Terrorism: Cause And Effect

[VinnieK]

Butterfly Maiden:

 

Firstly, I am more than capable of putting the points you raised in the last post I replied to an argument. The reason I asked for you to do so is because we're all grown ups here, and we should all be happy to state our case explicitly - lest some unintentional ambiguity in our arguments provide a further point of contention that distracts from the main discussion, leading to an unnecessarily obtuse argument on semantics and intention.

 

Anyway, the problem, as I see it, with your posts is that you concentrate almost entirely on the globalisation as a cause of Terrorism. I freely acknowledge that what some may see as globalisation has an aggravating effects on Islamic terrorism, but you ignore a. the diversity of opinion in the Islamic World, and b. the agenda and aims of the groups responsible for terrorism.

 

Despite claims to the contrary, your posts imply by their narrow focus that globalisation bares the main responsibility for radicalisation of young muslims. This I believe is wrong. There are two parties in your hypothesis: Disaffected Muslims, and The Western World, when in reality the situation is far more diffuse. For instance, you ignore the fact that a large part of the Muslim world is actually rather receptive, as opposed to rejectionist, to a number of Western ideals and practices. The Pew research centre have conducted a number of studies on the middle east that have found a majority of support for distinctly western concepts you presumably support yourself (as an admirer of Popper's The Open Society). You also ignore the internal influences in many muslim countries, such as the repressive and unopen nature of regimes in Saudi Arabia and Syria. Furthermore, you provide little to no analysis of the radical islamic groups themselves - many of whom are not drawn from the downtrodden common populace, but tend to be middle class, educated, and often (as in the case of Usama bin Laden) from a wealthy, even by western standards, background.

 

Now, it is possible to say that these people are fighting for their muslim brethren who lack the necessary means to fight for themselves. This, however, runs contrary to the majority approval of what you call The Civil Society when you consider that Al-Qaeda's own stated aims do not end with rejection of the west, but a dictatorship spanning the entire Middle-East based on strict and fundamentalist Islamic law. It's true that the acts of Al-Qaeda and its associates are often celebrated in the middle east, but this has more to do with resentment of western foreign policy than representing a widespread acceptance of Al-Qaeda's aims and ideology. This can be seen all too readily in Iraq: In provinces where formerly Al-Qaeda's attacks on the west were celebrated, where that group has actually made its presence felt and attempted to impose its ideologies has become home to Iraqi resistance just as ferocious as that originally directed towards Western troops.

 

Of course, technically, you're correct in saying that globalisation and the spread of the Civil Society may increase resentment amongst those in the Muslim world who oppose democracy and profess to be working towards a fascist state spanning the entire middle east, but given that their cause does not represent the hopes and desires of the majority of those in the region, and is indeed opposed to them, what does this actually mean? It's easy to say that the civil society is to blame, but this argument is parallel to stating that the Jews were responsible for the Nazi Party.

 

All religions have the capacity to breed violent fundamentalism. American Christian groups who oppose, say, abortion, and make their sentiments felt via violent methods are rarely composed of downtrodden and exploited peoples (in the view of the Open Society, regardless of how they may choose to view their grievances), yet they still exist. I would hazard that this too is the case in Islam. Groups such as Al-Qaeda look around the middle east and see monarchs and dictators ruling where they believe themselves should rule, able to impose by force their religious convictions on others. The disaffection in the muslim world that allows such groups to recruit is largely targeted against their own rulers more than it is the west, or having a McDonalds nearby. In a society where there is little to no legitimate opportunity for expression of this disaffection, it is clear that joining Al-Qaeda would pose a tempting opportunity to do it by other means, regardless of whether the ultimate aims of that group corresponds to the potential recruit. In short, I suggest that, if anything, the spread of the Civil society would effectively remove a considerable incentive for those considering throwing in their lot with the Jihadists.

[ButterflyMaiden]

Anyway, the problem, as I see it, with your posts is that you concentrate almost entirely on the globalisation as a cause of Terrorism.  I freely acknowledge that what some may see as globalisation has an aggravating effects on Islamic terrorism, but you ignore a. the diversity of opinion in the Islamic World, and b.  the agenda and aims of the groups responsible for terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vinnie ..this is a much more measured post than your previous (thanks)

Just to put things in context .. I would be very surprised indeed if globalisation, or any other single process / entity is the cause of terrorism. My purpose was to ask if a causal link existed ..nothing more ambitious. Doubtless there are numerous other factors which may or may not be a component of what is undoubtedly a complex motivation for Islamic terrorist groups.

 

It's easy to say that the civil society is to blame, but this argument is parallel to stating that the Jews were responsible for the Nazi Party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most definitely not !! The analogy is a poor one and unjustified with reference to the usage of "Civil Society" in my posts

 

Perhaps we might agree the problems associated with politicised Islam are complex ..but well worth investigating ... if we (being society) can gauge an understanding of motivation .. there may well be some prospect of dealing with the situation.

[VinnieK]

It's easy to say that the civil society is to blame, but this argument is parallel to stating that the Jews were responsible for the Nazi Party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most definitely not !! The analogy is a poor one and unjustified with reference to the usage of "Civil Society" in my posts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think it is, I don't include it in order to capitalise on the emotive potential of the plight of the jews, I'm not thatcrass.

 

It's an analogous situation in so much that in Nazi Germany the Jewish population represented what was seen as an alien influence that had to be removed by all means possible by only a small minority of the German population. Similarly, as demonstrated by the Pew research group, it is only a minority of Muslim societies who completely reject certain western ideals such as democracy and the Civil Society and believe they should be resisted using violence.

