Time for a New Patriotism?

[pax]

Certainly a pretty sweeping generalization that terrorists are bourgoisie intellectuals. Even if it were completely true it still is easily demonstratable that poverty, suffering and injustice sustained by their brethren was a significant motivating factor. Truth is these 'middle class' terrorists may head the organisations but the rank and file is typically from among the lower stratas of society. Commandante Marcos of the Zapatistas is obviously a white middle class mexican but his soldiers are virtually all poor Mexican Indians.

The terrorists we find in Afghanistan are well known in their own countries. They were the bad boys and fanatics and in the 80's were dumped into the fight with the soviets so that the govs sending them there wouldnt have to deal with their martyrdom from executions or continuing influence from prison. They were not generally from well off families. Couple good docus on BBC few months ago showed one muslim reporter infiltrated some mosques and found how easily the groups spread among the poor.

dang If I can remember the name of that docu now tho...

 

[DemoCoder]

Hatred is the seed, and poverty the rich soil in which it can thrive. Poverty isnt the only source but it is a major one. You dont see serious organized terrorism in prosperous and democratic countries. To insist on saying poverty has nothing to do here is to bury one's head in the sand.

Hello? IRA? Weather Underground? SLB? Japanese Red Army? Aum Shinryko? Timothy McVeigh? ELF?

Are you going to tell me that Northern Ireland is equivalent to a third world country? That Japan is a poor country and Aum Shinryko was driven by the poverty of its members?

Nepal a poor mainly Buddhist country has seen some pretty bad terrorism from the maoist guerillas. Little girl killed in front of a police station just last week... India has a serious terrorism problem not only with muslims but also with the tamul tigers...

Nepal maoists are backed financially by China. India's terrorist problem is over Kashmir.

I'll reiterate. The primary problem is political, not economical. Most of the serious terrorism in the world boils down to grudges over territory and political representation, not "haves and have nots" Had Bin Laden not gone to Afghanistan, I seriously doubt Afghanistan would have been involved in anti-US terrorism at all. They would have simply continued to starve, enforce their religious state, and sell Heroin.

 

[pax]

Um demo disenfranchised northern ireland catholics were not all bourgeois. I think the illusion that terrorists are virtually all bourgeois fighting for only political reasons is that the leadership and the visible parts of those organisations are usually formed by elements that have had better education. Like in almost any org the smarter ones go to the top and thus more visible.

Tim Mcveigh was in my mind most likely member of a larger org. which wasnt investigated for fear of a larger confrontation at the time.

Bin Laden is def motivated by the palestinian issue which is a stark case of haves vs have nots. His members tho mostly Non afghanies are again mostly from the gutters of middle eastern society. I dont want to say poverty is the only issue. Or the only catalyst but its certainly not just politics. Tho by saying politics you can mean poverty and social inequity as well as its such a broad term defining human interaction.

I certainly think poverty is mostly political due to excess institutional greed.

There are many small groups who commit terrorism for many reasons. Aum was a bizarre cult... But the main one we are concerned with, the ones that last more than one or 2 acts that have a larger stone to grind with the world often have significantsocial inequity issues in their list of complaints. Id say the main terror groups are al quaeda which was probably nowhere nears as big but is now becoming the unofficial sponsor of many muslim groups wanting to gain notoriety thru violence... and the colombian leftist guerilla group and their right wing death squad counter parts. I think the palestinian groups tho not affilitaing themselves with bin ladens are another clear ex of desperation on the part of some palestinians due to their unemployment\impoverishement...

 

[Silent_One]

Pax wrote:

Bin Laden is def motivated by the palestinian issue which is a stark case of haves vs have nots.

Nonsense. Bin Laden was never motivated by the palestian issue untill he saw his support amoung the arab public slipping after 9/11 and questions about his culpability in it. Prior to then he never mentioned the palestian issue-he only uses the issue as a symbol to rally support.

In the case of Al Qaeda the "rich soil" that you speek of is indeed the unemployed youth in places like Saudi Arabia. They have nothing to do but sit around all day, go to the mosques, drift...Are they in "poverty"? Some are , some are not. They are of all walks of life. Some are educated, some are not.. The unemployed youth of SA are not all in poverty, yet it is a furtile ground for terrorism. Of the 19 terrorists of 9/11, the pilots were not of poverty, and the rest, from SA, were from the "unemployed youth".
.

