MSNBC.COM -- This whole terrorism thing has been really concerning me for some time now. Every so often someone asks "How do we stop them?" or "How can we reason with them?" And we can't. There's such a deep-seated hatred, and they have no objective, other than to kill us. It's not about oil or invading holy land, it's about their perception that we are evil and that they will be rewarded for killing us. We can't reason with them, we can't come to an understanding, we can't bomb a country until they say "We surrender." There's no hive, no mother country, not head to be cut off. All there are is a decent number of really pissed off people who have perverted a religion and used their position to incite others -- uneducated, or seriously unhappy -- to their deaths.
Britain has made some headway in identifying and jailing those who have incited others to murder, but there are always people waiting to fill their places.
And while horribly failed (and even more horribly communicated), the US attempts to foster democracy world-wide also offers an opportunity for change. A recent article I read said that the middle east today is being compared to Japan after World War II. The Japanese culture was not that of democracy, but the US helped foster it and today, the Japanese enjoy their own brand of democracy, participate well in the world market and are a financial force to be reconned with.
In the same way, there are those who believe that the middle east can also be so transformed. Democracy (ok, consumerism) does not necessarily have to be diametrically opposed to their religion. And while it's easy to boil it down incorrectly into a chant "no blood for oil" the fight for democracy in the middle east begins with oil. They've got a lot of it, and we need it. We'll pay for it, but in a democracy, there's no reason that everyone in Iraq, for instance, shouldn't be rewarded. No one should have 22 palaces while the population starves. Eliminating abject poverty is a good first step to eliminating the breeding ground for content, anger, and a downtrodden, depressed people who are easy marks for redirecting their anger and discontent to someone else.
We see this ourselves in this country. We resent Bill Gates for his enormous wealth. If we were made to believe that he was engaged in all manner of despicable things contrary to our belief system and ethics, and that it was all made possible because he kept us oppressed, it might be easy to incite someone to kill him, because it would make us a hero and because we might be told that it would make the world a little less evil.
But, we'd have to be lied to. And we'd have to be ready to believe.
But this is where it gets really difficult. Now, the recruits needn't even be from an impoverish nation, they're seeing recruits who spent most or all of their lives in the country they would later attack, but in the impoverished sections of that country. Apparently as the world gets coarser, we need to raise the bar everywhere. (If I were ever President, I would have a team identifying "the bottom _____" or "the worst ____" and then I would be challenging the nation to change that. That would always mean a new bottom, but it would always mean improving where improvement was most needed.)
And herein lies the first cracks in the dam that I've seen. New recruits into this bloody suicide-bombing movement are often studied for a time before they are approached, to learn what weakness in their life might be used. Then, they are courted, sworn to secrecy, and eventually forced to cut all ties to their family and friends, often being asked to move, and later sent to another country (like Pakistan) for a brief time of training. (It's said now that many from the UK going to Pakistan don't even need indoctrination, that they're only receiving training, they've already been fully brainwashed.)
That's the first crack... so identifying when something like this begins to happen could possibly mean that the person is about to be activated.
The police have also seen in cases where they've aprehended someone before they've had a chance to blow themselves up, that with even a small amount of civility and compassion by the police, the bombers immediately open up and spill the beans. Their cultish indoctrination, their isolation and their impending death are all very scary to them and they are greatful to be able to get out of the situation. (I'm wondering also if their suicide brings sweet relief from a life that's gone so horribly wrong and/or there are threats of torture to them or their family if they don't go through with it?)
It would be hard to identify the four who were arrested last week, if they had not already participated in a failed attempt -- and if UK did not have the elaborate network of live video cameras that it does. But once arrested, they have been helpful and forthcoming. The UK police are now searching for four French-speaking muslims who are in the country and could be next. Let's hope they find them in time, to save their lives and the lives of many others.
8 comments:
"The Japanese culture was not that of democracy, but the US helped foster it..."
Well, let's be clear about a few things first. The US dropped atomic bombs over two major Japanese cites, utterly demoralizing them and forcing their unconditional surrender. Following that, a United States general drafted Japan's constitution (a constitution still in use today), wherein Japan forfeited their right to an army. It's also worth noting that while they enjoyed decades of economic prosperity, they are currently in a major recession/depression akin to the US in 1929. They'd also love to help us in the fight against North Korea (which everyone knows is coming), but again they aren't allowed their own military force (domestic peacekeepers only), and many odds makers say when Korea does decide to act, Japan's going first because they have no way to stop them and America's resources are spread too thin. In short, Japan's democracy is shaky on its best days... and it's going to be devastated again in a few years.