 

Removal of either in order to sooth the minds of a minority, or tacit approval as a minority violently enforces its will on the majority, would not alleviate the problem but encourage it only further. Removal of the Jews from German Society was but one strategic objective of the Nazi party on the way to completing its aims, like complete rejection of the West is to the likes of Al-Qaeda who ultimately seek to be at the top of a powerful revival of the Caliphate.

 

Globalisation may only further antagonise these groups who seek such aims, but then, so does the idea of women being equal to men with the freedom to choose whether they adopt their role under the kind of strict Islamic Law Al-Qaeda wishes to impose upon the people of the middle east, and I would argue that it's harder to measure how far globalisation has penetrated the usually insular and protectionist cultures of the Middle East, or how it will evolve in tandem with those cultures. It's easy for Western Commentators to declare Globalisation an insidious and inflexible force that stamps every nation it touches with the hallmark of the US, but what we frequently forget is that our cultures are and always have been, however little some of us may like it, fairly similar to that of the United States, meaning that global companies do not need to change their product, services, or marketing to any significant degree in order to adapt to our cultures. It is a far different story in places such as Japan or Taiwan, or South Korea where the culture differs greatly making it harder for globalisation to take effect without adapting itself to the native culture in a way that compliments, and ultimately helps preserve much of it. I believe this will also be the case in the Middle East.

[ButterflyMaiden]

It's easy to say that the civil society is to blame, but this argument is parallel to stating that the Jews were responsible for the Nazi Party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most definitely not !! The analogy is a poor one and unjustified with reference to the usage of "Civil Society" in my posts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it is, .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In that case you are totally mistaken.

[VinnieK]

I am? Thanks for the tip off. I'll just use my imagination and construct your counter-argument for you then.

[ButterflyMaiden]

I am?  Thanks for the tip off.  I'll just use my imagination and construct your counter-argument for you then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vinnie, I am certain that, if you proceed on that basis, you will damage your credibility even more so than you already have. This particular quote (above) will remain a rattling skeleton in the cupboard for anyone to discredit you with.

If I might be permitted to make a constructive suggestion .. if, as seems the case, you want to engage in a dialogue on your own terms, then start a new thread.

I am not certain in which category you might post it but I am certain the excellent mods on this forum would advise you.

I hope you manage to sort yourself out.

[VinnieK]

Once again you rather impressively manage to miss the implication. It was not a serious threat to construct your arguments for you, even if I do enjoy the mellodrama of your 'skeletons in the closet' declaration.

 

Instead it was a reference to your previous tendency of posting a hastily composed set of (sometimes dubious) statements, without condescending to honour us with anything so useful as an explanation or elaboration. In the last instance you yourself expected everyone to simply join the dots, expressing something approaching indignation at being requested to do so yourself. This tendency reached its apogee with your rather glib response to my attempt to explain the analogy I made with which you have such apparent difficulty. I was not threatening anything, I was merely acting in accordance with the wishes and precedent you yourself had set down previously.

 

But I offer thanks for your suggestions, and, in the spirit of detente, offer my own:

Mellodrama is not an adequate substitute for seriousness, or sufficient compensation for the superficial level of analysis you seem happy to employ to counter arguments. Perhaps re-reading The Open Society, paying particular attention to Popper's deft use of reason and relevant evidence would be useful, as opposed to randomly sticking a pin in the pages of The Oxford Dictionaries of terminology for Politicics and Sociology. Either that or just do nothing other than post a link to Edward Said on Amazon so we can enjoy your point of view argued as competantly as it should be.

[ButterflyMaiden]

This Post ...

 

I am?  Thanks for the tip off.  I'll just use my imagination and

construct your counter-argument for you then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

= lost credibility. After all, by your own admission you intend to use your imagination to construct an argument !

 

I was not threatening anything, I was merely acting in accordance with the wishes and precedent you yourself had set down previously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have an unfortunate tendency (shared with numerous other adolescents) to attribute motive and intentions

to others. I am grateful that you have provided an explanation (below) for this tendency

I am?  Thanks for the tip off.  I'll just use my imagination and construct your counter-argument for you then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems you have imagined it !!

I have no doubt you will have the last word and I look forward to reading it secure in the knowledge that, by your own admission any argument you may be capable of will have been constructed by your imagination. Thank you for being so frank.

 

I am?  Thanks for the tip off.  I'll just use my imagination and

construct your counter-argument for you then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

oops ..there you go again I do not intend responding to any more of your posts Vinnie so please feel free to conjure up anything you might imagine

 

stultus parvulus

[VinnieK]

oops ..there you go again I do not intend responding to any more of your posts Vinnie so please feel free to conjure up anything you might imagine

 

Probably for the best, since I'm not sure that I can explain my explanation in terms which you can understand without somehow working out how to express it on here in the form of a puppet show, with diagrams, funny noises, educational song, and regular breaks for orange drink and naps.

[Lonan3]

After looking back through the thread, I think there's probably more chance of Sharon, Abbas and Bin Laden sitting down in an RC cathedral to discuss their differences over a ham sandwich and a bottle of vodka than there is of you two reaching agreement!

[Jonty]

This "Mellodrama" Vinnie -

 

Is that a sort of chilled out, laid back drama?

[kellyiom]

hehe yeah like that pot soap drama on MTV, top buzzer! anyway, the cause is bad people, the effect is dead people