Re: Welcome To The Politics Forum

[zipo]

>>Thus I can feel sympathetic both to those who fight terrorism and those who fight American militarism.<<

And in this, Arnfinn, you are missing the point entirely.

Terrorism and reciprocal militarism are mutually reinforcing. Look at the response to the London terror bombings - a raft of anti-terror laws being proposed (e.g. longer detention periods for suspected terrorists without trial, deportation for radical preaching, criminalizing speech that supports terrorism) and London cops amped up and shooting some Brazilian guy in the head 7 times because he looked a little suspicious (London being a city long famous for having mostly unarmed police officers).

What I hope to help you understand is that terrorism *causes* an increase in militarism. Anti-American bigotry *causes* Americans to become more nationalistic and militaristic because of the perceived need for self-defense. And these increases in militarism reinforce the terrorists and the anti-American bigots, and the cycle deepens.

I'm still amazed that intelligent people don't get this in their bones.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
>>Thus I can feel sympathetic both to those who fight terrorism and those who fight American militarism.<<

And in this, Arnfinn, you are missing the point entirely.

Terrorism and reciprocal militarism are mutually reinforcing. Look at the response to the London terror bombings - a raft of anti-terror laws being proposed (e.g. longer detention periods for suspected terrorists without trial, deportation for radical preaching, criminalizing speech that supports terrorism) and London cops amped up and shooting some Brazilian guy in the head 7 times because he looked a little suspicious (London being a city long famous for having mostly unarmed police officers).

What I hope to help you understand is that terrorism *causes* an increase in militarism. Anti-American bigotry *causes* Americans to become more nationalistic and militaristic because of the perceived need for self-defense. And these increases in militarism reinforce the terrorists and the anti-American bigots, and the cycle deepens.

I'm still amazed that intelligent people don't get this in their bones.

[/ QUOTE ]

....if your premise above is accurate (and I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing at this point), have you an alternate course to discourage the cyclical behavior?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Well, I don't know why you think I miss your point, since we agree on this one. Islam terrorism fuels American militarism while American militarism fuels Islam terrorism and the two are somewhat dependant on eachother (they would probably to some degree exist without the other).

So instead of fueling this polarisation, I choose neither, what is wrong with that?

Why I believe that both are on the losing side is that the resistance towards both outside their constituency (US & Middle East) is growing.

[zipo]

>>....if your premise above is accurate (and I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing at this point), have you an alternate course to discourage the cyclical behavior?<<

All I can offer are opinions, whatever that's worth.

First, terrorism should be condemned, absolutely and unequivocally. Not because one 'side' is 'right', but because the farther one steps outside the bounds what is commonly recognized as civilized behavior, the more severe the counterreaction.

THis really is analagous to viewing a society as an individual psyche in microcosm - as individuals, we are able to adapt and function in the world because we restrain our impulses for violence and self indulgence through 'mechanisms' like guilt, shame, and conscience. Repression of our baser impulses is to some degree is thus necessary for adaptation.

Condemnation of terror would reinforce this repression, and allow room for greater empathy, dialog, and reciprocity. And like a toddler who is unable to control their impulses and throws a violent tantrum, then external forces must come in and discipline the wayward child, until he learns self-control.

Of course, some people go overboard in the repression department, and occasionally strangle, smash, or dip the toddler in boiling water (it happens). Naturally, these extremes are best avoided.

Seriously - take the example of Serbia and Bosnia. The Serb army was engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing while Europe dithered and tens of thousands were slaughtered and raped. (to be sure, serbs suffered reciprocal atrocities albeit on a smaller scale at the hands of bosnian and other muslims). The US stepped in and stopped the conflict through the use of force. I cite this as an example for those who will assert that US use of force is tantamount to "terrorism".

As terrorism abates, drastic reactions to terror should abate as well, hopefully creating a space for dialog, reciprocity, compromise, and the search for common ground.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
>>....if your premise above is accurate (and I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing at this point), have you an alternate course to discourage the cyclical behavior?<<

All I can offer are opinions, whatever that's worth.