As for our current crop of terrorists, in this case Muslim Extremists, they can be reasoned with. I point out that at no point since the bombing of the USS Cole has the US attempted to reason with them. And, no, I'm not suggesting negotiating with terrorists, but we sat down with Arafat, we're now allies with Libya's Quaddafi (a known terrorist and murderer of Americans), and there was a time when we used to have duck and cover drills because we feared the Russians were going to nuke us. With our enemies, reason has been possible. In Ireland, historic anti-weapons doctrines have recently been established and Belfast is now considered downright friendly again.
After 9/11 Bush turned his attention to Afghanistan, claiming Bin Laden was hiding out there. The Taliban, then the leaders of the country (despite the fact we didn't officially recognize that fact) asked Bush for proof before allowing US troops to move in. They tried to open a dialogue, but Bush wouldn't listen. He sent in troops and bombed the nation back to the stone age (not that it was a far journey).
When Bush was gearing up for the war in Iraq, Dan Rather interviewed Hussein. Saddam asked to speak with UN leaders, US leaders, and anyone else who would listen. He wanted to open up a dialogue, but nobody listened. We killed his two sons, toppled his government, deposed him, and bombed his country back to the stone age.
Bush is not the only idiot responsible for this mess. After the bombing of the USS Cole, it was shown that Al Queda was responsible, and that it was organized by Bin Laden. President Clinton responded by bombing an Al Queda base, killing everyone on it. Now, it's worth knowing two things about that base. First, nobody on the base had ever committed a single crime... it was alleged to be a training ground although there was never any evidence of that. Second, one of Bin Laden's wives and children were killed in the bombing, which sort of puts Bin Laden's rage into perspective.
You are correct that terrorism as it is defined can never be eliminated, but individual sources of terrorism can be reasoned with. The problem is that no American president since Reagen has ever attempted it.
How do you like that... I just complimented Reagen?
All good information, I won't debate any of it, except...
Remember when there was a mouse in our dorm? You called me at work to tell me about it. When I got home from work, nearly every stich of furniture from your room was out in the grassy area in front of the apartment. You had purchased mouse traps, bug spray, etc. When the mouse did finally get stuck to a glue trap, you put the whole thing in a paper bag, took that to the dumpster and slammed the bag into the side of the dumpster repeatedly until you were sure the mouse had passed on.
Now... let's say that just before the mouse stepped onto the glue trap, it looked up and you and said "Kevin, I want to live in your room. Perhaps we can work something out. I won't take up space and my droppings are small. I'll only occasionally want to eat food you've left out and I won't chew through too many wires." You might have been stunned for a second at the prospect of a talking mouse, but ultimately, you probably would have said "No, this rooms' not big enough for the two of us, now go get on the glue trap and get it over with."
Sorry to make you the terrorist in that analogy, but there was no reasoning with the mouse (US). To you, that mouse was evil, and it wasn't open for discussion.
Forget Bin Laden. I'm talking higher up the food chain, I'm talking about the clerics, who are the ones brainwashing people, lying to people, and inciting the hate and training people to be murderers. Bin Laden is just a rich guy who believes that himself, and uses his position of power to further the mindset. But I'm talking about the people behind the scenes who first indoctrinated him.
There is no negotiating with them, plain and simple: We are evil. The more of us that die, the more you are pleasing Allah.
So you didn't like my use of the word "foster" to describe how we gave the Japanese a new form of government. But I think my point still remains, that what we did in Japan, we are attempting to do in Iraq, minus the atomic bombs. We are trying to "help" them develop their own brand of democracy, because we equate democracy with stability... if people are content, engaged in everyday life, have the ability to change their circumstances, can aspire to the Iraqi Dream, in short, if people have hope, they are too busy trying to make their lives better to go and blow themselves up.
I don't mind being compared to a terrorist, though terrorists might take offense at being compared to me.
I realize no analogy is perfect, but this one is, pardon the mouse-related pun, full of holes (OK, a cheese-related pun, but mice like cheese). We are not an infestation to them... we are infidels to them. And like it or not, they took a cue from Christianity. Whether King Richard's Holy Crusades or the less than holy Spanish Inquisition, Christianity has terrorized its share of non-believers throughout time, and they continue to do so.
Let us say, for a moment that I were a terrorist (note to Homeland Security who screens my web traffic since I lived in a Muslim country: this is hypothetical... I am not a terrorist). Let us say, also, that you were the focus of my campaign of terror. As you see the danger drawing closer to you and your loved ones, wouldn't seek an explanation for my activities? Maybe it's something you couldn't change like your skin color, but maybe you've been annoying me for years without ever realizing it. Maybe you said or did something ten years ago that really ticked me off, only you never apologized, so over time my anger has built up inside me. Rather than simply avoiding you, I chose to plot against you.