 

[pax]

Dunno where you get that silent because Ive been reading about bin ladens complaints since the mid 90's and they included the palestinian problem. I dont think theres any major muslim movement that doesnt include palestine in their list of complaints. Heck even in Indonesia they mentionned the issue in some reports.

Of course the main issue writ about in papers of al quaeda's issues has been us presence on saudi soil though Im sure had there been none he wouldve simply called for any westerner in Saudi to leave and the west to be converted forcibly to islam...


Terrorists are def from all walks of life. Id bet in the large orgs they represent roughly the various classes of the societies they came from... The 911 terrorists tho were the cream of the crop in terms of their dedication (not all members of al quaeda were capable of suicide missions and they were carefully sifted form the ranks)...

Poverty of the soul is of course as bad and in many cases worse than poverty of the stomach... It certainly improverishes my soul to see real poverty.

 

[Silent_One]

Dunno where you get that silent because Ive been reading about bin ladens complaints since the mid 90's and they included the palestinian problem. I dont think theres any major muslim movement that doesnt include palestine in their list of complaints. Heck even in Indonesia they mentionned the issue in some reports.

Then find me a link that shows Bin Laden focused on the Palestinian issue prior to 9/11. And I don't mean a link from some professor of some university's middle east studies department insisting on explaining bin Laden's rage, and that of the fellow hijackers, as a result of Israel brutalizing Palestinians. I mean from Bin Laden himself, prior to 9/11, focused on the issue of the palastinians. You won't find such a link. You will find he only started talking about Palestine after 9/11.

This is just aother case of intellectual hijacking. Immediatly after 9/11 American college campuses, not to mention Europe, put the blame on the USA and/or Israel. People constantly listed grivances that the explained the causes of 9/11: "They did it for Palestine!", or "They did it because they hate globalization!" or "It was in responce to American brutality!". The simple truth that there are radical Muslims who hate us because they see us as "infidels" and blame us for all their ills in their own societies never entered the possible realm of discussions.

Let's see, a quote here is appro:

Obviously, this would never have happened if Lindh and what she stands for wasn't completely reprehensible to some, such that it would drive someone to do this.

At this time, Sweden should take a step back, consider Lindh's positions / views, and figure out what is so obviously wrong with them that someone could be driven to such extreme lengths to do this. Then take steps to rectify that situation by altering those positions, or at the very least apologizing to the attacker for having them.

---Joe DeFuria

 

[DemoCoder]

Pax, you are in denial. Mostly all terrorist groups to date have either had state backing (superpowers, regional government), or they are of the political (as in communist or right wing) or religious strife.

You think the Nepal terrorists are grassroots antipoverty people? These are Chinese funded groups to destablize that government. Think Kashmiri terrorists are merely anti-poverty conditions in the region? They are backed by Pakistans government.

South America and Africa are full of groups funded by the US and USSR during the cold war.

Many of the latin and island variety terrorists may have begun as pro-peasant movements, but their leadership has degenerated into nothing more than drug runners and power grabbers, and in the Phillipines and South America, you can see that the terrorists are nothing more than criminal thugs dependant on narco-trade, hostage taking, or blackmail on the government.


Are you telling me all these Kuwaiti men blowing themselves up are poor and underprivileged? Almost the entire Kuwaiti population is retired, with yearly government oil payments equal to about $22,000 per citizen. The government pays for just about everything, and mostly all labor is done by foreigners imported into the country.

With regards to the Palestinian issue, there are dozens of places in the word where people live under occupation. Why aren't the Kurds the biggest terrorists in the world for christsakes. The Palestinian issue is an issue for Arabs not because Palestinians are poor, but because since 1948 and before, Arab governments have been feeding their population propaganda designed to incite hatred of Jews, amplify Palestinian issues, and redirect attention from themselves.


Poverty does not drive people to violence. I grew up poor, and the majority of poor, non-drug using people I knew where very decent and peaceful.

Idealogy is what drives people to violence. Stoking class warfare and hatred or envy of wealth disparity, to the point of cult like behavior, which is what leftists do, could lead people to violence, since of course, their terminology makes it seem like rich people ate their babies and stole their money.

