Understanding terrorists
I see Lord Alderdice, the former Assembly Speaker Alliance leader and psychiatrist is turning over his familiar theme of the links between fundamentalism and terrorism in Trinity College today. As fas as I can see, opinion divides, not so much on the straight links but on how we look at it. Do we objectivise it as “terrorism,”as problems to solve ; or hold them, “terrorists,” morally responsible as people and treat them accordingly? viz, Alderdice:
“”Fundamentalism emerges in particular political contexts where there has been serious trauma and uncertainty which brings out fear and aggression,” says Lord Alderdice.
Until people in any conflict [have already] begun to turn away from violence as a means of solving their predicament, they are unlikely to be prepared to accept that the prize of peace is worth the price of peace,” he says.
Contrast this with the historian Michael Burleigh’s view in “Blood and Rage: a cultural history of terrorism”:
Independent review quotes
All terrorists are “morally insane”. From playboys to psychopaths, narcissists to n’er-do-wells, “the milieu of terrorists is invariably morally squalid, when it is not merely criminal.”
These different perspectives are not actually mutually contradictory but they tend to veer off in opposite directions, Alderdice the less judgemental negotiator and Burleigh the scourge of the liberal appeasers..
Burleigh defines terrorism as a tactic. It’s also a lifestyle choice which is neither glamorous nor admirable, as Burleigh sets out to show. Spanning the last 150 years, Burleigh examines ideologically-inspired movements (Nihilists, revolutionaries, Red Brigadists, the Baader-Meinhof gang) and nationalist/separatist activists: Fenians, ETA, FLN and OAS, the PLO and various Middle East factions, the ANC, Irish Republicans and Loyalists).
Then there are the empirical analyses which tend to shift the blame to “us” i.e. the West, like Prof Robert Pape’s analysis of the suicide terrorism, a different entity to our domestic sort.:
“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any religion for that matter. In fact, the leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion (they have have committed 75 of the 188 incidents).”
Not long after 9/11, Michael Lind wrote a brilliant refutation of the “Clash of Civilisations” theory that abruptly replaced the immediate post-cold war “End of history”.
Quote
“Liberal democracies may be able to resist Muslim terrorism, but the greatest long-running threat to secularism, democracy and science could come from within, from the emerging coalition of the religious right and the romantic left brought together by a loathing for open society that they share with each other-and with Osama bin Laden.”
This case was always overdrawn. But I suspect that the fear of a clash of civilisations will survive the decline of the neo cons and religious right.
Now Phillip Bobbit, ex- Presidential adviser sand modish analyst posits another position.
The attacks were the work of an ultra-modern movement — closer to Mastercard than the IRA in structure. The worst is not inevitable: but it is distinctly possible, In his latest work, Terror and Consent” Bobbitt’s central premise is that today’s Islamic terrorist network, is like a distorted mirror image of the post-Westphalian market-state: decentralized, privatized, outsourced and in some measure divorced from territorial sovereignty. The terrorists are at once parasitical on, and at the same time hostile toward, the globalized economy, the Internet and the technological revolution in military affairs. Just as the 14th-century plagues were unintended consequences of increased trade and urbanization, so terrorism is a negative externality of our borderless world”.
And so in this techy age, do we “understand” the forces that produce terrorism and come to terms with it – and them?
I go back to Alderdice:”Until people in any conflict [have already] begun to turn away from violence as a means of solving their predicament, they are unlikely to be prepared to accept that the prize of peace is worth the price of peace,”
No matter how long it takes?
Myself I go with Simon Jenkins whom I recently watched gently mocking the lugubrious Bobbitt:
“Bombs threaten life and property, as would more harmful devices not yet found in the possession of terrorists but that they might conceivably obtain. I am happy to have a proportion of my taxes devoted, as now, to preventing this. Such policing, not “war”, has been mostly successful without putting Britain on a war footing.
What I cannot do is join the pessimists in claiming that western civilisation is so enfeebled by immorality, as the Bishop of Rochester implied last week, as to be structurally vulnerable to bomb explosions, devoid as they are of any political programme or local support. Because a terrorist claims to attack western culture does not make the claim plausible.”
Greenflag: “Perhaps in another universe or one not populated by humanity . There was an element of ‘let’s see what this baby can do ‘ among the A Bombs afficionados . I read recently that some Japanese historian is on record as saying that Hiroshima probably ‘saved ‘ lives .”
When you understand the alternative plans — both Allied and Japanese — you will understand that the atomic bombs *did* save lives.
The capstone in the decision to drop the A-bombs was the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa — the closer the Allies came to the Japanese homelands, the harder the Japanese fought and the greater the Allied casualties. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a soldier’sduty to die for his country. The Japanese plan to defend the homeland involved a variety of suicide attacks, including a wave-assault armed with spears on Allied landing areas, female soldiers and child soldiers. The Allied plan to clear landing zones included gas warfare to augment the usual heavy artillery and tactical air. The collision of these two tactics would have inevitably caused a greater number of casualties in just Allied war dead.
