RE: [Futurework] Terrorist attacks are not about terrorism

[Cordell, Arthur: ECOM]

Title: Message

So, "back at you."

 

"how do we stop terrorism for the long term while preserving some sort of non-terroristically determined democratic society in the meantime..."

 

While this is being determined, decided, deliberated, we still have to take sides.  Blowing up civilians is either criminal or not.  I happen to believe that it is criminal,  no matter the grievances of the terrorists (oops in BBC speak, the bombers).

 

"I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire." (Winston Churchill)

arthur

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gurstein, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; Keith Hudson; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Terrorist attacks are not about terrorism

Surely that's too simple! Its sort of Bush's you are either for me or for the terrorists...

 

And that probably isn't even the right question... The question I think, should be how do we stop terrorism for the long term while preserving some sort of non-terroristically determined democratic society in the meantime...

 

And that I think is non-ideological (or in any reasonable circumstance/society it should be)... To be assessed pragmatically and "objectively" and recognizing that the solution may require the recognition of legitimate grievances while not legitimizing tactics.

 

MG 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM
Sent: July 14, 2005 3:18 PM
To: Keith Hudson; futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Terrorist attacks are not about terrorism

Agree.  There is intelligence on both sides.  Just as there is in all wars.  At all times.

 

The question is really one of taking sides.

 

arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:48 AM
To: futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: [Futurework] Terrorist attacks are not about terrorism

760. Terrorist attacks are not about terrorism

Politicians like to spread the view that terrorist attacks are carried out by "evil" men in order to spread terror. Nothing is further from the truth.

Just as "warfare is politics being carried out by other means" -- to use Clausewitz's famous phrase, so is terrorism. Just as the number of soldiers likely to be killed in a particular war action is almost incidental to the general who plans it, so are the number of civilians likely to be killed in a terrorist action.

What is very clear about all acts of terrorism is that they are carried out as specific acts designed to achieve specific political results.

Terrorism has had a long history that no doubt goes back to rebellions in the first city-states five thousand years ago. In England we have had Queen Boadicea's attacks on the Romans two thousand years ago and the Gunpowder Plot more recently. (Both of which have been spoken of rather approvingly since then!)
    
Take 9/11 in New York in 2001. This was a general declaration of war following a series of build-ups by both sides -- American needs for oil and Saudi Arabian Wahhabism. The kicking out of US oil corporations from further developmental work in SA, the Gulf War against Saddam's take-over of Kuwaiti oilfields, the kicking-out of the last US base in SA, the full adoption of Sharia law in the constitution of SA, the build up of a massive US base in Qatar and Special Units around SA. The 9/11 attack was specifically planned against the Pentagon, the White House probably (which didn't succeed) and world trade. The large number of people killed were incidental. I don't suppose for one minute that Mohammad Atta thought that the Trade Center towers would actually collapse.

Take 3/11 in Madrid in 2004. This was a specific attack a few days before a national general election against a right-wing government that was supporting America in Iraq with Spanish troops. An inept performance by the then Spanish Prime Minister in pretending the attack was carried out by Basque separatists completed Al Qaeda's victory by bringing in a government which then withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.

Take 7/7 in London in 2005.  This was a specific attack against Blair -- and his support of Bush's Iraq policy -- on the morning of his chairmanship of the G8 Conference in Scotland. It was clearly aimed at the early withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and whether this will be successful remains to be seen.

There are clear signs that all three were carefully planned by a network behind the bombers, the latter two actions involving the use of explosives and sophisticated timers that would not be normally knowledgeable or available to individual groups of susceptible young men. Whether the Al Qaeda network in Europe has the resources, intelligence and persistence to continue for years to come also remains to be seen.

In Iraq each act of terrorism that I've read about has been carried out for a specific purpose each time. The latest one in Baghdad in which many children died had the specific purpose of preventing fraternisation with American soldiers. Most of the assassinations have been against particular office holders or against Shias being recruited into the police or the security forces.

Too easily the word "mindless" is used by politicians when, in fact, they are far from mindless, and the politicians, more than anybody else, know precisely what they are aimed at. Too often it is their own subsequent "security" decisions in the homeland country which tends to spread unease and further fear of "indiscriminate" terrorism.

Keith Hudson

Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework