Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

bulleya writes <<< I have never quite figured out what difference the motivations or vehicle behind terrorism makes.... >>>

It makes a big difference if you`re trying to create an image of the enemy in the eyes of your public for the purpose of legitimation. If the real motivations behind those described as ``terrorists` or the actual people carrying on the struggles were presented unaltered to the public, the public might even associate with their struggles, valuing the same things that those people are fighting for which in the case of Iraq involves freedom from occupation and in many areas in the third world, social justice and the freedom to live like a human being and not a slave. Human beings all over the globe can associate positively with those struggles and those images of struggles.

If however, the age old caricature of the wild eyed, sword weilding mullah out to kill infidels, that the public in the US was quite aware of even pre-9/11 can somehow be associated with the enemy, who is out to destroy your ``way of life`` and force Islam on you while veiling your women, cutting your hands etc~ then the public will more readily relent to legitimizing this farce, the war on terror that is being forced on the world. A recent example of that is the building up of Zarkawi as against the actual resistance in Iraq, of course Israel did the same with Hamas.

#228 bulleya writes <<< Unfortunately the victims of state terrorism are usually too weak to have their voices heard......... >>>

True, the ability to define reality and set the agenda for the world is held firmly by the US elite as we have seen all through the cold war and now this war on terror farce. Every one that is a victim is equally dead but there are some victims that are considered worthy- ones whose death can be used by this elite for their many agendas (regardless of nationality), and other that are unworthy. The policies of these elite kill many Americans through poverty, disease and at the workplace, many more than those killed at the WTC, they are unworthy victims even though they are just as ``American`` as the WTC victims, burning their deaths into the psyche of the public would not serve any ulterior motive and so they are ignored by the mainstream media which is the mouthpiece of these elite. Of course those at the receiving end of these policies, as the people of Iraq suffer in the tens of millions, though hundreds of thousands die, life is made miserable and unbearable for the tens of millions.

Dost-Mittar..........You are partially correct and partially incorrect, in my opinion.

I have never quite figured out what difference the motivations or vehicle behind terrorism makes. If I get killed by someone who uses their ethnicity, political belief, nationalism, or religion as his motivation, what difference does it make? I am still dead.

If I get blown up in a building and Osama says he did it because of his religious belief, or if I get blown up in Colombo and a Tamil Tiger says he did it for his ethnicity, or if I get bombed by a US F-16 and George Bush says he did it to teach me democracy, am I any less dead in either case? Am I any less a victim of individual, group or state terrorism?

The reason, ``Islamic`` terrorism is the flavor of the month, at the moment, is because of the countries who have become a victim of it, i.e. Israel and USA. They propoganda machinery is heavily tilted in one direction. Had USA been a victim of Tamil terrorism, then terrorism would have been associated with Tamil-ness. Had it been a victim of any kind of terrorism, that, ``kind`` would be the main event.......

I think the fairest criteria is to count the number of people killed. As an example, 100,000 have become victims of state terrorism in Iraq. The motivations of which are achieving a political goal through state force. 4000 became victims of it in WTC. The motivations of which were political gains through religion.

Based on the above criteria, the biggest entity with which terrorism should associated with, using pure number of people killed, is the, ``State.`` States kill, by far, the most innocent people, through state terrorism. Self-centered nationalism used to occupy and subjugate others for national interest, and not religion (Islam or otherwise) is what terrorism should be primarily associated with.......Unfortunately the victims of state terrorism are usually too weak to have their voices heard.........

Re. bongdongs #202:

FWIW, the impact of the Stinger on the outcome of the Afghan war has probably been massively exaggerated by boastful Paki mythmakers of the ‘Bear Trap’ persuasion, and by some of their lackeys in the West. The first generation Stinger was a temperamental beast that apparently required complex maintenance and careful temperature control of its seeker head. Being an IR-guided weapon, it was most effective when targeting aircraft silhouetted against a blue-sky background, not against the hot rock walls of a mountain pass. Soviet airpower had little trouble adjusting to the Stinger threat by a combination of countermeasures such as flares, and altered tactics. Soviet sources indicate that the most potent weapon against Soviet aircraft was not the Stinger but a Chinese-made heavy anti-aircraft machine gun.

In the end, the Stinger program might have been far more trouble for the US than it was worth in terms of any leverage against the Soviets. Some of the missiles ended up with Iran and one was fired at a US helicopter as early as 1987 (the year of the Stinger’s introduction). The MANPADS threat from Stinger clones lingers on.

sadna #217

Right on!

godot, Raw_Dust

People`s wishes are a mystery, their ways often inscrutable. :)

It may be more useful to focus on the basic prerequisites to gaining any victory - time, strategy, and social space.

-There must exist some unique historical opportunity that increases the likelihood of victory.

-A winning, coherent strategy must be available to effectively exploit that historical opportunity.

-There must exist underlying broad social mechanisms and processes that work positively for the winning side and negatively for the losing side.

It`s hard to see what coherent strategy liberals can use, or what social processes will carry them (and not their opponents) close to the winning line.

RD, its not that the right has the right recipe but at least it has defined a problem and proposed a solution. the non-right has no vision in this matter.

RD, 223

The problem is people in the middle east and pakistan dont want liberal-democracy. They`d rather vote for keeping the Hudood Ordinance intact than to repeal it.

What evidence do you present that “people” do not want liberal democracy in Pakistan and “rather vote for keeping the Hudood Ordinance intact than to repeal it.”?

GT:
USA admin is working under a wrong assumption that they can solve the problems of middle easterners. Recipe for this involves selling a template of western lifestyle coupled with democracy. The problem is people in the middle east and pakistan dont want liberal-democracy. They`d rather vote for keeping the Hudood Ordinance intact than to repeal it. They want the strands of traditional/tribal society intact instead of abandoning the culture of their forefathers. Western democracy will do precisely that hence it is a failure. Look at Iraq. Why iraqi sunnis keep on blowing themselves up when they have a chance at sharing power?

social-democrats in europe and democrats in usa cannot put up a fight. As much as i detest the Rightwing of any kind, in the battle of saving liberal-democracy from the islamofasicsm, it will only be the centre-right political parties who would go to war and kill the necessary number of people to win peace over Islam.

GT

Building on godot`s # 221, why do you believe that liberals have any hope of winning this war?

GT, 220

I do believe that this is a war that liberals can win

This is most certainly an uphill battle for the liberals. They may win, but it will not happen anytime soon. Conservative Islam is too deep in majority of us Muslims. Treating women as equal is the first step in the right direction, and look what’s happening to the Hadood Law in Pakistan. It’s a very tough battle. It’s not a clash of civilizations, but a clash within the civilization. In the Islamic world, the liberals currently are too weak, but the struggle must continue.

This is what Irfan Husain writes in his column today:

``Meanwhile, the collateral damage multiplies in terms of anger and bitterness on both sides. Moderates in the western and Muslim worlds are being radicalised. Neutrality is no longer an option. So five years on, we can only conclude that the forces of Islamic extremism are winning. For the West, this is a war that cannot be won.``

Very similar to what I have been thinking lately. I do not know whether or not the West can win this war. But I do believe that this is a war that liberals can win.

re: dost-mittar #75

If terrorism today is associated with Islam, the blame for it, in my opinion, should go to those fighting the US hedgemony in the world and especially its Middle Eastern policies

True. But the blame equally lies at the door of US and Israel. They nourished Jihad and martyrdom in the 1980s when it suited them. But that`s history.

At present, there is no peaceful modus operandi for a just solution to Middle East problem. The new World Order and its principal proponent are perceived to be inimical to interests of Muslims, especially in Middle East. Hence the growing desire to smash the World Order and create a new one.

No Justice, No Peace!

Re: # 216

Of course she does... which is why pakis are so upset with her... :) they can`t take on her one-on-one - so they keep ganging up on her... couple of them have been so obsessed with anti-sadna rhetoric that they have ended up completing each other`s thoughts and sentences... :)

I mean - that`s some dedication...

#215 #216
In my experience, ignoring attention-seeking chowkis jumping up and down and hooting at the sight of a woman poster makes them madder than any reply can.

Re: # 213
I can safely say that Sadna knows more about technology than the average expert on this website.

Re: # 213 salim
[....Please don`t interfere this discussion among men concerning missiles...]

Well - a couple of your `men` are actually gays... gays and women do not defer that much[mentally speaking...]... so what the heck...