ButterflyMaiden Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 We have all been witness to the horribly violent events in Israel, USA, Spain, UK and elsewhere. There is some reason to believe these awful acts have their roots in Globalisation or, to be more specific, American hegemony. US foreign policy, assumes a hegemonic role in the global economy and is tightly focussed on the promotion of democracy. There are good reasons for this which have more to do with legitimising inequalities between global regions ( as well as between and inside nations) than they do with the winning of freedoms. In a nutshell, US foreign policy posits democracy as a means of providing the stabilityrequired by a global economy. Democracy embodies a shift in social control away from political society to civil society (Gramsci). It is this shift which runs absolutely counter to the aims and aspirations of fundamentalists (of any religion) as it establishes boundaries and limits to human behaviour by means of general codes of conduct affecting entire populations. None of this is consistent with non secular societies and is fuelling feeings of resentment, alienation and hostility amongst those most affected. The strength of those feelings is evident on the web sites I have looked at this week in search of an explanation for various acts of terrorism. No logical person would support acts of terrorism. The more so when such acts blight the lives of fellow citizens. However, it is also illogical not to seek out the motivation for these acts. I believe we need to look closer at the whole process of Globalisation and American hegemony if we are to uncover at least some of the causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 An interesting but totally wrong analysis. Take the statement "No logical person would support acts of terrorism". That is only true from within the Western reality paradigm. People still speak of three worlds meaning the West, the Communist bloc as the second, and the undeveloped nations making the third. While the pressures in the world were as they were with the Communism being at odds with Capitalism that was what seemed to be the case with the REAL scenario being hidden by the various wars by proxy that were taking place and not just hidden but also kept suppressed by the sponsorship of nations who were being used in the proxy fighting but now with the cold war over and that suppression having gone and new leaders having come to power the real conflict has kicked off which is between two ideologies and whilst one is secular even hedonistic in many respects, the other is a devils brew of religion and ideology and it is in the paradigm of the latter that terrorism and a great deal more are not only perfectly logical but even the right way to go. Rufyard Kippling wrote ‘East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet’. Though in context that line takes on a new meaning when taken in isolation is it absolutely true in so many ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 A few famous terrorists Simon Bolivar Menachim Begin George Washington Ho chi min Thomas Jefferson Ghandi Bodecia Eamon Devalera Gerry Adams Jomo Kenyata and lest we forget Nelson Mandela, gotta be a couple of logical ones in there. Try to think of how many countries removed a foreign power by negotiation, then think how many by terrorism. Mark Thatcher was recently convicted of involvment in a plot to invade a sovereign country, a terrorist by any definition, what was his punishment. I once talked to a guy involved, politically, with the problems in Eire. I asked him to justify the random murder of civilians by bombs etc. He replied that the people responsible for their oppression were the UK Govt AND THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT, plus historically it has been proved to work. As much as we reject that theory there are many who accept it. One of the main grievences of the Islamic peoples is that for almost a thousand years we have been travelling to the middle east, killing and pillaging at will. Now we try to install western values and political systems on them which they generallly reject ie Iran. We should really consider that possibly they dont want it. How many people volunteered as suicide bombers to get rid of Saddam? There seems no shortage to remove the western powers, any thoughts why this is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 In reply to ButterflyMaiden, Globalisation is essentially a growth in international trade, investment, and capital flows. With any growth in trade there is an increase in social and cultural exchange, indeed even as early as the Republican Era in Ancient Rome, commentators specifically noted the effects of trade on the convergence of cultures. This process is not reliant on Democracy, as indeed history shows. Although capitalism is strongly linked to democracy, stressing the importance of the freedom of the individual within society (in this case in the form of the freedom to own property and private industry if he/she has the means and desire to do so), it is more because capitalist philosophy believes that a democratic, free society will be more economically successful than any other form, democracy is not necessary to enable globalisation to occur. Secondaly, you state Democracy embodies a shift in social control away from political society to civil society (Gramsci).It is this shift which runs absolutely counter to the aims and aspirations of fundamentalists (of any religion) as it establishes boundaries and limits to human behaviour by means of general codes of conduct affecting entire