First, terrorism should be condemned, absolutely and unequivocally. Not because one 'side' is 'right', but because the farther one steps outside the bounds what is commonly recognized as civilized behavior, the more severe the counterreaction.

THis really is analagous to viewing a society as an individual psyche in microcosm - as individuals, we are able to adapt and function in the world because we restrain our impulses for violence and self indulgence through 'mechanisms' like guilt, shame, and conscience. Repression of our baser impulses is to some degree is thus necessary for adaptation.

Condemnation of terror would reinforce this repression, and allow room for greater empathy, dialog, and reciprocity. And like a toddler who is unable to control their impulses and throws a violent tantrum, then external forces must come in and discipline the wayward child, until he learns self-control.

Of course, some people go overboard in the repression department, and occasionally strangle, smash, or dip the toddler in boiling water (it happens). Naturally, these extremes are best avoided.

Seriously - take the example of Serbia and Bosnia. The Serb army was engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing while Europe dithered and tens of thousands were slaughtered and raped. (to be sure, serbs suffered reciprocal atrocities albeit on a smaller scale at the hands of bosnian and other muslims). The US stepped in and stopped the conflict through the use of force. I cite this as an example for those who will assert that US use of force is tantamount to "terrorism".

As terrorism abates, drastic reactions to terror should abate as well, hopefully creating a space for dialog, reciprocity, compromise, and the search for common ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

...an offered opinion is fine & just what I was looking for.

I wish I could get it to the point where I have a well formed and substantial opinion on this subject. Try as I might, I just can't get around some of the contradictions that are evident in fighting fire with fire, while at the same time seeing the necessity to do so.

That's why I was looking for your ideas.....Thanks for sharing them.

Back to the think tank on this subject for me.

[zipo]

>> I just can't get around some of the contradictions that are evident in fighting fire with fire, while at the same time seeing the necessity to do so.<<

I know what you mean - I wrestle with this too... how to use 'repression' (using that analogy) without provoking counterreactions and just deepening the cycle of violence.

Maybe it has something to do with reasonableness and proportionality - after all, humanity doesn't only consist of a dark side - we are all capable of reason, altruism, empathy, etc. For example, invading Afghanistan seemed reasonable and proportional in response to 9/11, since the Taliban were deeply involved with those who planned and executed that attack. Similarly, the attacks on Serbs during the recent Balkans conflict (which killed many civilians collaterally btw) was viewed as 'reasonable' or proportional on balance compared with the genocide being prevented. Non-violent means may also serve to repress terror without provoking it, e.g. moral condemnation of terror by islamic clerics, economic incentives, community outreach etc.

Arguably the invasion of Iraq and Gitmo (and certainly scandals like Abu Graeb), because these are perceived by many as disproportionate and unreasonable, do not serve 'repression' but provoke counterreacctions, deepening the cycle of violence.

>>Thanks for sharing them<<

Thanks for a good discussion.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
>> I just can't get around some of the contradictions that are evident in fighting fire with fire, while at the same time seeing the necessity to do so.<<

I know what you mean - I wrestle with this too... how to use 'repression' (using that analogy) without provoking counterreactions and just deepening the cycle of violence.

Maybe it has something to do with reasonableness and proportionality - after all, humanity doesn't only consist of a dark side - we are all capable of reason, altruism, empathy, etc. For example, invading Afghanistan seemed reasonable and proportional in response to 9/11, since the Taliban were deeply involved with those who planned and executed that attack. Similarly, the attacks on Serbs during the recent Balkans conflict (which killed many civilians collaterally btw) was viewed as 'reasonable' or proportional on balance compared with the genocide being prevented. Non-violent means may also serve to repress terror without provoking it, e.g. moral condemnation of terror by islamic clerics, economic incentives, community outreach etc.

Arguably the invasion of Iraq and Gitmo (and certainly scandals like Abu Graeb), because these are perceived by many as disproportionate and unreasonable, do not serve 'repression' but provoke counterreacctions, deepening the cycle of violence.