But poverty alone does not equal violence. It needs intellectuals to stoke hatred. And like I said, hatred can be stoked even in wealthy countries.

 

[Silent_One]

In furtherance of my previous post. This quote is from an article in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003 issue, called "The Protean Enemy", by Jessica Stern. The article deals with al Qaeda's to evolve nad willingness to adapt its mission, making it more appealing to recruits, attract new allies, and making it harder to detect and destroy:

Even Osama bin Laden himself has changed his objectives over time. The Saudi terrorist inherited an organization devoted to fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. But he turned it into a flexible group of ruthless warriors ready to fight on behalf of multiple causes. His first call to holy war, issued in 1992, urged believers to kill American soldiers in Saudi Arabia and the Horn of Africa but barely mentioned Palestine. The second, issued in 1996, was a 40-page document listing atrocities and injustices committed against Muslims, mainly by Western powers. With the release of his third manifesto in February 1998, however, bin Laden began urging his followers to start deliberately targeting American civilians, rather than soldiers. (Some al C23eda members were reportedly distressed by this shift to civilian targets and left the group.) Although this third declaration mentioned the Palestinian struggle, it was still only one among a litany of grievances. Only in bin Laden's fourth call to arms-issued to the al]azeera network on October 7, 2001, to coincide with the U.S. aerial bombardment of Afghanistan-did he emphasize Israel's occupation of Palestinian and and the suffering of Iraqi children under UN sanctions, concerns broadly shared in the Islamic world. By extending his appeal, bin Laden sought to turn the war on terrorism into a war between all of Islam and the West. The events of September 11, he charged, split the world into two camps-believers and infidels-and the time had come for "every Muslim to defend his ,religion."
One of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, later described violence as "the tax" that Muslims must pay "for gaining authority on earth." This comment points to yet another way that al Qaeda's ends have mutated over the years. In his putative autobiography, Zawahiri calls the "New World Order" a source of humiliation for Muslims. It is better, he says, for the youth of Islam to carry arms and defend their religion with pride and dignity than to submit to this humiliation. One of al Qaeda's aims in fighting the West, in other words, has become to restore the dignity of humiliated young Muslims. This idea is similar to the anticolonialist theoretician Frantz Fanon's notion that violence is a "cleansing force" that frees oppressed youth from "inferiority complexes," "despair," and "inaction," making them fearless and restoring their self-respect. The real target audience of violent attacks is therefore not necessarily the victims and their sympathizers, but the perpetrators and their sympathizers. Violence becomes a way to bolster support for the organization and the movement it represents. Hence, among the justifications for "special operations" listed in al Qaeda's terrorist manual are "bringing new members to the organization's ranks" and "boosting Islamic morale and lowering that of the enemy." The United States may have become al Qaeda's principal enemy, but aising morale of Islamist fighters and their sympathizers is now one of it's principal goals.

 

[pax]

Not saying they dont have a political dimension. Im not denying that. Its virtually impossble to have a terrorist org that doesnt have a political ideology. Im saying you are in denial in saying powverty had no bearing on motivations for those who join up in these groups.

That they get backing from upper class or states is irrelevant on the question here. It certainly helps them with resources and to carry out attacks but its rarely states who started them in the first place. The fact they exist shows theres a grievance somewhere and often they originate in poverty stricken areas. Its also pretty obvious from declarations they make. You can say Bin Laden is only highjacking the palestinian issue but is it really that hard considering the kind of ethnic kinship islam (and any popular religion really) produces in its adherents, to believe they care about westerners diogn harm to fellow muslims? Didnt thousands from various areas in the middle east come to Bosnia during that conflict to help their muslims bros there?

Poverty percieved as not originating from abuse may not produce revolt demo but thats not always the case. Many groups see the poverty in their countries as the result of some remaining colonialism or unfair treatment ect... I dont think your anecdote works here.

Any org like I said will need its intellectuals to help org its campaign. People who dont know because they cant read or live under oppressive regimes who hide the outside world or the causes of their suffering to them like NK is doing can be fooled for a time. But even NK knows its days are numbered before organised revolt takes root.