‘Irish Nationalism: mental disorder or personality defect? ‘
Hey Rooster, I do believe you have become derailed. This is a rather inane remark, for it is neither a mental condition nor a neurosis or psychoses. Irish Nationalism was a political aspiration of the Irish people to govern ourselves, initially within the context of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth, an English King/Queen head of State, etc…. A fair request which was always refused, but eventually granted and the country partitioned. It became the monster in NI when an aggrieved people were constantly ignored culminating in the outbreak of the Troubles in 69.
BTW – Whataboutery British Nationalism? … with all it’s past imperialist and colonialist trappings. Obviously you do not feel the need to ever question that, and probably never will! Obviously in your eyes the British Government never did wrong and can never do wrong! Torch bearers of civil liberties and justice, sorting out the worlds problems etc. All gung-ho like a John Wayne movie to you …spiffing!
Regarding alternative universes, your rant was hilarious, but as you are of course a law abiding British citizen who upholds the ‘impeccable’ British law, and who would never question any of it’s aspects, or actions, I merely gave an example of how your cosy pro-British government viewpoint may be challenged in the future as to help you understand Rory’s statement below!
“War against the powerful is labelled terrorism. Terrorism by the powerful is called war”.
No where did I advocate war, murder etc..No where did I agree with the past murderous campaign of the IRA in NI and Britain.
Clearly you blew a fuse, somehow labeling us all IRA sympathisers who supported their of abhorrent acts of murder on the Unionist community!
When in fact nobody here said such a thing!
You display a case of paranoia!
No need for an essay when a cartoon will do:
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii201/JesseNecrodaemon/terrorism-militarism.jpg
Very true runciter!
Dread Chutlu,
‘Contrary to popular belief, it is not a soldier’s duty to die for his country.’
Well that would be the norm for those brought up in a western cultural environment . If you read Japanese history and take into account the fact that Japan had never been defeated by any foreign army in it’s entire recorded history and the cult of the God Emperor /the kamikaze pilots and the fact that the Japanese Army had been trained ‘never’ to be taken ‘prisoner’ as it would be an eternal disgrace on their family name etc etc then it’s easy to see that the Americans were faced between a rock and a hard place . IIRC the military stategists estimated that the Americans would suffer 3 million casualties including a million dead with the Japanese suffering three to four times that figure .
It’s mind boggling to compare the success of the American achievement in Europe and East Asia during World War 2 and the present debacle in Iraq/Middle east and anywhere else in the world where Dubya lands
.
I think that you need psychiatric counselling more than you need to carry on this debate Rooster but I will indulge you once again.
I won’t go into each and every quote you so painstakingly provided to, as it were, make your case that I supposedly support sectarian murder. That argument by you is ill founded, libellous and unsupported by any reasoned reading of my postings here and by any reading, by a reasonable person, of the quotes you featured in your demented broadside.
You use the word ‘Mope-ish’ to describe some of my comments. The word ‘mope’ is used by unionists of the most intolerant hue to claim that some how the systemic sectarian oppression carried out by the Unionist regime against catholics/nationalists during its fifty year reign was exaggerated. That it didn’t happen. And of course it happened. And to deny it is to paint yourself into a sectarian corner.
You decry my comparing ultra British nationalism to nazi-ism. As far as I am the BNP, which I cited specifically, is as repugnant as the Nazi Party because the BNP adheres to Nazi theology in FULL KNOWLEDGE of what the Nazi party did. So that’s how my argument stands.
It’s unarguable that there was a conflict in the north and that there was loss on both sides. I have no intention of mimising the loss on the unionist side or saying that the IRA weren’t guilty of awful acts of terror in the pursuit of their objectives. But I will not shy away from saying that the British forces, under the orders of their political superiors, were also involved with Unionist terrorists in unspeakable acts of terror and murder.
Getting back to the topic of the debate, the fact is that non state terrorists or state backed terrorists cause terror. The only difference is that state terrorists can cause terror on a wider scale and with impunity it seems. A distinction which is captured accurately in the cartoon featured earlier.
Nazis? Check.
Dresden? Check.
Comparison of military action to paramilitary action? Check.
Events from at least half a century ago? Check.
Gaeilge? Check.
Anti-Americanism? Check.
Whataboutery? Check.
Melodramatic newspeak? Check.
Passive-aggressive threats of legal action? Check.
Congratulations. This post has managed to wring out the same old substandard bile masquerading as comment from the same old people.
Don’t forget……
Making lists? Check
Ad hominem attacks, to distract away from the poverty of those who support terrorism, as long as it’s committed by parties supported by the USA/UK/any number of client despotic regimes.
Check
Seems awfully intellectually lazy to me to bang away at this desire to compare the military actions of nation states, with all the machinations involved, to the paramilitary actions of small groups of rebels.
What about…
What about…
What about…
Terror is terror is terror……there’s no laziness about, merely the inability of those who commit acts of terror, and their apologists, to face up to the consequences of their actions. Terror, whether it’s committed by nation states or by ‘small groups of rebels’, still amounts to terror and has the same effect on its victims.
There is also, it appears, an inability to face up to the fact that oppression, itself a form of terrorism, breeds further terrorism.