Terrorism: Cause And Effect

[Rog]

I think that there may be a vital point that is being missed here.

 

Terrorism is simply a tool of war.

 

One of many.

 

It is NOT something that is undertaken for its own sake other than by the occasional individual sociopath frequently just obeying the voices inside his head.

 

The real issue is what is behind the terrorist acts,, what are the war aims of the aggressor, and what is the reality of what is now plainly World War 3.

[VinnieK]

A little stung by Vinnie's criticism that I was taking a cheap shot (!!! not)  ...

 

One of the problems in understanding globalisation is that of finding a definition.

 

Economic liberals, for example, hold a distinctly different view of globalisation than Marxists do.

 

In addition, Globalisation is not limited to the Economic domain (sorry Vinnie).

 

I never said that it was limited to the Economic domain, I freely acknowledged that globalisation has an effect in the cultural domain (and so also the political) as well. However, it operates primarily through the Economic domain

 

It has consequences for the social, cultural, political and economic domains.

 

Globalisation is a dynamic. It is a dynamic of interlocking processes.

 

If we track the dynamic we can arrive at a definition....

 

Globalisation is the compression of time and space.

 

No, that is an effect of Globalisation, wrought out of unnecessarily esoteric quasi-post modernist terminology. I fail to see the purpose in anything in the above quote other than the first sentence, everything is a 'dynamic' of 'interlocking processes'. Marxism is a dynamic of interlocking processes, as is capitalism, as is lifting a chair off the ground, sneezing, writing this post, and so on, and so forth.

 

It has led to new forms of production and industrial organisation.

 

It has accelerated the growth of the (Marxist) proletariat on a global scale.

 

It has led to major geographical displacements of human beings.

 

It has given impetus to the process of urbanisation.

 

The autonomy of nation states has been eroded by the emergence of a whole array of international regimes and organisations which exist solely to manage transnational interactions and collective policy problems, and by the expansion of the scope of international laws.

 

It has led to environmental problems.

 

It has produced a new form of imperialism, cultural imperialism and a growing interpenetration of the same.

 

That's super. But you've done nothing in this or your previous post to explain globalisation's responsibility for jihadist terrorism. All you've done is describe your conception of globalisation, declare it a tool of US hegemony, and mention it alongside terrorism almost as an aside. For instance Globalisation has led to new forms of production? Eep! So we're not all working with the spinning Jenny anymore? And this implies what exactly? And doesn't this view rather neglect the role of technology and that Marxism and other ideologies such as Nationalism also influence industry and industrial organisation in new ways?

 

Furthermore you ignore that many in US politics also fear globalisation because they view it as weakening their country (and thus also weakening the hegemony of the United States) thanks to the phenomenon encouraging a reliance on foreign capital and labour. Secondly, cultual imperialism is easy to say, but harder to demonstrate in practice other than pointing to the nearest McDonalds, Japan is one of the pillars of modern globalisation, for instance, yet it would be hard to argue that Japanese culture has been diluted or oppressed. Sure it has incorporated elements of Western culture, but anything more substantial than a cursory look reveals that this is done in usually a superficial or unusual ways that generally compliments japanese culture. A further problem with the cultural imperialism argument that it ignores that cultures change and evolve primarily by exposure to other, different cultures, and this, since the dawn of civilization has happened via trade.

[P.K.]

I find it interesting that whenever terrorism gets a mention all sorts immediately spout time and time again the old news that the USA supported the resistance against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan AND THAT INCLUDES BIN LADEN!!!!! Well shock horror probe. What else did you expect?

 

 

Wether it be old news or new what i do not expect is for our leaders to condem acts of terrorism on the one hand whilst supporting, training for and promoting terrorim on the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In which case during the next US elections vote for the candidate who claims that the Russian occupation of Afghanistan was legal and not expansionist and who also wants to close the Americas military training school. Simple.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't think we can easily stamp out terrorism. There is terrorist activity all over the world and of course not limited to the work of Al Qaeda.

 

If think the whole 'War on Terrorism' thing is pretty much doomed from the start if it is supposed to tackle all forms of terrorism.

 

The reasons behind why the Basque terrorists are waging their campaign, the Chechnyans and Al Qaeda are all completely different.

 

Though I do think the underlying causes behind the formation of Al Qaeda are far more complex than with the Chechnyans or the Basques.

