The Forum > Article Comments > War on Terror threatens solutions to terrorism > Comments
War on Terror threatens solutions to terrorism : Comments
By George Williams and Edwina MacDonald, published 2/10/2006Academic research is being chilled just at the time it could provide real insights into how to fight the War on Terror
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 6:30:46 AM
| |
Boaz
Thanks for replying so comprehensively mate. OLO editors have just given my 5 different messages of how to reply. I don't think they like our discussing things Off Topic. Perhaps visit my blog sometime. Regards Pete http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/ Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 12:21:49 PM
| |
Gulp...swallow... umm.. I thought I was on topic :)
Yes, Pete, I've seen your blog. I read bits and pieces. TOPIC It seems to me that once the ball is rolling to counteract something which is perceived as a problem, such as radical Islam, then the original problem becomes worst, as it in turn reacts to the reaction, and so it goes on. We should not lose sight though, of the original problem. Nor should we allow ourselves to be swayed by those who seek to misrepresent the turmoil in terms of 'but you started it' (meaning Western intervention) I still recall how the Palestinians justified a bus bombing they did after 3 months of 'nothing'. No one was shooting at each other, peace was taking root....then KA-BOOOM... up goes a bus in Israel. The excuse was 'ooh..but Israel is occupying' duh.....basically this just was code for 'we want attention on us again' The Palestinian situation should not be underestimated in terms of being the root cause of much Islamic terrorism. But the Muslim + Left winger solution is totally naive and incompatable with reality, and my own view of 'theological inevitability'. Today, for the record, I heard of 4 'Christian Activists' who broke into Pine Gap. This act is a clear crime and I hope they throw the book at these misguided twits. If ur gonna protest.. PROTEST but lets not bring our Lords name into something He clearly taught us NOT to do. "That which is Caesars, give to Caesar" Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 4 October 2006 9:06:24 PM
| |
An additional problem with George's suggestion that academics can legally meet terrorists is that it gives terrorists and their causes LEGITIMACY.
It gives terrorists (if they so wish) a podium through the academic's works (which presumably also carry an immunity) to possibly advocate violence against Australians. Furthermore academic immunity can logically mean a terrorist's immunity from the law. George suggests each academic be given a specific immunity to meet terrorists. Is he then suggesting that security services cannot intervene in a given academic-terrorist meeting to arrest the terrorist? Would such an arrest be seen as disrupting a new legal academic process? Wouldn't capturing the terrorist and questioning him produce material of use to academics? Or is there an unstated assumption that an academic should be sympathetic to the terrorist to get a 'good' result? Something for OLO's selfless anti-authority heroes to think about. For more free insights read http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com . Pete Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 6 October 2006 12:09:08 AM
| |
I still find it bizare we are sweating over terrorists with the strike power of gnat and the organisational capacity of G W Bush in the face of wind and rain in New Orleans - and no one seems to lose much sleep over N Korea -
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 6 October 2006 9:28:14 AM
| |
Sneekee
Your statement is untrue on the terrorism and North Korea portion. I agree with the New Orleans bit though. Interesting to see what OLO articles come up on the latest North Korean crisis. We can discuss many of the efforts concerning North Korea then - if it ain't WWIII already ;-) Pete Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 6 October 2006 11:02:38 AM
|
I'm kinda scratching my head at the moment...asking "Does Pete by any chance think that factsheet thingy is a reflection of real White House policy"? hmmmmmm....
I could imagine some hyper fundamentalist "America 4Eva" types thinking that way, but never in published form :)
That was a projection of the worst fantasies of Democrats about the Republican mind to gain political advantage.
It is suggesting that the basic ingredients of propoganda are at work
a) Dehumanize your enemy
b) Show how invading them is a noble thing.
I'm not so naive as to think that there would not be rabid individuals and corporate interests pushing the Iraq agenda, and I have to condemn such things in the name of God. (Have a read of the book of Amos, the first 2 chapters. see if you notice how God views these things :) c'mon. be adventurous and see it you notice something rather interesting about the nations mentioned, their geographical location, and the final 'target' of Gods anger.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=37&chapter=1&version=31
You could imagine a very changed color of Jewish faces when good ol Amos gets up to chapter 2 verse 4. Prior to that, they would have been cheering him on.
To the extent that 'evil' and greed is driving the White house agenda, to that degree they will in fact cause terrorism to thrive and grow.
I watched a very good doco on Black Hawk down last night. The anger the Somali's felt was driven by one major event. The Americans arranged a meeting of both moderate (anti Aidid) leaders and Pro Aidid leaders, at which they were to work out how to resolve the problem of Aidids ambitions and callous disregard for the people (Hijacking food aid) etc.. well.. it appears either a deliberate or accidental rocketing of that meeting and the killing of most of those leaders alienated the whole Somali community in one go.
So, a war on terror per-se should not neccessarily create more terror, only when it is driven by the types of attitudes Amos condemns will it create more terrorists. ( I think :)