|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| In regards to terrorism - Is there a need for change? |
| Yes, we need to change our thinking and our methods - violence will not stop terror. |
|
57% |
[ 4 ] |
| Yes, we need to get tougher - they are getting away with too much - bomb them into the stone age. |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, it is going fine - terrorism will cease to be a problem |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No, what is the point? Terrorism will always be a part of our lives. |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
| Other/Unsure/Undecided - Please explain. |
|
14% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: Tackling terror: five principles for a better future |
 |
|
Tackling terror: five principles for a better future
With all the controversy surrounding the proliferation, control, and means to counter terrorism - is it simply falling back to the old addage - treat them as you would wish to be treated?
| Quote: |
Scilla Elworthy
20 - 7 - 2005
The decisive instrument in preventing attacks like those in London is the capacity of the human mind to imagine and implement solutions that lead to real change. Scilla Elworthy proposes a fresh way of addressing terrorism. |
| Quote: |
The long, bloody conflict in Northern Ireland shows that if terrorism is approached as war, it cannot be defeated. If superior force could subdue terror, the mightiest military machine in history would by now surely have prevailed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What is needed instead is intelligence: intelligence of the obvious kind (tracking people down, stopping flows of money, cutting supplies of weapons and explosives) and of a less obvious kind (intelligence that understands the mind of the extremist). A reaction that asserts ��these people only understand force�� or ��these people are psychopaths�� doesn��t help. It is potentially more useful – though much more difficult – to understand why people are furious enough to commit extreme acts of political violence, often involving their own deaths. |
Is it so hard to comprehend a reaction that does not involve outright violence? Can we as a society understand another so that in the end we enter into an understanding with another and not wish to harm one another? There are studies ad-ininitum that address the fact that violence begets violence - in the home, on the streets, within the classroom, yet on the larger world stage - we tend to ignore these studied and proven concepts. The mentality is if they strike against us - we strike them and we do it hard and that will make them understand that we mean business and they will think twice about doing it again - the problem in this logic is, whether they think twice, ten time, one hundred times - they are still thinking about it and in the end there will always be one group of people that will stop thinking about it and do it just because.
| Quote: |
The power of humiliation
Such an experience of western culture, one quite commonly expressed across the middle east, can produce seething hostility and aggressive, disgusted reactions. Add to this the humiliation felt by Palestinians, Afghans and now Iraqis as they are forced to submit to roadblocks, strip-searches, curfews and their homes being raided. The theme of humiliation recurs throughout reports and opinion surveys. A March 2004 poll sponsored by ABC News, NHK (Japan), ARD (Germany) and the BBC, with fieldwork by Oxford Research International, found that 41% of Iraqis thought the war had humiliated Iraq.
The act of scrawling an obscene insult – "*beep* Iraq and every Iraqi in it!" on a bedroom mirror during a house raid – may appear an isolated, inconsequential event, but a single act of this sort can reaffirm nationalist tendencies in an entire neighbourhood and colour its perception of the American mission (see Ali Fadhil, "City of Ghosts��, Guardian, 11 January 2005)
United States marines, searching for insurgents in Ramadi, randomly kicked in the doors of houses to shout at the women inside: "'Where's your black mask?' and 'Bitch, where's the guns?'"(see ��When deadly force bumps into hearts and minds��, Economist, 29 December 2005). These soldiers were not taught in advance to respect human decencies and Iraqi cultural norms; the violation involved here is also of the honour of male family members, who in response are likely to seek retaliation for the mistreatment of their wives and sisters.
Humiliation and degradation are ancient and explosive weapons of war, and inevitably produce a backlash. In cultures where the concept of honour is profound, those who humiliate and dehumanise do so at their peril. In doing so, they put a much wider group of citizens at risk. |
This is key: many terrorist attacks are preformed out of a sense of humiliation. Occupation is not a nice thing - and no one would wish to exist under such conditions, so much so, that the only way to achieve some sort of independence and freedom is to strike out without reservation and with as much force as possible.
| Quote: |
| There is a direct link between the humiliation and trauma of occupation, and political violence. In an atmosphere of chaos and humiliation, fundamentalism offers a firm philosophy which can give the impression of certainty in an uncertain world. For those suffering the indignities of occupation with the sense of helplessness, to identify with strict codes of practice can offer emotional relief. |
An excellent point - I have tried to intimate this thought many times to many different people. People without hope will gravitate towards a faith that will take some of the pressure away from themselves and place them among people that have the same feelings of humiliation, hoplessness, and despair. Give them a strong message and a hopeful message to follow and they will do whatever is necessary to accomplish the fundamental goal of the group.
| Quote: |
The cycles of violence
Individuals, as well as communities or nations, get caught up in deadly cycles of violence. These cycles are deadly because they ensure that one conflict leads straight into another, often involving more and more killing. The classic cycle of violence has roughly seven stages and this diagram shows how it works in the human psyche, at the
level of emotions. The prevention of terrorism, if it is possible, must operate at a human level. The origins of the cycle can only be dismantled within the individual human mind and heart.
