Quake3World

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:48 am**

Almost everyone here (and elsewhere on the internet, BBC documentaries, Michael Moore stuff, etc, etc) seems to put out a few ideas dealing with our present world/political situation, all in some defiant contradiction to what Bush/Blair/others say. So first off, here are some disclaimers. I'm not affiliated with any party in particular at the moment. And, I will be dealing with a few different issues, so this is a broad topic. Maybe I should make seperate topcis. But I don't want to end up like Geoff, so yeah, you know. Anyway, I know these are going to be broad statements, and I won't try to claim absolute knowledge, but I would like some explainations.

OK, so, here's the first thing. For a long time, people have been accusing the neoconservatives of pushing this, "Oh, be afraid, terrorism happens and can happen at any moment, any place," simply for their own political gain. While it's true, I think, that most politicians are extremely concerned with themselves and not always the issues, are they (neos) wrong in this? Attacks in London. Two weeks later, more attacks in London. Nobody predicted any of it (at least that's so, from what I've heard).

As a "defence" against what Bush says, people say, "Well, this isn't new. There has always been the chance of terrorist threat." True. Terrorist attacks did take place even before September 11. But what are politicians hurting by saying "watch out, it could happen any time"? Are they wrong? Remember London. What do we stand to gain by telling politicians to shut up with their terrorism warnings? All I hear people mention Bush for (outside of the Iraq issue) is that he should shut up about all the terrorism stuff. He's lying, he's exaggerating, etc.

In fact, the London situation is so stereotypically in tune with Bush/Blair's terrorism warnings, that I think you really have to match up reality with what they're saying in general.

Come on -- the guys that did this are Muslims. Saw it on the news. I assume it's correct even though some of you fags are so paranoid you couldn't even begin to comprehend the concept of a tv journalist reporting with any integrity. Anyway, they are Muslims. What did you expect? The attacks were not foreseen by anyone to my knowledge. Then bam, again in two weeks. That's horrible. And that's the reality that we live with, correct? A world where there _are_ terrorists. They do want to attack, they will attack. It happens when no one expects it. It happens when everyone expects it. It just happens.

Could it be that we're just so tired of Bush that anything he says, or anything that any government says, is just flat-out wrong if it's affiliated with neoconservatism and the characteristics associated with it? Why do people stand up against their leaders, like the leaders are somehow punishing them when they mention something like terrorism?

I'm finished going wherever I was going with this, so I'll just press Submit. I know it's a bit scatterbrained, but I want to read some reactions to this stuff.

Why perspective do you guys have on this stuff?

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:56 am**

Søren Kierkegaard wrote: We're fucked.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:00 am**

It's a conflict of ideals that will get nowhere. Such conflicts have been around ever since people have evolved to disagree about the outcome of decisions and events. We just so happen to live in the times where the ideals with the most disagreement are the neoconservative and muslim ideals. They are in direct conflict with each other on fundamental levels, and so we hear about them the most. The USSR and communism was another ideal in conflict with both neoconservative and muslim though, but it collapsed and we're now left with the latter two still duking it out. Sooner or later one will crack and a new ideal will arise that will cause more conflict. Basically it boils down to people think, therefore they disagree about long-term goals. That, coupled with their innate godaweful stubbornness causes them to fight to the death about such trivial shit.

Kissinger was right, but people just dont want to live in harmony with each other....shame!

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:07 am**

When Bush throws us all on "terrorism alert," he's instilling fear. He then leverages that fear to pass bullshit laws and start bullshit wars. I'm not going to go as far as calling the leader of our country a terrorist, but it makes one think.

Those are my thoughts in a nutshell. I'll elaborate if you'd like. :icon26:

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:18 am**

I am begining to think that radical islam is simply on the march following where moderates have been previously - using them as a screen and sometimes a source. I think radicalists were always going to start this type of activity in the west - it was just a matter of time. Fanaticism and hatred are self perpetuating, they need no external reasons, so as the world has "shrunk" so the sphere of influence of these people appears to have grown. Its going to continue to influence all our lives, but I do start to wonder if western society as we currently know it might have an endpoint?????? Something I'd not considered before

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:29 am**

i think one of the core issues is on why terrorism arises, and how it should be dealt with.