 

With the latter two they have no real chance of using a political platform to effectively fight for what they want so they make choose to wage a terrorist campaign. Though in the case of the Chechnyans I have a lot more appreciation for how desperate they must be. Considering how the Russians handled the Chechnyan claims to independance by effectively waging a terrorising against its population I can understand how it is now 'tit for tat'. Though it might be simple to talk of disgusting, evil people who carried out the Beslan killings what must have gone in Chechnya must have atrocious enough for other human beings to develop a mentality that could lead people to do that. Of course I don't condone it though.

 

Now it seems Kurdish groups have carried out the bombings in Turkey.

 

Whether terrorism is effective or not some groups are resorting to it to advance their agendas. Are they simply wanting to be heard?

[Alias]

I don't like it, but my belief is terrorism is more the cause of an increased population count. Once factors get big enough, i.e. Transport and a large population threshhold, then terrorism will end up happening. You can't please everyone, and there are always extremists. When your net gets that big is there much you can do to catch them?

 

In the case of the London bombers, from reports they didn't act differently from a normal civilian in the UK.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't quite understand what you mean. Just so you can elaborate on your point what you mean by the effect of population? It's just that though I think people have extremes of opinion and though the more people there are the more extremes of opinions there could be but it doesn't account for the terrorist action.

 

Well they are human beings and not necessarily mad psychopaths.

[ButterflyMaiden]

In reply to Vinnie who has kindly responded to my last post ..

One of my students, some years ago, submitted an essay which began,

"Globalisation is a process which seeks to make everywhere the same"

He went on to produce a well argued case for his definition and scored highly for his efforts.

He wasnt right and he wasnt wrong. He had a point of view and he referenced his point of view against the best political and philosophical thinkers.

Similarly, my definition of Globalisation, which incidentally is a very common one in political philosophy,is neither wrong nor right. You might also note I did not contradict the definition you offered as it is neither right nor wrong. I would, however, observe it is tightly focussed on an economic argument.... I hope you understand what it is I am saying...

I wont insult you by spelling it out simplistically.

 

I am more than surprised by your response to my observations on the effect of globalisation. It was posted in response to your rather ill mannered assertions.

Furthermore ....

I had rather assumed you have a fully functioning brain and would be able to put the pieces together yourself. Im still sure that is the case but lets take a closer look at things anyhow ..

Perhaps we should begin by asking if you criticise mechanics or plumbers for using the tools of their trade ? .... I thought not...Now with apologies for the post modernist terminology ..

First of all, the political dynamic, led by the US, is to promote and implant democracy.

This is a significant cause of resentment amongst politicised Islamic activists because ..

it involves a shift away from political society to civil society.

To understand what this means ask yourself what is that makes up civil society ...

would it be organisations such as Trades Unions, Registered Charities,womens organisations, professional associations,social movements, etc. ? Would all of these organisations be pursuing a diverse range of self interests ? I will assume the answer is yes .. because we have genuine cognitive problems to deal with if it is otherwise... to continue ..

I dont know if you are familiar with the concept of social settlement ..if you are thats fine, but even if you arent it shouldnt be too hard to imagine that civil society, which in theory at least is independent from state and market forces, will stabilise at any particular time on a position which limits the ability of people to act outside certain boundaries. .. Is that clear enough for you ?

Now ask yourself if a politicised Islamic regime, say a Taliban regime, could tolerate or even hope to exist where there is a vibrant civil society.

Furthermore, globalisation embodies a whole array of international organisations which regulate certain activities and therefore limit the ability of nation states to act autonomously. This too begs the question as to whether a politicised Islamic State could function inside such constraints.

I would argue it is this political dynamic of globalisation which is a significant cause of resentment amongst politicised Islamic movements. .. because it is a direct challenge to their value system. This argument is supported by the paper I referenced in my last post.

I do not claim this is the cause of terrorism .. I do claim it is a causal link and hopefully I have not left you with too much of an intellectual mountain to climb in trying to understand my argument.

If we now look towards the cultural dynamics of globalisation we can find evidence of further irritants from the Islamic perspective. You have already made mention of McDonalds et al and I shouldnt dismiss that so lightly as an irritant, at least from a perspective alien to our own. However,I would point to the Hollywood and rock and roll Americanisation exported all around the world by the global entertainment media, which is viewed as an attempt to corrupt, as more relevent. There is a tremendous body of literature whch links this to the resurgence of

Nationalism ... it is a small step to suppose it is also fuelling resentment amongst Islamic fundamentalists.