>>Thanks for sharing them<<

Thanks for a good discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% to the point. You need a bigger fist than the US has (help from allies). Disproportionate action (Iraqi war & Gitmo) makes the War on Terror uneatable for many citizens and countries and thus reduces the total power available to fight terror and also increases the recruitment to terrorism. No way I am going to support any country who has an institution like Gitmo, it goes against my fundamental human beliefs.

I do to! [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[zipo]

>>No way I am going to support any country who has an institution like Gitmo, it goes against my fundamental human beliefs. <<

Fundamental human beliefs? I've tried to hold up a mirror to your stance, you don't seem to have gotten my point. So I'll try the direct approach.

You support the attacks by non-uniformed combatants on peaceful US ships in a peaceful port. In one breath in an earlier post you condemned both "Americans" and muslim terrorism, and in another you express unequivocal support for these same terrorists insofar as they are attempting to murder Americans.

As such you have chosen a 'side' - not merely the 'side' of the palestinians (which while some would disagree with this choice, others could make rational arguments for taking a side here), but the side of terrorism - that is, expressing support for a murderous attack human beings who were acting peacefully and legally. By your logic, if such an attack were 'justified', then a reciprocal attack (say, Americans annihilating an apartment building in Gaza which was suspected of containing terrorists) would be equally justifiable.

You seem to be an intelligent person, but you are using your intellect to rationalize your bigotry rather than examine it critically. You have compounded this by failing to recognize your bigotry.

Try to set your prejudice aside, and look at the problem freshly. A few thoughts - none of us can help where we were born. Palestinian, American, Norwegian. However, we do have a choice - we can attempt to rise above parochial, narrow worldviews and try have empathy and understanding of other human beings, or we can simply allow ourselves to wallow intellectually and morally in whatever cultural context we are embedded in.

This is the challenge. This is your challenge. Can you rise to meet it?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

You support the attacks by non-uniformed combatants on peaceful US ships in a peaceful port. In one breath in an earlier post you condemned both "Americans" and muslim terrorism, and in another you express unequivocal support for these same terrorists insofar as they are attempting to murder Americans.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the confusion on what you think my opinion on is that I posted in the wrong thread. Bottom line, the attack was made by Al-Qaida and I do not support Al-Qaida, but I think Palestinians have the right to attack that ship.

[ QUOTE ]

As such you have chosen a 'side' - not merely the 'side' of the palestinians (which while some would disagree with this choice, others could make rational arguments for taking a side here), but the side of terrorism - that is, expressing support for a murderous attack human beings who were acting peacefully and legally.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, completely wrong. Supporting the other side than the US in a conflict does not make me a supporter of terrorism. You have to make that distinction if you want to see the whole picture.

[ QUOTE ]

By your logic, if such an attack were 'justified', then a reciprocal attack (say, Americans annihilating an apartment building in Gaza which was suspected of containing terrorists) would be equally justifiable.


[/ QUOTE ]
I see no wrong in attacking specific terrorist bases.

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to be an intelligent person, but you are using your intellect to rationalize your bigotry rather than examine it critically. You have compounded this by failing to recognize your bigotry.


[/ QUOTE ]
I am examining this critically. Believe me, I have seen this from many sides, Arab friends, Israeli friends and American relatives, in addition to studying history and trying to keep updated. The more I look into this matter the more certain I am. I am not giving up my support for a people fighting against an oppression in favor of a people supporting that oppressor (US).

[ QUOTE ]

Try to set your prejudice aside, and look at the problem freshly. A few thoughts - none of us can help where we were born. Palestinian, American, Norwegian. However, we do have a choice - we can attempt to rise above parochial, narrow worldviews and try have empathy and understanding of other human beings, or we can simply allow ourselves to wallow intellectually and morally in whatever cultural context we are embedded in.


[/ QUOTE ]
We agree on this. I just don't find your government deserving any of my support.

[ QUOTE ]

This is the challenge. This is your challenge. Can you rise to meet it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Rest assured, you haven't changed my mind. Your cultural arrogance have just strengthened my prejudices [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].