into anything arbitrarily defined as modern or western. the response to this undeniably growing threat is not the assertion of modern liberalism--this is no solution to persons who reject liberalism, who reject consensus based on reason, who reject politics. in doing so, radical islam cannot hope to advocate in any way for its own people, insofar as any people can remain in solidarity with a movement always desperate to declaim yet another apostate of the faith. to be sure, this growing threat is the enemy of humanity. i wanted to do my best here to remind my comrades of this fact.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 21:22 utc | 153
slothrop- radicalism is a problem for most people, whereever it comes from. I don't think the SDS were heroic, and neither are the neo-cons.
but again, how many people are radical who are also muslim?
Pew Report on attitudes toward Islamic extremism
Support for acts of terrorism in defense of Islam has declined dramatically among Muslims in most predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, although support has risen in Jordan. And while support for suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq remains at higher levels, it too has declined substantially among Muslim publics in all four countries with trend comparisons available, including Jordan.
In Turkey support for suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies was already low compared to other majority-Muslim publics and has remained stable with just 14% of the public saying such actions are often or sometimes justified. In Indonesia only 15% now see terrorism as justified at least sometimes, down from 27% in summer 2002. In Pakistan, 25% now take that view, also a substantial decline from the 41% level to which support had risen in March 2004, while in Morocco support has fallen dramatically, from 40% to 13% over the last year.
In Lebanon, nearly four-in-ten Muslims (Christians and other religious groups were not asked this question) still regard acts of terrorism as often or sometimes justified, including 26% who see such acts as often justified. However, this is a sharp decline from 2002 when 73% thought these acts were often or sometimes justified. Moreover, when asked about suicide bombing against civilian targets in their own country, only 25% of Lebanese Muslims saw such violence as even sometimes justified.
Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 18 2007 21:38 utc | 154
@Annie, #140:
I was thinking of commissioning some artistic creations from the artist in question.
The starkness of the black on white admits of no nuance or ambiguity.
The picture is an example of the post-Modern-Manichean School at its zenith.
I'm sure, being an artist, that you appreciate the genius here.
Posted by: J. Duveen | Apr 18 2007 21:51 utc | 157
the only, only empire that has turned men into molecules, sloth is the american empire - in hiroshima & nagasaki - for me the war on, with & using terror began long before i was borne
it is the terro that has permeated the nights of anyone born immediately after that moment so for me jihadists are just cowboys - cowboys carrying korans - history will wipe them aside as it has all incidental measures by men & things
so you will have to forgive me if i have never taken that threat seriouslly. otherwise it is as malcolm x sd - chickens coming home to roost (have you any news of what is happening with ward churchill)
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 18 2007 22:28 utc | 158
& wilfred burchett, that noble writer was amongst the first to witness that act of terror & its consequences & to write about it
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 18 2007 22:37 utc | 159
re: churchill. some momentum has built over the months in favor of him--particularly in the challenges by cheyfitz (i think this is the name--cornell scholar) to the original tenure review. the regents should submit a decision in the comin weeks. conventional wisdom is he stays if for no other reason than the university wants to avoid costly severance and more bad pub.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 18 2007 22:54 utc | 160
I'm sure, being an artist, that you appreciate the genius here.
yes 157 j.duveen, i have copied and pasted it and plan on using it at some opportune time. perhaps expanding on the concept.
Posted by: annie | Apr 19 2007 1:20 utc | 161
@Jaunnie (#146)
I've never intended to frustrate or alienate you or anyone else. I'm honestly not sure what I've done that has provoked that response, but I will say that I'm very, very sorry to hear it and would mention that you are free to contact me privately to straighten out any misunderstandings we might have between us.
I don't come here for self-aggrandisement. Or to aggrandise anyone else, for that matter. Your comment that "I’m a lightweight here" bothers me a lot. I've never separated the posting community into a hierarchy of "heavyweights" and "lightweights" in my own mind... I have, however, recognised certain individuals who chronically denigrate, distract, abuse, or otherwise squander the gift of this community. If I have spoken strongly or harshly to them (or, in the most extreme cases, about them... I will not respond directly to some any longer), it is a measure of the value I place on that community.
My rebuke was not aimed to invalidate you personally, but rather the statement that you made which I copied and italicised in the preface. You have my most sincere apology if you mistook it as a personal jab.
Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 19 2007 3:54 utc | 162
wasn't fanon refering to a context of national liberation for colonized peoples? i'm not sure that you can plug the same defense of the use of violence -- that in order to truly be free, the colonized have to take their freedom, which, when facing the use of a violent & repressive imperial colonizer, justifies the use of armed struggle -- into the iraqi context. for one, the ongoing violence, as far as i can make out, is not solely focused on either a bourgeoisie or the occupier. it's been a while since i read fanon's book, and i've only seen the first segment of "the trap", but i don't recall fanon saying that violence in itself in any situation will mobilize & benefit the masses. in as far as iraq is concerned, i think augusto sandino's words are much more relevant -- "La soberanía de un pueblo no se discute, se defiende con el arma en la mano" (One does not debate sovereignty, one defends it with gun in hand.)
Posted by: b real | Apr 19 2007 3:55 utc | 163
more from the moors - camaron de la isla et paco de lucia
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 19 2007 13:22 utc | 164
b real
i don't think so. it's been awhile since i read wretched during a period in my life when i was really, really high.
watch that film. it's not that great "theory" but is provocative for sure.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 20 2007 2:11 utc | 165
<.a href=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzqF2ZSl4M>where is the r&r?
seriously. where is it?
