Privacy and the State

[Richard Barrett]

I assume you now believe that such 'acts of war' have little connection with 'terrorism' and are therefore irrelevant to this discussion?

Then you are mistaken. The fact that there's a connection betwen two things doesn't make them the same thing. Discussing anything with you is really a waste of time, I should have remembered that, but luckily now I have.

[ahinton]

... which, as I've been saying, is always the motivation, even if religion (or race, or nationality) is brought in as a way of fostering a simply-understood collective identity. But "wishing to establish Sharia law" and other such ideas routinely cited by politicians and islamophobes is vanishingly unlikely to be cited by attackers themselves as the motivation for their actions. Here (I've been searching for this article since yesterday!), Glenn Greenwald quotes several Muslim terrorists on their motivations, centring his arguments on the USA although they're certainly germane to the arguments presented in this discussion. I recommend that all contributors here read the article, but here anyway are two paragraphs from it:

Thank you very much for taking the trouble to seek out this article; I'm sorry that it took so much time to find but, believe me, it was well worth your effort. I've not yet read it in toto but will do shortly; however, if what I have so far read (i.e. the extract that you quote above) were to become a majority view of such matters (if only!), vast progress would have been made.

[scottycelt]

I don't think it's a flaw. When we talk of Northern Ireland, we (more often than not) use the euphemistic terms 'Nationalist' and 'Loyalist', but surely we recognise the history? It's unlikely that there have ever been many wars fought for the finer points of dogma, but the finer points of dogma give the justification for the cultural differences. You're either 'one of us' or 'one of them' - usually from birth. Children (who are usually too young to decide) are labelled one or the other. It's not as though genuine political grievances turn one into a Catholic or a Protestant.

But anyway, this obscures my point, which was to clarify that Shia and Sunni Muslims follow different interpretations of Islam No doubt they now kill each other just because they are labelled 'Shia' or 'Sunni' and each group is either acceptable or not - for religious, historical, political or whatever reasons. It's unrealistic, though, to absolve religion because people don't kill each other specifically over 'religious dogma'. And yet in some places, people are killed for being heretics, apostates or whatever. Abortion clinics in the southern USA are bombed (and occasionally doctors murdered) for reasons that stem from religion. Youngsters are killed in several African countries for being witches ("thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"). Even the Salvaton Army (the Salvation Army !!!) in the USA has come out saying that homosexuals should be put to death (but we won't do it, 'cause we obey the law) because the Bible says so - http://tgvnews.com/2013/06/salvation...-put-to-death/.

There has been much killing of Protestants or Catholics over the years, just because they have those labels. Whether it's fair to call it 'religious', I couldn't say (not having ever been religious) but it certainly seems a better label than non-religious. :erm:

I agree that there are some pretty dreadful people around in all religions (and none).

However, I tend to concur with ff that religious labels are not entirely accurate. For example in Ireland there have been many examples of Protestants who were (are) Irish Nationalists. Catholics in Northern Ireland vote for Unionist parties as the incomparable Rev Ian Paisley snr has occasionally pointed out. Therefore Nationalist and Unionist are genuinely more accurate labels, though it could well be argued that most people in N Ireland are by now pretty much sick of any extremist talk from either 'tradition' and just want to live in peace whether they be Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. They are the true majority.

Labels are never wholly satisfactory. Religion is often used as an excuse for fighting but sometimes the issue is indeed merely 'tribalism' whether it be Ulster or Iraq. Football fans are notoriously 'tribal' and some use the sport to attack those in football 'tribes' elsewhere. If it wasn't over football or 'religion' it would be over something else.

[amateur51]

Now you're redefining terrorism to include any act of war, yes? You must be exhausted from all that goalpost-moving.

You noticed?! He's very good at that :smiley:

[amateur51]

But surely, that is one flaw in an otherwise cogently argued post? Protestant and Catholics do not kill each other now over 'religious dogma' or what they find in the Old Testament: they kill each other now, sporadically, over politics. Nor have I heard of a Christian cleric suggesting they should kill each other. If there were one such, I would concede that some would hearken to the call, but would that be because they were 'devout Christians' or because of other underlying motives?