Bush/Blair take a very dangerous and misguided approach to these issues

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:00 am**

would u elaborate Julios please? I suspect your going to say that education and resources leading to better quality of life will help address teh issue??? If you have time to post some brief thoughts I'd be interested to read them

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:10 am**

well the whole portrayal of terrorism as rooted in an ideology of evil, rather than looking at it from a tactical point of view, severely undermines many of the realities associated with such actions.

Take terrorism in Iraq, for example. It's a hugely successful enterprise, insofar as success for the terrorists is the disruption of the United States' agendas.

If the United States and Britain stopped fucking around all over the world, and stopped supporting Israel, etc, I doubt that you'd see things like 9/11

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:45 am**

Case in point.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the nation's main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after televisions in the Capitol beamed images of a new attack in London.

The bill also proposed 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps and another allowing searches of library and medical records. They were the focus of most of the controversy as members plowed through the main legislation and 18 amendments.

This could be one of two scenarios.

1) Ok guys, it looks like the Patriot Act was ineffective, we need more tools to hunt down the terrorists and provide safety for the Americans.

2) Ok guys, everyone is afraid of terrorists again, let's push our agenda while everyone is still scared.

Helen Keller could see through this one.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:44 am**

[xeno]Julios wrote:well the whole portrayal of terrorism as rooted in an ideology of evil, rather than looking at it from a tactical point of view, severely undermines many of the realities associated with such actions.
Take terrorism in Iraq, for example. It's a hugely successful enterprise, insofar as success for the terrorists is the disruption of the United States' agendas.
If the United States and Britain stopped fucking around all over the world, and stopped supporting Israel, etc, I doubt that you'd see things like 9/11

Im divided on what you seem to see so clearly. IMO, the triggers u identify are the here and now of what i consider as inevitable consequences of the changing face of religion. Dunno what Im saying really, but think it was all going to happen regardless, because fanatics hide behind (to gain entry), then manipulate the moderates to meet their own agenda's (not a bad generalisation I think).

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:02 am**

S@M wrote: Im divided on what you seem to see so clearly. IMO, the triggers u identify are the here and now of what i consider as inevitable consequences of the changing face of religion. Dunno what Im saying really, but think it was all going to happen regardless, because fanatics hide behind (to gain entry), then manipulate the moderates to meet their own agenda's (not a bad generalisation I think).

I think a lot of misunderstanding occurs because we are too quick to describe and interpret the mechanisms of the phenomena (e.g. the phenomenon of terrorism) in intentional terms. By intentional I don't mean of "having an intent", but rather the framework within which rational individuals function.

So an intentional framework would include things like desires, beliefs, intentions, etc.

terrorism seems to be an emergent phenomenon that does not lend well to intentional analysis.

If we understand terrorism as a higher level effect arising from lower level interactions (some of which are intentional since they involve individuals), then it wouldn't make sense to interpret terrorism in intentional terms. It would be like trying to interpret thermodynamic phenomena using the equations of statistical mechanics. Indeed, statistical mechanics describes the behaviour of the constituent elements that give rise to thermodynamic phemonena (temperature, pressure?, etc.), but you need a different set of laws and equations that describe the actual relationships of temperature and pressure, etc.

Similarly, it may be instructive to think beyond an intentional framework when accounting for things like terrorism.

Sure - the viral imperative for memetic domination plays a massive role in our religious consciousness - we have an urge to get others to share our faith - in some fundamental cases, this imperative is manifest in an urgency to implement an entire religious doctrine - and in some radical cases, this urgency is attempted to be realized with violent means.

However to assign primacy of this urgency to the case of terrorism is to be narrow, imo (i may be wrong though - these are just thoughts).