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 20 2007 4:11 utc | 167
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzqF2ZSl4M>for fuck's sdake
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 20 2007 4:13 utc | 168
There's a report at Counterpunch summarizing the The Islamic Threat to Europe: By the Numbers.
There were 498 incidents in eleven EU countries last year labelled as "terrorist attacks." The Basque separatist group ETA did best (136 terrorist attacks) and was responsible for the only deadly attack, killing two in Madrid. The remaining 497 fortunately cost no human lives.How about the Islamic terrorists then? Considering the perpetual warnings in our daily papers, the findings in the Europol report is, to say the least, surprising. The truth is that Islamists only carried out one out of the 498 terrorist attacks in the European Union in 2006.
The numbers come from the referenced European Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, TE SAT 2007.
The author of the Counterpoint article observes that the report itself was pointedly ignored in Europe. Insufficiently alarmist is his guess.
Perhaps the recent attempts here to fan the hysterical flames of anti-islamism were also at the direction of those whose purposes the report did not serve?
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 21 2007 23:52 utc | 169
Page 15 of the cited report shows 283 separatist attacks in French Corsica, making Corsican Separatists those who "did best".
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 22 2007 0:34 utc | 170
nice catch, jfl, nice catch. but let's put some mustard on this bitch.
the report doesn't say what you think it does:
Half of all the terrorism arrests were related to Islamist terrorism. France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands had the highest number of arrests of Islamist terrorist suspects. The majority of the arrested suspects were born in Algeria,Morocco and Tunisia and had loose affiliations to North African terrorist groups, such as the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat.There were no successful Islamist terrorist
attacks in the EU in 2006. However, a coordinated
but ultimately failed attack aimed at mass
casualties took place in Germany.Despite the small number of Islamist terrorist
attacks in the EU, half of the arrests carried out
were related to Islamist terrorism
corsican and eta separatists don't plot to murder thousands of people. there's a qualitative difference here between even loony rightwing terror and islamist attacks.
i'df think trhe cologne plot and the real attacks in the past four years would convince some on the "left" the threat is more than a misapprehension of "spectacle." it just goes to show that in the hands of some people, the texts of virillo and baudrillard can mean anything, even that islamism is a mirage.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 22 2007 0:58 utc | 171
also, jfl. still more evidence one must be very careful what one reads at counterpunch. they are very wreckless editors.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 22 2007 0:59 utc | 172
also, the concern about what noirette and b refer to here as the need for "integration" of muslims speaks volumes about the problem, imo.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 22 2007 1:21 utc | 173
Ok sloth, but
The majority of the arrested suspects were born in Algeria,Morocco and Tunisia and had loose affiliations to North African terrorist groups...
that reads to me like "in the ongoing hysteria many people who looked like Islamist Terrorists were arrested... but let go because their connections to "terrorism" were so tenuous as to have been illusory... the result of prejudice and present only in the eyes of the beholder".
Fortunately they were not handed over to agents of the US, where the inability to prove one's suspicions is held to be evidence of the deviousness of the suspects and further proof of their guilt. Which can be easily proven at their tribunals. In fact most suspects confess to even greater crimes at their tribunals, proving the wisdom of their initial detention in spite of the lack ot so-called "proof".
A possible alternate interpretation.
Posted by: John Francis Lee | Apr 22 2007 1:45 utc | 174
@sloth - When the police focuses on car theft rather than on bicycle theft, there will overproportional arrests for car thefts. The arrest numbers in the Europol report only say where they are looking the most, not where the most is happening.
The report says so itself:
A total of 706 individuals suspected of terrorism offences were arrested in 15 Member States in 2006. Investigations into Islamist terrorism are clearly a priority for Member States’ aw enforcement as demonstrated by the number of arrested suspects reported by Member States.
You also say: eta separatists don't plot to murder thousands of people. there's a qualitative difference here between even loony rightwing terror and islamist attacks.
It's certainly not that these are "harmless" seperatists - from 2005: ETA Bomb Injures 43 in Spain
You also say: the concern about what noirette and b refer to here as the need for "integration" of muslims speaks volumes about the problem
That was because we talked on muslim integration. I could talk quite a lot about integration of russian immigrants to Germany which is a much bigger problem for some communities than muslim integration. If we talk about "A" in the context of "a" that does not prove that "B" in the context of "b" is a smaller problem.
slothrop- i sorta forgot about further debunking of giraldi's article. he cites "AQ" in algeria which, as i've pointed out in articles before, is the name that the GSPC gave themselves to help draw attention to their struggle against the govt there. from what i've read, it's a local struggle & the branding is calculated for media attention. giraldi also links the bombings in north africa as part of a coordinated effort:
And there are also signs that the terrorists are working more effectively together. The deaths of four would-be suicide bombers in a Casablanca safe house during a police raid the day preceding the Algiers bombings thwarted an apparent joint operation in which the Moroccan cell would have carried out their own attacks in support of the Algerian cell. Four days later, two more suicide-bombing attacks in Casablanca targeted the American Cultural Center and the U.S. consulate. The coordination of activity reveals that even though terrorist groups now recruit, train, and finance themselves locally to avoid detection, they still plan and communicate across national borders.
while it may make sense to a paranoic, calmer analysts will hopefully prevail.
see, for example
PINR: Intelligence Brief: Al-Qaeda's New Strategy in North Africa
Posted by: b real | Apr 24 2007 19:28 utc | 177
The comments to this entry are closed.
the left, the left. o, woe is the left. i'm ready to join citizen k's brotherhood of cynicsm. we meet twice weekly, drink cold soup, and recite apothegmns of kropotkin.
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 17 2007 4:41 utc | 101