Do you mean that religion is not political, french frank? :devil:

[Richard Barrett]

You noticed?!

I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes and assume that people actually want to discuss things instead of obtusely muddying the waters.

Anyway: if the terrorists cited by Greenwald are telling the truth about their motivations (and why should they not? - one of the principal purposes of terrorism is to attract publicity to a political cause), why is it that these motivations are generally sidestepped, and instead couched by politicians and media in religious terms? The reduction of politics to race/nationality/religion is something that's generally associated with some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, isn't it? Why is it that our rulers - and those who seem to accept their word as gospel despite their serious form as deceivers - are repeating those brutal simplifications now (together with the creeping culture of surveillance which began this thread and which of course is also a hallmark of totalitarian regimes)?

[Pabmusic]

...if the terrorists cited by Greenwald are telling the truth about their motivations (and why should they not? - one of the principal purposes of terrorism is to attract publicity to a political cause), why is it that these motivations are generally sidestepped, and instead couched by politicians and media in religious terms?...

I don't think they are sidestepped. From my perspective, most commentators are only too willing to support a non-religious cause for hatred, rather than been seen as 'Islamophobic'. Anyway, here's an antidote to the Greenwald article, which I link only for balance (I don't want to rely too much on "this authority says.." and I won't link any more):

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-and-the-misuses-of-ecstasy

[french frank]

You're either 'one of us' or 'one of them' - usually from birth.

Yes, I withdraw my comment. I was going to say, what about football, but that seems to be a religion with some people in that sense.

I was quibbling about the use of the word 'dogma' itself - as laid down authoritatively by the church or sect: ancient scripture as embodying such teaching - but as you say, it has seldom been the case that people went to war over dogma.

That being the point: that we don't say commonly refer to Protestant v Catholic violence as 'Christian'. So why should Sunni v Shia not be 'tribal' rather than Islamic? History is more important than dogma, isn't it?

As a footnote: it was the Plantation of Ulster that put Scottish (and English) Protestants among the Catholics, and the later Irish immigration that put Catholics in areas of Scotland. In both cases it could be seen as 'foreign' interference with 'them' entering territory that was 'ours'.

[scottycelt]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes and assume that people actually want to discuss things instead of obtusely muddying the waters.?

Don't be so over-modest. You're not slow on the uptake at all.

What you mean by 'muddying the waters' is simply that you are so keen to blame Western countries' invasion of overseas territories for modern urban terrorism and don't wish to discuss invasions, civil wars and associated terrorist atrocities involving only Moslem states as those are extremely inconvenient to your case, and therefore grossly weaken your claim as to the root cause of the problem.

Nobody else (apart from the inevitable and mischievous single-line interjection from my old sparring partner, amsey!) seems to have objected to myself simply pointing out already well-known examples of tribal (or religious) strife between Moslem and Moslem, Moslem and Buddhist, Moslem and Christian etc, etc , which have absolutely nothing to do with Western military adventures, so why did you see fit to do so?

[french frank]

Nobody else (apart from the inevitable and mischievous single-line interjection from my old sparring partner, amsey!) seems to have objected to myself simply pointing out already well-known examples of tribal (or religious) strife between Moslem and Moslem, Moslem and Buddhist, Moslem and Christian etc, etc , which have absolutely nothing to do with Western military adventures, so why did you see fit to do so?

I wouldn't object because it doesn't seem strictly relevant. Surely the point is that there are usually reasons for these atrocities - reasons of some sort (as I've suggested at the more local level between Protestants and Catholics) - where between Christian and Christian there is an explanation, be it about territory, power or influence. But it's because the two groups find themselves in close proximity, rubbing each other up the wrong way: or there's some sort of interaction between the two groups. It would explain inter Muslim hostility and hostility against the West too. If they were left alone by the West, what reason would they have to commit these atrocities? Is it suggested that they're trying to convert the rest of the world to Islam?

[scottycelt]

I wouldn't object because it doesn't seem strictly relevant. Surely the point is that there are usually reasons for these atrocities - reasons of some sort (as I've suggested at the more local level between Protestants and Catholics) - where between Christian and Christian there is an explanation, be it about territory, power or influence. But it's because the two groups find themselves in close proximity, rubbing each other up the wrong way: or there's some sort of interaction between the two groups. It would explain inter Muslim hostility and hostility against the West too. If they were left alone by the West, what reason would they have to commit these atrocities? Is it suggested that they're trying to convert the rest of the world to Islam?