Rather, this urgency plays a supporting role within a matrix of many different supports, including economic, political, religious, psychological, etc.

There are probably other supporting forces that we don't even have names for, since we haven't mapped their dynamics out into a coherent place within our consciousness.

My criticism of Bush & Co. is that they make the mistake of simplifying these affairs.

In doing so, they essentially spread lies. And these lies can be dangerous as they may create conditions where the powers of the world can be harnessed for dysfunctional self intervention.

An analogy might be a radical autoimmune response where the body, in an attempt to heal itself, ends up killing itself through radical response (i think I remember reading a piece where someone used the autoimmune response as a metaphor for terrorism (as opposed to short sighted gov't intervention as used in my example)

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:40 am**

ok, stay with here because this is relevant to the topic in the end

last night there was a repeat on uk tv of a documentary by john pilger about the chagos islanders, who were kicked off their islands back in the 60-70s by a former british govt (chacos is a british territory) to make way for an american airbase. blair recently rejected a high court decision that the expulsion was illegal, and made up the spurious claim that the islands were unfit for human habitation - in spite of the fact that there are 2000 US servicemen there - and won't let the chacossians return their from the filthy slums they live in in mauritius. the chacossians have contested all this with protests outside the british high commission in mauritius and with legal action against the british govt, which has been successful (hence the high court judgement). AND YET THE CHACOSSIANS HAVE BEEN DENIED THE RETURN TO THEIR ISLAND HOME.

then you have the palestinians, same deal, their country being stolen piecemeal (and with more direct US involvement too), yet they fight back - albeit with atrocities - and make the headlines again and again. endless attempts - mostly duplicitious - are made to get a 'peace process' going, and the issue exists bigtime in people's consciousness.

conclusion: terrorism works. the claims often made by western leaders, that people with a grievance should advance their claims by peaceful means, does not. where aggrieved people pursue purely legal means they are simply ridden over and forgotten by the powers that be, whether they be the chacossians, the tibetans or nicaragua (owed $17bn in reparations from the US govt after its contra state terrorism in the 80s).

the lesson that that teaches someone who's seen their home stolen and their people killed and oppressed is fairly obvious.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:20 am**

Terrorism is violence by people without an airforce.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:35 am**

seremtan wrote:
conclusion: terrorism works. the claims often made by western leaders, that people with a grievance should advance their claims by peaceful means, does not.

I disagree with the first part of your conclusion. Terrorism has never gotten any government anywhere to change its policies. Principally because assholes like Bush, et al., simply spin the acts to support their agendas. The Basques, The Shining Path, The Red Brigade, The IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., none of these groups has ever effected any real change in the views/actions of those they were fighting.

To address Mogul's question, I think that the neocons are failing to look at the real causes of terrorist acts (as Jules pointed out) and that they're using it as a convenient means to push their own agendas. Increase of American strategic power, securing more oil reserves, and most importantly(to them), eliminating the enemies of Israel.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:47 am**

Didn't the Sionist bombings more or less force the Brits to leave Palestine?

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:51 am**

Grudge wrote:Didn't the Sionist bombings more or less force the Brits to leave Palestine?

If you're talking about al-Nakba, you should probably do some more research on the subject

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:29 pm**

seremtan wrote:ok, stay with here because this is relevant to the topic in the end

AND YET THE CHACOSSIANS HAVE BEEN DENIED THE RETURN TO THEIR ISLAND HOME.

then you have the palestinians, same deal, their country being stolen piecemeal (and with more direct US involvement too), yet they fight back - albeit with atrocities - and make the headlines again and again. endless attempts - mostly duplicitious - are made to get a 'peace process' going, and the issue exists bigtime in people's consciousness.

I dont think this fits, given that most terrorists are not palestinians, (well outside Israel anyway) many are infact from Saudi Arabia or other contries where self gain is not going to occurr by blowing themselves or others up - so what is their prima facia??