Silent I certainly dont agree that all of the suffering from muslims under their archaic regimes is due to our support. I dont agree with the reverse of that either tho.

Ill google for some old articles see what I can find...

Saying all of this terrorism has never been a really serious issue. They have always been few in number and attacks rare (with only occasional serious attacks like 9\11). Anyone who compares the worst terrorist campaigns will see it leads to extremely low levels of casualties over time. Iraq isnt 10% of vietnam where 100 gi's a day were dying.

But terrorist groups can be precursors to larger conflicts as they indicate burgeoning conflict over various greivances many of which have roots in poverty. Largeer conlficts drwa people from regualr walks of life while terror groups draw usually the more sensitive members of a group that has greivances. But they dont only come off 'liberal' college campuses...

 

[pax]

[/quote]1992... but barely mentioned Palestine...

Barely or not at all silent? 98 sounds about right... I said mid 90's but wasnt exactly sure only knew it was pre 9\11...

 

[Silent_One]

Barely or not at all silent?

I think you get the idea. Bin Laden is using the issue to widen his recrutment. Remember, you said he "is def motivated by the palestinian issue" which I think I've shown he is not, or at least disingenuous about it at best.

 

[pax]

Barely or not at all silent?

I think you get the idea. Bin Laden is using the issue to widen his recrutment. Remember, you said he "is def motivated by the palestinian issue" which I think I've shown he is not, or at least disingenuous about it at best.

Obviously yes he is. And God only knows whats in his heart and how sincere he is about what he claims to really care about... I just dont see why we can be so skeptical about his cares on the palestinian issue. Maybe after 10 years of fighting soviets he developped martyrs' syndrome where any muslim cause was to be his own. Doesnt mean he doesnt care. Doesnt mean if finally eliminating the palestinian issue from the public arena he wont have other gripes to hold on too and continue his recruiting and terrorism. I think it would help paying attention tho and the fewer the complaints maybe itll make it that much harder for him to recruit...


I think we can and should fight terrorism on both military and by listening to legitimate greivances. Both those fronts might reach the goal of elimination of the worst of the muslim terrorist problem.

 

[Legion]

With regards to the Palestinian issue, there are dozens of places in the word where people live under occupation. Why aren't the Kurds the biggest terrorists in the world for christsakes. The Palestinian issue is an issue for Arabs not because Palestinians are poor, but because since 1948 and before, Arab governments have been feeding their population propaganda designed to incite hatred of Jews, amplify Palestinian issues, and redirect attention from themselves.

How i do agree.

The arab world cares nothing for the palestinian refugess they generated by waring against israel. Many of these refugess were members of the countries whom lost lands during the 67/73 wars. Where are the surrounding arab nations to aid them? Their purpose is simple: they make for useful idiots.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

pax, read the following statement very carefully.

It is well documented that suicide bombers are not the poor, impoverished, desperate individuals the media has typically portrayed them as, but rather are often educated (college degrees aren't uncommon) and of solid economic status.

We aren't arguing that there is money and educated people simply backing those who carry out terrorist acts, like suicide bombings, but that indeed those people committing the acts are themselves educated and of means.

Reflect on that for a while. Sure, the general poverty of their bretheren is a tool used by terrorist leaders to motivate them (brainwash them) into action, but people don't blow themselves up because they are starving. They'd much rather blow you up and take your food.

 

[Sticky]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/962958.asp?0cv=CB20

Now the Age of Incuriosity has extended beyond 9/11 to virtually anything that might prove embarrassing. Britain this month is riveted by testimony before the Hutton Commission showing that British intelligence officers repeatedly warned 10 Downing Street against exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq. No such hearings are taking place in Washington, nor are there any on wishful-thinking senior officials who got snookered by Iraqi exiles peddling misinformation—bogus analysis the president chose to believe over the warnings of his own CIA.

This raises anew the question of what modern patriotism means. Was it patriotic for the White House to instruct the EPA to put out a press release after 9/11 saying the air around Ground Zero was safe when there was no evidence for it? Was it patriotic to invade Iraq when there was no sign of an imminent threat and plenty to suggest that it would seriously detract from the war on Al Qaeda? Was it patriotic for the White House to allow American companies that reap millions in contracts with the Department of Homeland Security to incorporate in Bermuda in order to avoid paying taxes?

