Those involved in the field of terrorism or counter-terrorism (intelligence, academic and policy) cannot ignore the impact of our international relations and international economic policies on terrorism. No country operates in a vacuum and less so with globalisation.

There are two facets to counter-terrorism 1) Fighting terrorism directly through intelligence and law enforcement agencies which rely on 'information' and 2) Prevention. Prevention encompasses inclusion of disenfranchised groups domestically - reducing the frequency of home-grown terrorism or grooming and prevention from a wider perspective - understanding the root causes of terrorism and casting a critical eye over Western economic and international policies and their impact (both positive and negative).

For those with their own agendas, like Polycarp, to imply attention to these factors is to be sympathetic to acts of terrorism or terrorists is more dangerous in a free and democratic society than he realises. If this is the case Polly better call for the arrest of many public servants and strategists in the Australian Government who are working on these very issues.

There are none so blind as the bigoted.

Now let me present to you Dr BOAZ as detached scholar extraordinaire.

<<Actually.... the point of the thread was not so much to say "Bendle Good"/ "Burke bad" But to ask the question "Critical Terrorism studies"..what is it?>>

He makes a promising start:
<<If it is as Bendle says...then it is indeed a cause for concern. If it is not...then what is it?...Bendle makes some fairly chunky claims..and they are based on quotes of Burke.. So.. it might come back to whether he has rightly interpreted Burke?>>

So now on to the argument that will prove the point once and for all. Dr BOAZ offers (drumroll please):

<<Here is a pearl of Burke wisdom (source http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news301.html)>> Tantalising.

We rush to the link with bated breath... An ancient Adelaide University media notice (half a page) about a conference at which Burke's book was to be launched - in 2001.

Dr BOAZ then selects a few words from this ancient parchment and paraphrases the very thin synopsis of the book.

On this altogether overpowering basis, Dr BOAZ is somehow able to contrive this astonishing conclusion:
<<Key words "None coercive/Global existence" and thus.. he proves Bendle absolutely correct about him.>>

Bendle "absolutely correct" about Burke on the basis of an old half-page book notice? Hand the man an extra Ph D at once. He's a genius.

He doesn't even need to read the book to know it's tripe because Bendle says so. Looks like Bendle good/Burke bad to me Dr BOAZ.

And so our genius marches on to his stunning and inexorable conclusion: <<If this is the tripe our defense force graduates will be fed, God help Australia..because our military won't be able. Please note.. I've focused on the actual topic.."what is it">>

Please note all OLO readers: you have all been fully informed on the question, "Critical Terrorism studies..what is it?"

Excuse me Polly, could you run that all past me again please. I think I missed something.

Attention Post modernist/ neo-Marksists. (polycarp knows the words but not the meaning)
I protest I absolutely protest.
I used to like Polywaffles they were tasty...You've spoilt a fond childhood memory.

Polly= Many
Carp = smelly feral fish or constant whinging without valid purpose.
Sounds about right to me.

Who amongst us are swayed to the point of intellectual paralysis by a lecturer once our brains mature? Only those whose minds are inclined to be afflicted with "forward looking traditionalists" (satirist from Matilda).

What an insult to our military officers and their training. >100% motivation (?)> To do what? They are there to a job not some unholy jihad (that’s terrorism).

General Sun Tzu in “the art of war” maintains that a good soldier is one who avoids a war as there are never any winners.

Even a two string Chinese Violin is capable of more than one song.

That's a good point, eAnt.

What would be the fate of our defence forces if they were taught by that wooly-woofter wussy left-wing appeaser, Sun Tzu?

They would have to listen to stuff like:

"If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing; and if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him"

Run away, run away! Monty Python would be proud.

"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost"

That's pretty motivational, isn't it, having to check with the accountants first.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

So, it's true! Appeasement all the way. Jaw jaw is better than war war and all that.

"You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."

That's pretty butch. Only fight when there's no-one to fight back.

And he's at it again:

"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."

What an example he is to us all, to be sure.

But we may be doing the old boy an injustice, and the inclusion in ADFA's curriculum of Critical Terrorism Studies à la Burke is all part of the genius that is Sun Tzu...

"Pretend inferiority and encourage [the enemy's] arrogance"

Dear Pelican

I think you are missing something there.. about where I'm coming from.

When I started reading your post it sounded like you are on the same page as I, but then you went into a bit of a rant.

Still.. there are good points to your post.

Specially the:

2) Prevention. Prevention encompasses inclusion of disenfranchised groups domestically.

bit.

Now.. while it sounds good on the surface, it does not seem to recognize a very important issue.

Firstly, you may need to define

-'inclusion'
-'disenfranchised'

a bit more.

What do you mean by Inclusion? If they hold values which are diametrically opposed to ours, is this possible?
If their 'disenfranchised' state is based on their support for those fighting states with whom we have a military alliance... are we to dissolve that alliance to make them happy?

If they are supporting the enemies of our allies, because they wish to take over interests controlled by our allies, (for example, Israeli land, destroying US property, killing Australian troops in Afghanistan) how can anything but utter contempt for them be justified?

I'm sorry but in some cases (and this is where Burkes analysis falls down) it simply is not possible to resolve such differences of view.
IF those differences are supported by stubbornly held theological positions (see the article "Ramadan") then it is more problematical is it not?

The assumption which appears to be behind the 'Critical' Terrorism studies is a kind of universal one world (socialist) government.....
a utopia where no one can fight anyone because they are all one.
This completely ignores race, tribe, religion and history and very dangerously so!

There's little point in trying to rescue yourself from an untenable position, Boaz. Remember the old adage: when you are at the bottom of a deep hole... stop digging.

>>Now.. while it sounds good on the surface, it does not seem to recognize a very important issue. Firstly, you may need to define -'inclusion'-'disenfranchised' a bit more.<<

The first aspect of note on this little piece of petty nitpicking is that you didn't even have the courtesy to quote Pelican's sentence in full. Which reads:

"reducing the frequency of home-grown terrorism or grooming and prevention from a wider perspective - understanding the root causes of terrorism and casting a critical eye over Western economic and international policies and their impact (both positive and negative)"

Quite obviously, the common-or-garden definitions that you find in any respectable dictionary work with this additional information.

Sun Tzu had it pretty well sussed.

"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril"

Loved this bit of logic, too.

>>If they are supporting the enemies of our allies...(for example... killing Australian troops in Afghanistan) how can anything but utter contempt for them be justified?<<

Do you perhaps recall that only recently, you were wittering on that the British somehow had no right to send soldiers to Belfast.

Whereas Northern Ireland had consistently voted to be ruled from Westminster, I have yet to see a similar franchise out of Kabul in relation to Australian troops.

But then again, your logic is constantly at the disposal of your zealotry, is it not.

Sun Tzu again:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."