The social dynamic is dealt with rather well by the paper I have already linked to in a previous post.

I can only add my support to their argument that organisations, such as the World Bank, are unwittingly helping to politicise Islam... again via a direct challenge to their value system.

We have already dealt with the economic dynamic although I dont think you recognised the point I made.

If I could jog your memory I mentioned inequality between regions and nations and linked this to US foreign policy .... I would argue, as others have, this too is a cause of resentment.

 

Finally, Vinnie, I am approaching this from the perspective of political philosophy and I take great exception to your dual assertions that 1: I was seeking to justify extremist actions and

2: I was taking a cheap shot.

 

Thanks to other members of the forum for patiently indulging me with three lengthy posts.

[Pip]

In reply to Vinnie who has kindly responded to my last post ..

One of my students, some years ago, submitted an essay which began,

"Globalisation is a process which seeks to make everywhere the same"

He went on to produce a well argued case for his definition and scored highly for his efforts.

He wasnt right and he wasnt wrong. He had a point of view and he referenced his point of view against the best political and philosophical thinkers.

Similarly, my definition of Globalisation, which incidentally is a very common one in political philosophy,is neither wrong nor right. You might also note I did not contradict the definition you offered as it is neither right nor wrong. I would, however, observe it is tightly focussed on an economic argument.... I hope you understand what it is I am saying...

I wont insult you by spelling it out simplistically.

 

I am more than surprised by your response to my observations on the effect of globalisation. It was posted in response to your rather ill mannered assertions.

Furthermore ....

I had rather assumed you have a fully functioning brain and would be able to put the pieces together yourself. Im still sure that is the case but lets take a closer look at things anyhow ..

Perhaps we should begin by asking if you criticise mechanics or plumbers for using the tools of their trade ? .... I thought not...Now with apologies for the post modernist terminology ..

First of all, the political dynamic, led by the US, is to promote and implant democracy.

This is a significant cause of resentment amongst politicised Islamic activists because ..

it involves a shift away from political society to civil society.

To understand what this means ask yourself what is that makes up civil society ...

would it be organisations such as Trades Unions, Registered Charities,womens organisations, professional associations,social movements, etc. ? Would all of these organisations be pursuing a diverse range of self interests ? I will assume the answer is yes .. because we have genuine cognitive problems to deal with if it is otherwise... to continue ..

I dont know if you are familiar with the concept of social settlement ..if you are thats fine, but even if you arent it shouldnt be too hard to imagine that civil society, which in theory at least is independent from state and market forces, will stabilise at any particular time on a position which limits the ability of people to act outside certain boundaries. .. Is that clear enough for you ?

Now ask yourself if a politicised Islamic regime, say a Taliban regime, could tolerate or even hope to exist where there is a vibrant civil society.

Furthermore, globalisation embodies a whole array of international organisations which regulate  certain activities and therefore limit the ability of nation states to act autonomously. This too begs the question as to whether a politicised Islamic State could function inside such constraints.

I would argue it is this political dynamic of globalisation which is a significant cause of resentment  amongst politicised Islamic movements. .. because it is a direct challenge to their value system. This argument is supported by the paper I referenced in my last post.

I do not claim this is the cause of terrorism .. I do claim it is a causal link and hopefully I have not left you with too much of an intellectual mountain to climb in trying to understand my argument.

If we now look towards the cultural dynamics of globalisation we can find evidence of further irritants from the Islamic perspective. You have already made mention of McDonalds et al and I shouldnt dismiss that so lightly as an irritant, at least from a perspective alien to our own. However,I would point to the Hollywood and  rock and roll Americanisation exported all around the world by the global entertainment media, which is viewed as an attempt to corrupt, as more relevent. There is a tremendous body of literature whch links this to the resurgence of

Nationalism ... it is a small step to suppose it is also fuelling resentment amongst Islamic fundamentalists.

The social dynamic is dealt with rather well by the paper I have already linked to in a previous post.

I can only add my support to their argument that organisations, such as the World Bank, are unwittingly helping to politicise Islam... again via a direct challenge to their value system.

We have already dealt with the economic dynamic although I dont think you recognised the point I made.