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:09 pm**

Nightshade wrote:I disagree with the first part of your conclusion. Terrorism has never gotten any government anywhere to change its policies. Principally because assholes like Bush, et al., simply spin the acts to support their agendas. The Basques, The Shining Path, The Red Brigade, The IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., none of these groups has ever effected any real change in the views/actions of those they were fighting.

S@M wrote:I dont think this fits, given that most terrorists are not palestinians, (well outside Israel anyway) many are infact from Saudi Arabia or other contries where self gain is not going to occurr by blowing themselves or others up - so what is their prima facia??

ok you've both hit on the same thing so i should clarify what i said earlier. the claim that terrorism 'works' isn't a simple cause-and-effect explanation, as in 'we bomb you and make demands, then you accede to our demands' it's more about how aware we are of the issue at hand and the weight of political pressure to do something about it.

palestinian terrorism constantly draws our attention to the hellhole of their daily existence in a way that peaceful protest and legal appeals does not do for the chacossians in their hellhole. this means there is constant political pressure to do something for the palestinians. ok, the peace process is a fraud, and the much-vaunted palestinian state will be nothing more than a fragmented group of bantustans, but they're getting far more attention than those who have pursued strictly peaceful means.

when the bombs start going off, that's when people say 'something must be done'. petitions handed in at the door get a glance and straight into a skip (erm, dumpster, for yanks).

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:25 pm**

I'd say that that's probably valid, but I still think that it tends to generate mostly negative opinions.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:28 pm**

neither advised nor persuaded by people I don't know in person, those I am usually have a large plaqard marked with the letters P. H. and D. somewhere over their shoulder. The people running the show are just figureheads, it takes a shitload of bright minds working together to keep the threads from unraveling and the actions of a few nutjobs does not put the shoe on the other head. LOL at anyone who takes seriously the thousands of Ed Glossers, Trivial Psychics on the internet

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:29 pm**

Nightshade wrote:I disagree with the first part of your conclusion. Terrorism has never gotten any government anywhere to change its policies. Principally because assholes like Bush, et al., simply spin the acts to support their agendas. The Basques, The Shining Path, The Red Brigade, The IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., none of these groups has ever effected any real change in the views/actions of those they were fighting.

Al Qaida was succesful in removing Spanish forces from Iraq by toppling the goverment with their trainbombings. Hamas or Hezbollah (i can never tell them apart) got Israel to withdraw from Lebanon after years and years of sporadically blowing up Israeli recruits. One could even argue that the later IRA bombings (lots of warnings in advance, economic targets, almost no casualties) might have sped up the peace proces.

But i can't really think of any other examples, you're absolutely right about the rest of the idiot collectives you listed.

Hmm, reading this back i'm even starting to doubt the Lebanon example, since that might have been more of a guerilla thing.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:00 pm**

I don't remember where I read it, but it sounded pretty smart to me:

Terrorism is a strategy.

"Fighting terrorism" makes about as much sense as "Fighting guerilla wars", "Fighting the phalanx" or "Fighting the Blitzkrieg".

You can only fight people, not strategies.

Even if we all have GPS-detectors in our brains and all phones are tapped and everybody has to report to the police department daily and fertilizer is outlawed, there will always be terrorism.

If they can't get explosives, they'll use guns. If they can't get guns, they'll use knives. The war on terror is the most pointless thing I've ever seen.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:47 pm**

Ryoki wrote:Al Qaida was succesful in removing Spanish forces from Iraq by toppling the goverment with their trainbombings.

i don't think so. the socialists were cruising to a victory anyway, and the bombs went off to make people think that that was what had changed the policy.

looks like it worked too :icon26:

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:39 pm**

terrorism might be successful with certain goals in mind - but i tend to think that non-violent means are a more sustainable method for peace.

Violence seems to corrupt even the oppressed.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:03 pm**

until we stop our own terrorism of others we will face terrorism at home

Quake3World

Things I'm puzzled about, somewhat (political stuff)

Things I'm puzzled about, somewhat (political stuff)

Re: Things I'm puzzled about, somewhat (political stuff)