Thoughts on Terrorism Take Two
Jul. 26th, 2005 10:54 amWow. There has been some tremendous and fascinating discussion on terrorism in my journal over the last day. Here is my paltry attempt to summarize some of what's been said, in my own words. Again, please discuss, but please play nice (like you did this last time!)
Terrorism exists across culture, race, and religions. There MAY be specific cultures or religions which incline people towards terrorist acts, but that is unclear, as in most cases where people claim there IS such an inclination, it could equally be explained by factors such as poverty and injustices visited upon those people.
Because the US and to some extent other countries in the G8 are the perpetrators of those injustices mentioned earlier, they are invested in the theory that it is those cultures rather than the people's circumstances which result in terrorist acts. So, they attempt cultural genocide first, because they will not admit that there are unfair injustices to correct.
Most people on my friends list are inclined to try to rectify those injustices first. Some believe that without violence or cultural "war," the majority of terrorism can be abated. Others simply feel that we should try to straighten the planet out and see what happens before resorting to anything as drastic as trying to subvert a culture or religion.velvetpage specifically pointed out the need for security. No, not airport security. More, the sort of security you're not willing to risk or give up by engaging in clandestine, illegal activities. In her words, "Changing the culture in the Middle East requires a total change of economy there. It will require big companies moving in and managing to stay afloat long enough to have families and communities depending on them, unwilling to do anything that will jeopardize them. In short, it will take an industrial revolution that touches most of the workforce, either directly or in spin-off service industries.
Historically, there has never been a revolution that didn't begin with starvation, usually long-term, and oppression that included physical needs not being met. If physical stability and a less religiously-biased education were to become facts of life in the Middle East, we would see terrorism decrease."
There was also some discussion of fundamentalism. Regardless of the religion being discussed, fundamentalism is a serious problem. Here, I'm defining fundamentalism as an unwillingness to permit the existence of other ways of life or religions, and/or an unwillingness to live peacefully side-by-side with those with different beliefs and/or customs.
If you remove adversity, poverty, etc., and provide good education and free access to information, I don't doubt that the amount of fundamentalism will decrease. The question is, by how much? And, will the fundamentalists reach a point wherein they are unwilling to sacrifice their comforts and security for their beliefs and ideals? I believe there are examples which show that some will still be willing to do so. This last category of fundamentalists, the ones who won't give up no matter how nice things are, are a conundrum. How can they ethically be dealt with? Like any other criminal who insists on putting their desires above those of others in illegal fashions?
Then of course, there's the question of removing adversity, poverty, etc. and providing that good education and free information access, without requiring military action or destroying their culture in the first place. Left to their own devices, for instance, would countries such as Iraq do this, or would they continue to have corrupt governments which make such progress difficult at best? And, now that the US has done as it has done, how does this impact that progress?