If I could jog your memory I mentioned inequality between regions and nations and linked this to US foreign policy .... I would argue, as others have, this too is a cause of resentment.

 

Finally, Vinnie, I am approaching this from the perspective of political philosophy and I take great exception to your dual assertions that 1: I was seeking to justify extremist actions and

2: I was taking a cheap shot.

 

Thanks to other members of the forum for patiently indulging me with three lengthy posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read the above post and was most grieved...

 

hmmm I was unaware that Globalisation was a feature of Political Philosophy... I was under teh impression that there are 4 branches, Idealism, Liberalism, Realism, and History as Progess extolled by such writers as Hegel.. While that definition might be a sub-division of political philosophy, it is by no means a stand alone aspect, thats flat out wrong. It is indeed a feature of political economy, however that is merely an ASPECT of political philosophy, and depending upon which philosophy you happen to subscribe to will dictate which leanings you have in terms of an economic perspective, and even then not everyone has a concrete belief and falls into one particular, so to say that .... is wrong.. Personally if a mechanic was trying to pull a fast one on me you can be certain that I would critise him...

 

It is also important to mention that Islam by its very nature IS political. Al Sistani, the Wuhabis are all examples of this. There is only 1 exception to a secular Islamic state, in ALL history, adn that is Turkey due entirely to Ataturk. It is important to note also that Christian Civilisations have an overwhelming tendency to make the state secular and prevent religion from interfering, where as Islam encourages that meddling in politics... Islam by its very nature, organisation and history is political. Islam doesnt need help from the World Bank in order for it to become political. The use of Fatwas is concrete evidence to suggest that Islam has been political for a LONG time.

 

Next up is your casual use of the term Americanisation in conjunction with Globalisation. Americanisation is a totally seperate force from Globalisation. Americanisation is an attempt at shifting cultural norms closer to those of teh US, globalisation is driven by multi national corporations and unfortuntely most people confuse the two. Many of the companies responsible, such as Coca cola, Macdonalds and so on were all at one time owned by American businessmen, however, nowadays those are owned by THOUSANDS of companies and people the world over, with teh advent of teh Stock market, ownership has been diversified and while the companies were once upon a time American now they are owned by many different interests, Chinese, Japanese, British and so on. The only difference is that because the US is the biggest marketplace, people tend to believe that they are somehow responsible, in reality the driving force of Globalisation is NOT American capitalism, because it was the British EMpire that started it all, more it is the lure of profits for shareholders and bigger salaries for Corporate heads that is driving globalistation. Americanisation is somethign quite different, that is teh exercise of American influence throughout teh world which is soft power. Globalisation is a totally different process to Americanisation, and unless you know which lines to read between its very easy to confuse the two. Sometimes clever marketing chaps decide that they will use Americanisation as a means to sell more of their products, however it is merely a cunning ploy to get youth to buy more clothes or whatever... At the end of the day it means more money for teh stockholders, creating a demand by telling people its the "number one choice of Americans" and is almost EXACTLY the same method in teh US, they sell products by saying " number one product among Europeans" because each of teh other has perceptions that marketing companies take advantage of, incredibly clever but by no means gloablisation and again two independent processes.

 

Perhaps you could clarify your position ...

 

ANd now that I hvae psent way too much time writing back, I wont get time to reply to vinniek, but thats tomorrows project.

[Rog]

Globalisation is simply a way of big buisness making big money at the cost of the low paid.

 

Anything beyond that is 100% bullxxxx.

[ButterflyMaiden]

hmmm  I was unaware that Globalisation was a feature of Political Philosophy...  I was under teh impression that there are 4 branches, Idealism, Liberalism, Realism, and History as Progess extolled by such writers as Hegel..  While that definition might be a sub-division of political philosophy, it is by no means a stand alone aspect, thats flat out wrong.

No problem with any of that Pip. However, the majority of Political Philosophy teaching will deal with Globalisation in the context of one thread or another. It is not treated, as you rightly say, as a distinct subject. In addition, Globalisation has frequently been used as a case study to demonstrate one side or another of a particular argument... in that context Marxists are particularly fond of Globalisation !