populations The first part of this statement seems rather strange, as it seems to condone the violent resentment of those of a fundamental religious disposition, and value their feelings higher than those of the broad majority of their fellow nationals. Time and time again, numerous polls in Muslim countries have shown a steady increase in the enthusiasm of the majority of inhabitants for values of the open society such as a free press and democratic rule. The second part of the statement seems, if you will forgive me, just plain bizarre. How does a shift from a political society to civil society establish boundaries to human behaviour? In the former case you have a society that is at the mercy of a few members of a self appointed political elite, ruling family, or theocracy, in the latter one where the power to legislate and pass 'general codes of conduct' (or, as I like to call them, 'laws') rests with those selected by the people themselves, based on whether or not they agree with their proposed policies. If anything it is the potential to change, modify, and even remove existing boundaries, if so desired by the majority of people. If anything, studies have shown that the main source of resentment in the Middle East towards the U.S. is caused by its former support of those despotic regimes that would most likely fall under a transformation to democracy. The strength of those feelings is evident on the web sites I have looked at this week in search of an explanation for various acts of terrorism. This is hardly an unbiased or comprehensive source though is it? Even if you looked at a hundred websites with a hundred members each, all of the same point of view, which in itself is fairly likely, you'd have a sample of maybe 10,000 people from which you're extrapolating an hypothesis and applying it to hundreds of millions. Ultimately your post seems rather confused, more an overt attempt to link globalisation with terrorism, than one at explaining terrorism and finding such a link. Undoubtably, someone could indeed establish perhaps a half decent link to be argued, but this doesn't seem to be you in this post. Firstly, you appear unsure of what globalisation actually is, and how it is connected with democracy. You also state that There are good reasons for this which have more to do with legitimising inequalities between global regions... than they do with the winning of freedoms without specifying what these 'good reasons' are. Indeed, you fail to realise that democracy need not benefit the process of globalisation. A newly democratic nation could, for instance, elect a government that impedes trade and investment with protectionist policies, or they could even, if they wanted to, elect the previous pre-democratic ruling party back into power - in this case little would change to enable the sinister forces of globalisation to walk through the door. If anything, democracy represents more of a gamble for both globalisation and the U.S. hegemony than simply cultivating good relationships with despotic regimes cold war style. Criticism of Globalisation is fine, but to seek to link it with international terrorism, rather than demonstrating a link, is pretty cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Terrorism is not the same as patriotism and one mans terrorist is NOT another mans freedom fighter. Terrorism is not the same as irregular warfare against the armed forces of what is seen as being The Enemy. Terrorism is conducting a campaign in which the civilian population are targeted in order to create a state of terror. How many of them headed up organisations that deliberately attacked the civilian population of their opponents in order to create and instill terror as a means of bringing political pressure on the governments of their enemies? Take that list. Simon Bolivar Menachim Begin George Washington Ho chi min Thomas Jefferson Ghandi Bodecia Eamon Devalera Gerry Adams Jomo Kenyata Take Bolivar (dam fine cigars, by the way!) Though civilians were injured and killed as they always will be in conflict his war was waged against the Spanish military forces of Spain. Terrorist? No. Begin? As leader of The Irgun he certainly led a campaign against the British but again, the British military were the target, not civilians. Terrorist? No. Washintgton? The same applies. Not a terrorist. Ho Chi Min? Not so easy that one. The Viet Cong certainly led a war of terror on the South Vietnamese and so I personally would class him as a terrorist but with reservations as the Vietnam situation was far more about a civil war that was in fact a battle ground in the proxy cold war between the US and Comunism. Thomas Jefferson? See also Washington. Ghandi? The antithesis of terrorism. A true freedom fighter but not one who used or condoned terror against the civilian population (or any other population come to that) though the riots that ensued during his campaign certainly led to much bloodshed. Still no terrorist. Eamon Devalera. Much more in the terrorist mould. The campaigns that he led certainly did involve attacks on civilian populations. A terrorist. Adams? Should have been shot years ago. A truly evil man. Civilian populations became his primary target. Kenyata? As leader of the Mau Mau who systematically attacked white owned farms and white people he most certainly did fit the terrorist role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 He replied that the people responsible for their oppression were the UK Govt AND THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT, plus historically it has been proved to work. Well, it didn't really work in Northern Ireland. Concessions took place, with an element of devolution, but it's still part of the United Kingdon. The Indian subcontinent didn't really gain independence through terrorist campaigns. Nor did Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Arpartheid in South Africa weathered terrorism and only fell thanks to increasing social and international pressure which was largely peaceful. The US gained independence after civil war, not a terrorist campaign targetting civilians with equal enthusiasm as military targets. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all made a peaceful transition into independence from the British Empire The Basque separatists' campaigns have largely left Spain in control of the Basque territories. Bombing doesn't seem to be shifting Israel. The Lebanon and Ukraine largely shook a despotic power sympathetic to a foreign regime by peaceful protest. So... this historical proof of how terrorism works would be... ? granted, sometimes it might contribute to the independence of a country, where that independence actually comes into being, but it could be argued that economic and social factors are equally, if not more responsible for independence as the effects of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 No logical person would support acts of terrorism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 No logical person would support acts of terrorism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terrorism is not the same as patriotism and one mans terrorist is NOT another mans freedom fighter. Terrorism is not the same as irregular warfare against the armed forces of what is seen as being The Enemy. Terrorism is conducting a campaign in which the civilian population are targeted in order to create a state of terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Didn't Mandella's lot also go after civilian targets? The IRA certainly targetted both military, polital and civilians How you see them may depend on your ideaology, religion, race or nationality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Didn't Mandella's lot also go after civilian targets? The IRA certainly targetted both military, polital and civilians How you see them may depend on your ideaology, religion, race or nationality <{POST_SNAPBACK}> .If the definition of terrorist is someone or some organisation that deliberately targets civilians as a strategy then the matter becomes race / nationality / religion independent. I have in any case always maintained that Mandela should have been hung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 If the definition of terrorist is someone or some organisation that deliberately targets civilians as a strategy then the matter becomes race / nationality / religion independent. But what happens when they target military and political targets as well as civilian? Are they freedom fighters for attacking the military but terrorists for attacking civilians? I have in any case always maintained that Mandela should have been hung As a terrorist? And yet so many people celebrate him as a great freedom fighter for his people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 The ONLY time a terrorist becomes a freedom fighter is when they win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I have in any case always maintained that Mandela should have been hung As a terrorist? Yes. But what happens when they target military and political targets as well as civilian? Are they freedom fighters for attacking the military but terrorists for attacking civilians? To answer that is to pick up a chalice heavily laced with the strongest poison if for no other reason than the acts of both sides during WW2 in Europe lat alone Japan but –-- But if a force, be it regular or irregular causes injuries to a civilian population as a necessary corollary to a military strike then in my book that does not amount to terrorism and obviously I have the situation in Israel in mind though in drawing that conclusion though not exclusively so. On the other hand if a military force includes deliberate attacks intended to kill and maim a civilian population in addition to its military aims, then that does amount to terrorism. In all cases the key aspect is that of being a deliberate strategy or one in which no regard is given to collateral damage resulting from a military action. Where it gets really messy is when a civilian population involve themselves or are deliberately involved, albeit as non-active participants, in a military conflict by acting as human shields then that is where questions about at what point they cease to be a civilian population start to get asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 For those struggling to understand the motivation of suicide bombers, this article in The Times may help, although it makes very scary reading. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1692606,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I have in any case always maintained that Mandela should have been hung As a terrorist? Yes. And yet this terrorist has met with the Queen and others. You see him as a terrorist, others see him as a freedom fighter, which was my initial point in this thread. Edit to add, presumably this was PK's point On the other hand if a military force includes deliberate attacks intended to kill and maim a civilian population in addition to its military aims, then that does amount to terrorism. So how would you class the British bombing of the likes of Dresden during WWII. Terrorism? Revenge? Legitimate military traget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.