If the west (as we are so lumped by the fundamentalist Muslims) had only done one thing to tick them off, it'd be an easy fix. But we've been screwing them for centuries. Granted, most of what's ticked them off has been unintentional on our parts, but the fact that not every Muslim hates every non-Muslim proves the hatred can be overcome. It's not going to happen in a day or a year. It's been nearly 150 years since Lincoln freed the slaves, and we still have race-relations problems with African Americans... but imagine the race-relations problems had Lincoln not stepped up? Maybe this generation will always harbor a deep resentment, but perhaps future generations will recognize good faith efforts on our parts other than bombings and invasions. I'm not saying we should all turn towards Mecca five times a day, but we shouldn't thumb our noses at those who do.
Remember, the notion of seperation of church and state was seen as more controversial than American democracy. Most of our founding fathers came from a country with its own church. For a long time, the US stood alone as a nation for people of all faiths. Today, there are still countries with governments based on religious dogma. Telling people who live in those countries to embrace our concept of freedom and democracy would be as offensive as me forcing you to embrace Allah as the one true god. Forced beliefs will always be rejected no matter how right they are.
Japan was your original analogy. It's been more than 50 years since WWII and Japan is still trying to carve its own identity. Their youth has rebelled against tradition. Their once great standing in the world of technology and science isn't what it used to be. They are still not free to do as they choose.
So you tell me, if we nuke Iraq (and Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia) and force them to start from scratch they would capitulate, but is that the only solution? Isn't there some way to resolve this without killing them? Is there no room for a dialogue?
I guess I'm ill-prepared to argue with you because I'm beaten down and too weary and have no fight left and I'm no match your your intelligence, logic and perspective.
I will concede that not every Muslim looks at us and sees horns and a pointed tail, but I don't think that I ever intimated that. I am thinking only of the hardline clerics who really aren't preaching a brand of religion anymore, but anarchy and terrorism because they are drunk with power. I wouldn't doubt that some (clerics or their followers) enjoy seeing how they can convince others to kill themselves while they themselves sit back and laugh at how they've convinced others to do such an amazingly awful thing.
I guess I'm ill-prepared to argue with you because I'm beaten down and too weary and have no fight left and I'm no match your your intelligence, logic and perspective.
I will concede that not every Muslim looks at us and sees horns and a pointed tail, but I don't think that I ever intimated that. I am thinking only of the hardline clerics who really aren't preaching a brand of religion anymore, but anarchy and terrorism because they are drunk with power. I wouldn't doubt that some (clerics or their followers) enjoy seeing how they can convince others to kill themselves while they themselves sit back and laugh at how they've convinced others to do such an amazingly awful thing.
All good information, I won't debate any of it, except...
Remember when there was a mouse in our dorm? You called me at work to tell me about it. When I got home from work, nearly every stich of furniture from your room was out in the grassy area in front of the apartment. You had purchased mouse traps, bug spray, etc. When the mouse did finally get stuck to a glue trap, you put the whole thing in a paper bag, took that to the dumpster and slammed the bag into the side of the dumpster repeatedly until you were sure the mouse had passed on.
Now... let's say that just before the mouse stepped onto the glue trap, it looked up and you and said "Kevin, I want to live in your room. Perhaps we can work something out. I won't take up space and my droppings are small. I'll only occasionally want to eat food you've left out and I won't chew through too many wires." You might have been stunned for a second at the prospect of a talking mouse, but ultimately, you probably would have said "No, this rooms' not big enough for the two of us, now go get on the glue trap and get it over with."
Sorry to make you the terrorist in that analogy, but there was no reasoning with the mouse (US). To you, that mouse was evil, and it wasn't open for discussion.
Forget Bin Laden. I'm talking higher up the food chain, I'm talking about the clerics, who are the ones brainwashing people, lying to people, and inciting the hate and training people to be murderers. Bin Laden is just a rich guy who believes that himself, and uses his position of power to further the mindset. But I'm talking about the people behind the scenes who first indoctrinated him.
There is no negotiating with them, plain and simple: We are evil. The more of us that die, the more you are pleasing Allah.
So you didn't like my use of the word "foster" to describe how we gave the Japanese a new form of government. But I think my point still remains, that what we did in Japan, we are attempting to do in Iraq, minus the atomic bombs. We are trying to "help" them develop their own brand of democracy, because we equate democracy with stability... if people are content, engaged in everyday life, have the ability to change their circumstances, can aspire to the Iraqi Dream, in short, if people have hope, they are too busy trying to make their lives better to go and blow themselves up.
"The Japanese culture was not that of democracy, but the US helped foster it..."
Well, let's be clear about a few things first. The US dropped atomic bombs over two major Japanese cites, utterly demoralizing them and forcing their unconditional surrender. Following that, a United States general drafted Japan's constitution (a constitution still in use today), wherein Japan forfeited their right to an army. It's also worth noting that while they enjoyed decades of economic prosperity, they are currently in a major recession/depression akin to the US in 1929. They'd also love to help us in the fight against North Korea (which everyone knows is coming), but again they aren't allowed their own military force (domestic peacekeepers only), and many odds makers say when Korea does decide to act, Japan's going first because they have no way to stop them and America's resources are spread too thin. In short, Japan's democracy is shaky on its best days... and it's going to be devastated again in a few years.