 

  It is indeed a feature of political economy, however that is merely an ASPECT of political philosophy, and depending upon which philosophy you happen to subscribe to will dictate which leanings you have in terms of an economic perspective, and even then not everyone has a concrete belief and falls into one particular, so to say that ....  is wrong

If I could add to your insight ... its not for the academic to judge the merits of one belief over another .. that is a task for others to take up

 

Islam doesnt need help from the World Bank in order for it to become political.  The use of Fatwas is concrete evidence to suggest that Islam has been political for a LONG time. 

 

That, Pip, is exactly the point I have been making ... the point is that growing interpenetration of Democracy, because of globalisation, affords organisations such as the World Bank the opportunity of blocking Islam as a body politic. Result is resentment and, I have argued, the possibility of extreme reaction. I dont disagree with you.

 

Next up is your casual use of the term Americanisation in conjunction with Globalisation.  Americanisation is a totally seperate force from Globalisation.  Americanisation is an attempt at shifting cultural norms closer to those of teh US,

No problem with that either Pip ..except for the undeniable fact of US hegemony.

My use of Americaanisation was deliberate, not casual .. and was set in context

 

Perhaps you could clarify your position ... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well hopefully my position is relatively clear ! For starters, in the absence of an extremely lengthy response ... say 20,000 words or so .. it isnt really possible in any way at all to give a comprehensive treatment to globalisation. (However, I felt bound to respond to Vinnie by reason of his bad manners.)

 

Thanks for your insights

[ButterflyMaiden]

Globalisation is simply a way of big buisness making big money at the cost of the low paid.

 

Anything beyond that is 100% bullxxxx.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats a very common point of view

[Rog]

Globalisation is simply a way of big buisness making big money at the cost of the low paid.

 

Anything beyond that is 100% bullxxxx.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats a very common point of view

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's also as effin close to being 100% correct as anything around.

 

All the rest is window dressing and people / corporations exploiting that basic principle.

[ButterflyMaiden]

Globalisation is simply a way of big buisness making big money at the cost of the low paid.

 

Anything beyond that is 100% bullxxxx.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats a very common point of view

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's also as effin close to being 100% correct as anything around.

 

All the rest is window dressing and people / corporations exploiting that basic principle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well ... there is some merit in research work ..or else we end up understanding nothing. It is not generally for academics to make value judgements so leave me out of that one ... your opinion is a very common one regarding this particular subject ... even inside the sheltered world of academia it was kept at a great distance until relatively recent times .... for myself .. I was greatly influenced by Karl Popper as a young student and I have applied myself, over a number of years, to understanding and building on his ideas ... thats my excuse anyhow and Im sticking with it.

Just a thought ..if you havent done already ..I would imagine, based on your posts, that you would enjoy Popper's "Open Society and its Enemies" .. a wonderful book.

[Rog]

well ... there is some merit in research work ..or else we end up understanding nothing. It is not generally for academics to make value judgements so leave me out of that one ... your opinion is a very common one regarding this particular subject ... even inside the sheltered world of academia it was kept at a great distance until relatively recent times .... for myself .. I was greatly influenced by Karl Popper as a young student and I have applied myself, over a number of years, to understanding and building on his ideas ... thats my excuse anyhow and Im sticking with it.

Just a thought ..if you havent done already ..I would imagine, based on your posts, that you would enjoy Popper's "Open Society and its Enemies" .. a wonderful book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Academic research into the effects of a policy of globalisation be it on the effects of such a policy on am individual business or corporation or on the macro scale obviously is essential though as with all things academic, especially in matters fiscal, a considerable amount of assumption is made.

 

To what extent the results of such academic studies then go on to affect the subject by the results being factored in to decisions and strategies is a point that is worth some thought and my own cynical view is that globalisation is a classic example of where the more it is studied the less accurate the results become.

 

In general terms I’m of the view that it’s in the exploitation of the advantages of globalisation offered to big business by politics and politicians that really muddies the water.

 

I have discovered a rule.

 

I think I am the first to express it in this way..

 

Wherever there is innovation of any form some bastard comes along to exploit it, another comes along to exploit people with it, and another comes along to use it in war.

 

Globalisation will be (or more properly is) no exception to ‘Rogers Rule’.

 

 

As per “Popper's "Open Society and its Enemies"” – never heard of it. I’m just a cynical old sod who these days runs a small business that operates globally! My discipline is physics.

[Pip]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4698963.stm

 

 

This was my point on the reasons...