Thoughts on Terrorism Take Two

[danaeris]

Wow. 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?

Comments

[night--watch.livejournal.com]

I might point out that there's plenty of fundamentalism in the US of A -- and not just the evangelical South... I feel annoyed that I'm bringing it up again, but I think the US administration tends to gloss over the Oklahoma bombing last decade...

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Right. This post mentions fundamentalism, and it means it in the GENERAL sense. That is, it in no way contradicts or precludes your comment.

Fundamentalism is a problem. It attempts to take over a society, be it by violent or more subtle means, and thus ultimately preclude ways of life which are contrary to their own. We are seeing this in action in the United States right now with the religious right, and it's scary -- perhaps moreso than fundamentalism which leads to terrorism, because if the religious right continues to hold political dominance, it will exert more and more control over the largest army in the world. Not to mention the economic tactics you've alluded to in the previous posts.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to jump into this right now but it's my opinion that fundamentalism is a counter axis to globalism.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Hm, I'd be interested to hear more when you have a chance!

[polkamadness.livejournal.com]

I picked up an interesting book, _dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism_, recently that addresses some of these issues. The essence of the book seems to be "Fact: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."

Echoing what others have said, the cover blurb also includes "Fact: The world's leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka -- a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindi families."

[iclysdale.livejournal.com]

velvetpage's comment made me think of another book that falls into the "very smart man with whom I disagree passionately" category, Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Branch. Friedman is one of the most passionate advocates of corporate globalization, arguing that not only do trickle-down models of economics end up benefiting those we imperialize, but that corporations have much stronger incentives to reduce broad wars, which have a tendency to reduce profits.

I think he's dead wrong - in that the moral compass of corporations will and has embraced war-mongering of the worst kind the moment there's profits in it, in that capital flight is establishing long-term slave republics which I see as fundamentally unstable, and in that a corporate monoculture simply means we give up too much to receive the stability that frequently does ensue.

But the key example from that book, that is just flippant enough to be a brilliant example, is his comment that no two countries with a McDonald's in them have ever been at war with each other. And, as far as I can tell, I have to admit that he's right.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I must admit that I'm of two minds about the industrial-revolution model I suggested, and for exactly the reason you mentioned: it has a tendency to take profits where it finds them, regardless of the moral benefits or deficiencies of said profits.

Still, there are benefits to this model. The Nike factory in - is it Vietnam or Thailand? - is an excellent example. It makes a product that has no connection to military endeavours, and it pays its workers about ten times more than they were making when they worked in the rice paddies. It has singlehandedly created an economy for a region that had none, and you won't find very many Nike workers who want to go back to the old way.

On the downside, of course, the reason they can pay so little is that there are few safety standards and fewer hiring standards. Is that enough of a downside to say the model doesn't work? Not really - unless you're talking about a different kind of factory. If you substitute arms manufacturing in place of shoe manufacturing, all of a sudden the scales are leaning towards the "con" side.

I have only one question. a corporate monoculture simply means we give up too much to receive the stability that frequently does ensue. What exactly do we give up? And would it be worth it to get hotbeds of terrorism to give up these things, in the interests of stability? That is to say, is what they would give up, as valuable as what WE would give up in the same situation? Is there a trade-off there?