As for our current crop of terrorists, in this case Muslim Extremists, they can be reasoned with. I point out that at no point since the bombing of the USS Cole has the US attempted to reason with them. And, no, I'm not suggesting negotiating with terrorists, but we sat down with Arafat, we're now allies with Libya's Quaddafi (a known terrorist and murderer of Americans), and there was a time when we used to have duck and cover drills because we feared the Russians were going to nuke us. With our enemies, reason has been possible. In Ireland, historic anti-weapons doctrines have recently been established and Belfast is now considered downright friendly again.
After 9/11 Bush turned his attention to Afghanistan, claiming Bin Laden was hiding out there. The Taliban, then the leaders of the country (despite the fact we didn't officially recognize that fact) asked Bush for proof before allowing US troops to move in. They tried to open a dialogue, but Bush wouldn't listen. He sent in troops and bombed the nation back to the stone age (not that it was a far journey).
When Bush was gearing up for the war in Iraq, Dan Rather interviewed Hussein. Saddam asked to speak with UN leaders, US leaders, and anyone else who would listen. He wanted to open up a dialogue, but nobody listened. We killed his two sons, toppled his government, deposed him, and bombed his country back to the stone age.
Bush is not the only idiot responsible for this mess. After the bombing of the USS Cole, it was shown that Al Queda was responsible, and that it was organized by Bin Laden. President Clinton responded by bombing an Al Queda base, killing everyone on it. Now, it's worth knowing two things about that base. First, nobody on the base had ever committed a single crime... it was alleged to be a training ground although there was never any evidence of that. Second, one of Bin Laden's wives and children were killed in the bombing, which sort of puts Bin Laden's rage into perspective.
You are correct that terrorism as it is defined can never be eliminated, but individual sources of terrorism can be reasoned with. The problem is that no American president since Reagen has ever attempted it.
How do you like that... I just complimented Reagen?
I don't mind being compared to a terrorist, though terrorists might take offense at being compared to me.
I realize no analogy is perfect, but this one is, pardon the mouse-related pun, full of holes (OK, a cheese-related pun, but mice like cheese). We are not an infestation to them... we are infidels to them. And like it or not, they took a cue from Christianity. Whether King Richard's Holy Crusades or the less than holy Spanish Inquisition, Christianity has terrorized its share of non-believers throughout time, and they continue to do so.
Let us say, for a moment that I were a terrorist (note to Homeland Security who screens my web traffic since I lived in a Muslim country: this is hypothetical... I am not a terrorist). Let us say, also, that you were the focus of my campaign of terror. As you see the danger drawing closer to you and your loved ones, wouldn't seek an explanation for my activities? Maybe it's something you couldn't change like your skin color, but maybe you've been annoying me for years without ever realizing it. Maybe you said or did something ten years ago that really ticked me off, only you never apologized, so over time my anger has built up inside me. Rather than simply avoiding you, I chose to plot against you.
If the west (as we are so lumped by the fundamentalist Muslims) had only done one thing to tick them off, it'd be an easy fix. But we've been screwing them for centuries. Granted, most of what's ticked them off has been unintentional on our parts, but the fact that not every Muslim hates every non-Muslim proves the hatred can be overcome. It's not going to happen in a day or a year. It's been nearly 150 years since Lincoln freed the slaves, and we still have race-relations problems with African Americans... but imagine the race-relations problems had Lincoln not stepped up? Maybe this generation will always harbor a deep resentment, but perhaps future generations will recognize good faith efforts on our parts other than bombings and invasions. I'm not saying we should all turn towards Mecca five times a day, but we shouldn't thumb our noses at those who do.
Remember, the notion of seperation of church and state was seen as more controversial than American democracy. Most of our founding fathers came from a country with its own church. For a long time, the US stood alone as a nation for people of all faiths. Today, there are still countries with governments based on religious dogma. Telling people who live in those countries to embrace our concept of freedom and democracy would be as offensive as me forcing you to embrace Allah as the one true god. Forced beliefs will always be rejected no matter how right they are.
Japan was your original analogy. It's been more than 50 years since WWII and Japan is still trying to carve its own identity. Their youth has rebelled against tradition. Their once great standing in the world of technology and science isn't what it used to be. They are still not free to do as they choose.
So you tell me, if we nuke Iraq (and Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia) and force them to start from scratch they would capitulate, but is that the only solution? Isn't there some way to resolve this without killing them? Is there no room for a dialogue?
Post a Comment