Well, of course, how does one get into the mind of a terrorist? My point is merely to dispute the notion that the behaviour of Western powers in the world is relevant to hatred (which it is) and that of Moslem countries is somehow irrelevant.

Terrorist bombs are killing innocent people all over the world in countries which have had no connection with either the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan. There can be many different excuses for blowing-up innocent people but no justifiable reason.

As far as I know UK troops are no longer in Iraq and very shortly won't be in Afghanistan as well. Will the UK terrorist outrages suddenly stop when all our troops are withdrawn?

I sincerely hope so but ...

[Serial_Apologist]

I wouldn't object because it doesn't seem strictly relevant. Surely the point is that there are usually reasons for these atrocities - reasons of some sort (as I've suggested at the more local level between Protestants and Catholics) - where between Christian and Christian there is an explanation, be it about territory, power or influence. But it's because the two groups find themselves in close proximity, rubbing each other up the wrong way: or there's some sort of interaction between the two groups. It would explain inter Muslim hostility and hostility against the West too. If they were left alone by the West, what reason would they have to commit these atrocities? Is it suggested that they're trying to convert the rest of the world to Islam?

Some appear to want to establish a new dominating world caliphate, if one's reading of what has frequently been declared by "radical Islamists" over several years now is anything to go by, notwithstanding the stated motives of those courting terrorism cited by Richard in #253.

Having watched last night's documentary on the previously unobserved behaviour of neighbouring domesticated cats, who "time-share" their patrolling and hunting zones to avoid conflict as much as possible, leads one to conclusions as to their superior intelligence to humans. Our human obsession with activity, general "busyness" and difficulty in making "chilling out" the desirable goal of technology, flows from bad politics; and in not resolving basic needs, bad politics has the effect from time to time of rekindling ancient hostilities that may have lain dormant for tens if not hundreds of years, because that's what bad politics need - group think dependent on fostering a targettable "enemy" - or at any rate those who benefit thereby by promulgating them.

What is so devastating is that resolving the politics takes second place while we deal with the immediacy of the threat - one for which I, for one, do not feel prepared to sacrifice by life to some purported "greater good", whether that be strengthening the armed wing of the capitalist state or a guaranteed future in Paradise.

[MrGongGong]

There can be many different excuses for blowing-up innocent people but no justifiable reason.

Indeed
I'm assuming this applies to everyone ?
which does include our own governments actions as well as the usual suspects
maybe the point that many miss is that we CAN do something about things done in our name
and precious little about the actions of others

(of course for some folk , history shows that they DID get what they sought by blowing up innocent people ..........but i'm not an expert on the history of Israel )

[Richard Barrett]

Some appear to want to establish a new dominating world caliphate, if one's reading of what has frequently been declared by "radical Islamists" over several years now is anything to go by

Some, but very few indeed I think, and even among those, the goal is a theocratic unification of the Muslim world, rather than its extension to presently non-Muslim lands. That at least is my understanding, and if anyone has facts and figures (ie. not unsubstantiated opinions and prejudices) these would be a very welcome contribution.

But of course I agree completely with your point about resolving the politics, rather than the increasing curtailment of the liberties that are supposed to be fundamental to the way we live. I would have thought that what the NSA is doing is in direct breach of the US Constitution's fourth amendment, which reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[french frank]

As far as I know UK troops are no longer in Iraq and very shortly won't be in Afghanistan as well. Will the UK terrorist outrages suddenly stop when all our troops are withdrawn?

I sincerely hope so but ...

Indeed. And leaving both countries at last in a state of peace and economic prosperity .... But there might still be a wish to teach the West a lesson to keep out of internal affairs that don't concern them.

For instance, if two sides are in armed conflict with each other, like government and Taliban rebels, those who go in and take one side against the other are likely to provoke hostility and hatred from the other side. And in Syria, providing arms to the government against the rebels ... oh, but wait - here the arms are going to the rebels against the government, aren't they? Well, someone isn't going to like it -