Intervention is needed at the point before anger hardens into bitterness, revenge and retaliation. To be effective it must address the physical, the political and the psychological security of people trapped in violence; all are equally important, and one without the other is insufficiently strong to break the cycle.
That is why strategies for reducing terror must address simultaneously the physical, psychological and political dimensions of security, and seek to combine political negotiation and formal agreements with changes in everyday life and behaviour.
|
Is it so far off a concept to understand, that like any of us who experience a trauma - and many of the people that are in these areas are experiencing much more extreme traumas on a daily basis than any of us will ever, ever have to endure- these people need time to heal and to be understood and to understand that we are not the enemy.
Without the intervention, the cycle will not stop - it cannot - and we will continue to fight the next generation and the next generation and the next - because no matter how violent or crass we become - there is always a next generation to piss off.
| Quote: |
What is to be done?
The implications of this approach, and the accumulated experience it embodies, suggest five principles to guide an alternative strategy for addressing the problem of terrorism:
1. avoid, wherever possible, using more violence
2. show respect
3. deep listening
4. engage civil society
5. involve women |
1. Like I mentioned before, this is often used in all aspects of our lives, but it seems to fall by the wayside in international relations. I know that it can never be as easy as a kid in the school ground, but core to dealing with violence in all psychological issues relies upon an intervention where all violence is either absent or used as a last resort (in a limited role)
2. This is where I feel that much of the wetern world is extremely lacking, the author points out isolated events in Iraq performed by ignorant people. But I see it everyday in my life, the majority of people are hostile to those who are not like them - in manners, in colour, in demeanor, in culture, in religion, etc. All it does is breed alienation and futher hostility, much like the cycle the author has illustrated.
3. Also a very core part of healing and understanding, yet often nations are deaf to the concerns of others. More alienation, anger, and the need for some sort of retaliation ensues.
4. I know there are programs which involve some modicum of public relations within Iraq, yet it often seems plastic and insincere. There needs to be a more open and rigid involvement of Iraqi ( and other civil society) in the transformation of Iraq. To change the minds of the people you must understand the minds of the people - there is no other way to end this conflict.
5. I am not even going to touch this one..... 
| Quote: |
American obstacle and British challenge
None of these five principles would easily be endorsed or approved of by George W Bush. But, in the two main theatres of his ��war on terror��, his own methods have not worked.
Afghanistan has an unstable government which controls little beyond Kabul; most of the country is off-limits to aid workers; heroin cultivation now accounts for 60% of Afghanistan��s economy; and a resurgent Taliban, better equipped and funded than ever before, is mounting a campaign of bombings and killings.
Iraq is torn by relentless violence, which many fear will descend into civil war. The regular, devastating suicide bombings are only the most visible sign of a society, polity and country in deep crisis.
These situations could get much worse. Insurgents in Baghdad or Kabul (or Washington or London) could use chemical weapons or fatally pollute water supplies, and expose the utter defenceless of citizens in the face of (real) ��weapons of mass destruction��.
War, conflict and intimidation - from Afghanistan and Iraq to Madrid and London - pose huge challenges of human security and peacebuilding. To halt the cycles of violence, the world needs a public debate about new, creative ways of addressing terrorism. In Britain, this should include the question of whether it would be wise to decouple from a dangerous United States ally and chart a more independent security path.
In the second half of 2005, Britain holds the presidency of the European Union and of the G8. This is a precious opportunity for the government and its citizens to work with the rest of the world towards using methods that stand a chance of undermining terror.
|
I am not saying that all these things will work, however, the present methods are not working, and all it seems we are doing is sitting and waiting to see what terrorist attack is going to happen.... and sadly, it seems we generally compare and contrast it with 9/11 and that is really scary, because it at the same time seems to show us thinking that nothing can be as big as it, while at the same time showing our fear that there will eventually be an event that eclipses it....
It may be time to rethink everything.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jlb
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, thanks for the link jlb! There are few people at this time who want to actually think before they act - ie obliterate the enemy - hurt me, I will hurt you, without actually thinking about what they are doing. There is little comprehension for walking a mile in the other person's shoes at all - In fact there is very little impedous to humanise the victim, since it has become so much a part of the Military- Industrial complex, that many people do not even realize this is what they do on a daily basis...
Check out this link to the Micheal Iganatieff article as well - it deals with the idea that the spreading of democracy (in the American/Western sense may not be the best of tactics for world peace, or the "War on Terror."
..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bignate I respect your opinion.
Mideast regimes were all very successful at fighting terror movements in their countries. Look at what Egypt did to Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Futhermore the mideast street never got upset when Saddam gassed the Kurds, or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama or when 60,000 were killed in Algeria's civil war, nor did they hold demos when Khomeni killed 30,000 political prisioners in 1988.Bin Laden has certainly killed muslims. What relgion was the northern alliance?
Here is the hard truth of the mideast this is by Robert Fisk a left wing writer that I don't agree with.
| Quote: |
As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone �� allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities �� could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I also respect your opinion...
However, the blame game is over, the war game has begun, and frankly, I cannot see anyone being safer.....