I'm glad to see not only the public, but especially the press (finally), waking up to the reality of this administration's policies. It's about time. Hopefully it'll happen en masse come november 2004 when we see a new president in the white house. The light at the end of the tunnel grows brighter and brighter each day.

Rudi was on the today show refuting all reports that the Bush adminsrtation lied regarding... He said he was on ground zero with several air qualitiy agencies and he has first hand evidence saying that this this report was wrong.. I would tend to beleive him.

 

[DemoCoder]

The air quality was measured by many different labs, universities, and agencies after 9/11. Lawrence Livermore measured it on September 13th. All of the data was publically available to anyone. Many people actually disagree with the recent report's veracity.

The CA report claims the danger persisted for 6-8 months and that face masks would not be sufficient. If this is the case, what do you think the economic fallout would be from ordering an evacuation of Manhattan for 6-8 months? How many people would die from the economic devastation vs some slightly elevated cancer rates in the future?

The best thing the Bush administration/EPA could have said about this issue is "We don't know". Certainly telling people there was definate danger could have started a mass exodus and panic in Manhattan, which could have potentially been far more devastating than 9/11, and moreover, if the EPA was wrong and started a false sense of fear, there would have been a worse backlash.



People tend to view these things too much in black or white, because of their hatred of the other political party. Truth is, people complain about the government issuing warnings that don't neccessary come to pass, and people complain if they don't issue warnings, and something bad does happen.

 

[pax]

We aren't arguing that there is money and educated people simply backing those who carry out terrorist acts, like suicide bombings, but that indeed those people committing the acts are themselves educated and of means.

Reflect on that for a while. Sure, the general poverty of their bretheren is a tool used by terrorist leaders to motivate them (brainwash them) into action, but people don't blow themselves up because they are starving. They'd much rather blow you up and take your food.

We arent just talking suicide bombers but terrorists in general... It may take more eductaed and thus more motivated person to be able to comit a suicide attack. But I dont think it reflects actual memberships of terror orgs... We only see those acting and not the whole picture... I dont see how poverty can only be a tool and not an influence. Terrorists cant be pictured as profoudly dishonnets with themselves and still sacrifice so much for a cause...

Poverty as defined by suffering really as not all poor suffer...

 

[Fred]

If poverty is a root cause of terrorism, why don't we see more terrorist organizations coming out of the most populated impoverished regions in the world.

Namely, India, parts of Africa and China.

Sure, sometimes terrorism is influenced by poverty, I mean look at the French Revolution (but there again there were deeper problems rather than class warfare). Certainly it can happen.

Still I don't see class warfare as being so much a problem with regards to the specific threat we fight now. I wouldnt even put it in the top 5 most probable causes.

Rather, I think the main issues are the very real cultural disconnects that seperate us. Do you realize they actually think Barbie dolls are pornographic now in Egypt? Religion is obviously linked up in there, but ultimately our laws of morality and conduct is fundamentally different than theres. And some people over there are supremely pissed about the McDonaldizing of the Middle East.

 

[pax]

Because poverty isnt always a cause of suffering... We define poverty as people lacking access to basics but it doesnt mean they are suffering needs. Perceived or real. But terrorism and guerilla movements have in fact much in common with serious disparities. Poverty is in the same mix as disenfranchisement and ethnic hatred which gain form idel young men without work or quality of life... Palestinians arent starving but they certainly feel their unemployment and poverty as unfair and due to their forced stay in refugee camps.

From the statements of those in groups to the countries they are active in there often are terror groups compared to those in industrialized countries.

Im sure there are small groups with few if any poor in them as the old small communist groups in Europe... but the ones we are dealing with are from poor countries.

Im not saying stop the military side of things in dealing with terrorists. Just dont ignore the social side. Which is why we are seeing some attempts at resolving the palestinian issue and rebuilding Iraq and not just establishing strong central gov.

 

[RussSchultz]

Heh. The Iranian mullah's have issued a fatwa against "short legged dogs".

While, being a dachshund owner, I can understand the desire to strangle the things, but the dichotomy of fatwas decreeing "death to Israel" vs. "death to short legged dogs" just makes me wonder how kooky some of these folks in power are.