If the Arab World, at least the Fundamentalists, have no understanding of the wrong theyu are doing, then it is up to us to make them understand - and frankly Joo, it will not come out of violence or weaponry - it won't work and it hasn't.
I just think if something is not working we should change it and change it wholly..
Let us forget the pain and get on with the healing.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In the mideast people can choose decent leaders when they are free of the cults of personality- see the Palestinians. Their leader is Abu Mazen, I think he is a responsible statesman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| In the mideast people can choose decent leaders when they are free of the cults of personality- see the Palestinians. Their leader is Abu Mazen, I think he is a responsible statesman. |
Yes, I hope that is true, and I hope that he is enough of a statesman to ensure legitimacy for both the Israeli and Palestinian side.
However, I wish that the upcoming regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan will become more moderate... however - it does not seem likely..any time soon. Thus the need for an overall strategy change... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that for the larger populous in Islam that has sympathies for the radical fundamentalists you cannot simply use violence. I think the United States needs to show itself open to humanitarian impulses when possible, but it cannot leave itself vulnerable (As it did in Somalia).
As for the intervention required at the anger stage for many of these Muslims who have suffered, well, who would be the best agents for this kind of mediation? Certainly not Americans or Israelis, and doubtfully even the British (Indians, Russians, too, the list is long). The best agents would be Muslims/Arabs themselves. But what organizations are out there for this kind of suppport? The tricky thing is this, the attitude of the Islamic world is so hostile against America and particularly Israel that neither can openly support any movement inside the ME. As I see it, all both governments can do is keep a lid on the situation and fight people who have already made it to the 'retaliation' stage. If pacificist Europe or any other neutral party wishes to come in and intervene as a neutral 3rd party, please do so!
| Bignate wrote: |
| the present methods are not working, and all it seems we are doing is sitting and waiting to see what terrorist attack is going to happen |
I don't entirely agree with that characterization. Nobody without security clearance really knows exactly what the present methods are. We can see and evaluate progress or the lack thereof in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the 'War on Terror' has many fronts.
On many fronts, Bush has chosen (perhaps merely because of logistical limits) not to spread democracy. Indeed, in Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt, the United States has openly supported non-democratic regimes. The policy of the United States in the ME is not actually to spread democracy by force, but actually it is to ignite the spark to the flame in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is up to democratic reformers as well as their opponents in the ME to adjust to this action. What Bush has done in Iraq is he has said American forces will aid those who stand up for democracy and liberalism. But the two real problems are that in other important arenas American policy has supported dictators, and meanwhile any movement that has any association in the ME is discredited by their association with the US (I would argue that as a reality before the invasion of Iraq, although one must admit that it is worse now).
I have some sympathy for Bush because I've read a letter by him where he points to the Arab leaders of the region and basically tells them (paraphrasing) that they need to hold up their end. He's right, and the letter didn't strike me as a blame game kind of a letter so much as a 'c'mon, guys, let's be real about the situation.' But can Bush stop supporting Musharref in Pakistan? Well, he is a weak dictator sitting on nuclear weapons, and is (very reluctantly and very ineffectually) 'helping' the war on terror. What about Mubarrak in Egypt? If a democracy were to spring up in Egypt, its very likely an anti-American, anti-Israeli belligerent might rise to power. Would this help the cycle of anger and atrocity?
Let's address Mazin, however, because he is a useful case. Here is someone that Sharon has gone to lengths to legitimize because he thinks he can work with him. Sharon even freed many Palestinians/other Arab nationals to strengthen Mazin's support. Yet, we are being told that Hamas is gaining power because the peace process is not coming along quickly enough for many. Recently there was a strike against Israel and Israel retaliated (Does Israel merit intervention in this cycle, or is it just part of the problem?). What organization can do what do lay support for the peace process and get to those people who need to be reached at the anger stage?
It really is a challenge, isn't it? I like this thread and I really like what the OP has put out here, so I don't want to come across as aggressive (i.e. Okay, solve the crisis in the ME in two posts, smart guy!). It's just the situation is so damned difficult there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand why we can't allow Musharraf to fall. While I think Pakistan has a bad reputation (not helped by the London bombings), and think that your avg. Pakistani is quite liberal-by Muslim standards- there is a big segment that is as bad as the Taliban. Unfortunately that segment has influence and could potenitally take over the country. Probably not for long, but it doesn't take long to use nukes does it?
But egypt.. So what if an anti-american gov't comes to power? I say let them screw up and alienate the people as long as they follow democracy and adhere to whatever election system has been set up. Iran is a perfect example. A lot of the population has become disillusioned with the gov't and Islam, and is very pro-American. Unfortunately Iran is not a democracy and the people have no real way to boot the conservatives out of power besides revolution, which I don't think will happen anytime soon.
America has to come up with a new method to fight terrorists. Warfare is not the answer simply because the US does not have the strength to be barbaric; that is the only way to eliminate terrorism through force. It worked for Assad in Syria and for the Egyptians back in the 90s. For better or worse, the US simply cannot be that ruthless because of the political repurcussions both home and abroad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
