Terrorism

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Sounds like intellectual BS to me... I've lived this year as a nomad within the USA. It is simply the nature of my work and lifestyle at the moment.

Hi CPi

Sounds to me like you've got lots of split hairs. The fact remains that especially in America, everyone is addressable and watchable, especially under this administration; and, especially if you're online, or especially if you use a wireless. You're fooling yourself if you think that just by traveling around the country you're living a nomadic life.

Living off of the resources of the land is what a nomad does. Bet you visit the "inns of the golden arches" every so often. It is an "illusion of freedom" to fool yourself in such ways. But if you're happy with your lot and satified with your life...hey, that's all, anybody needs.

And now for my favorite Italian folk proverb;

Your eyes may gleam and your teeth may glitter,
but you can't Bulls**t an old Bulls****er.

And thank you for the compliment, but I'm no intellectual either. I used to work with some...ugh !

flow....

[bob x]

Basques and Celts were, in the main wandering, herders in ancient times. Ceylonese were hunters/gatherers

So were ALL human beings. You are trying to make one side "more" descended from primevals wanderers than the other: but Scotch-Irish Protestants were no less "Celtic" than Irish Catholics; Tamils and Sinhalese have equally hunter-gatherer ancestors; the Iberians were no less herdsmen than Basques.
What bothers me is to see so many people trying to make *excuses* for this conduct. There are massive gang-rapes going on in the Congo and Darfur now, as there were during the Yugoslav wars, and such things have been known to happen in wars throughout history. And yet we don't get otherwise liberal people telling us, gee, gang-rape is a natural response to their oppressed condition, it has deep roots in their culture, etc.

[DrFree]

Thank you, Cyberpi, for a well-reasoned entry in the brainstorming.

In many ways for recommendation for local, more pervasive democracy is a corollary of Jesus's declaration that the second greatest law is to love your neighbor as yourself. True love, I suggest, means accepting your loved ones as themselves, not as extensions of yourself. That means accepting their choices and decisions, at least those that do not directly harm others, even when they don't coincide with what you want for them.

Namiste.

[Tao_Equus]

lmao... well i wish I could....but when I read people that cannot even be bothered to try to understand what is meant rather than what they want to read...well i can only cry a little in frustration.

If I wanted to carry on exercises in futility...well I might stay here and try....but... it really dont mean that much to me.

sad day.

Tao

[DrFree]

Hi, Chris,

Thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Do we really want the competition from a first world Middle East? Isn't it better for us to preserve our economic and technological hegemony? Seriously, there aren't enough natural resources for everyone to enjoy our standard of living. Shouldn't our top concern be our own well being? I don't think it's ever been explained to the American public how what we're doing in Iraq supports our national interest. What exactly does our government hope to achieve? I know it's about securing oil, but how exactly does that play out? What's the fifty year plan?

I don't believe that global economics is a zero-sum game, despite what your hear from protectionist populists and corporations. The more the third world enters the first world, the greater the wealth there will be to share, and the smaller our losses in war. This is true capitalism, ala The Economist, and the lesson of careful attention to economic history.

This is not to say that the West would not feel pain in such a transition. The rewards of true capitalism go to the industrious and innovative. There is much evidence that Americans think they are entitled to secure high wages despite falling productivity. They no longer want to work hard, either to learn science and math, or to apply industriously in their careers. Instead they want to get rich quick. It is not clear whether Americans can recover their industrious spirit of the Nineteenth Century in time to avoid falling into a relative second- or third- world status themselves by the end of the century.

Namiste.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by flowperson

The fact remains that especially in America, everyone is addressable and watchable, especially under this administration; and, especially if you're online, or especially if you use a wireless. You're fooling yourself if you think that just by traveling around the country you're living a nomadic life.

A nomad has a place of existance at all times, it just isn't fixed. Being a nomad doesn't mean hiding in secret not to be found, it means travelling with no fixed residence and living from the local land. Day by day as I am online I have an entirely different address. Today I am in Statesville, NC and my IP reflects that. Tomorrow I won't be.

Originally Posted by flowperson

Living off of the resources of the land is what a nomad does.

Everyone lives off the resources of the land. Do you not eat? Do you not drink?

Originally Posted by flowperson

Bet you visit the "inns of the golden arches" every so often.

I visit many places, as a Nomad does.

Originally Posted by flowperson

It is an "illusion of freedom" to fool yourself in such ways.

Sounds like you suffer from an "illusion of imprisonment".

[flowperson]

CPi... all that I can say to your "split haired" post is... KA!!! And I'm not refering to the Egyptian afterlife double thingy.

Have a nice day...in your own inimitable non-nomadic ways.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Hi, Chris,

Thanks for your reply.



I don't believe that global economics is a zero-sum game, despite what your hear from protectionist populists and corporations. The more the third world enters the first world, the greater the wealth there will be to share, and the smaller our losses in war. This is true capitalism, ala The Economist, and the lesson of careful attention to economic history.

This is not to say that the West would not feel pain in such a transition. The rewards of true capitalism go to the industrious and innovative. There is much evidence that Americans think they are entitled to secure high wages despite falling productivity. They no longer want to work hard, either to learn science and math, or to apply industriously in their careers. Instead they want to get rich quick. It is not clear whether Americans can recover their industrious spirit of the Nineteenth Century in time to avoid falling into a relative second- or third- world status themselves by the end of the century.

Namiste.

You mean the kind of nineteenth century industriousness portrayed by Upton Sinclair? I'm a blue collar man, doc. Working class- not even lower middle class. I know the difference between the economics of my situation and what the investor class likes to refer to as the economy. And I know where the water is coming from to float all those off shore boats. But I digress... I mean, it's inevitable so no use sticking one's head in the sand, right?

You tell me if you think I'm wrong. I think that what we're doing mainly is securing oil supplies and the shipping lanes to transport it. There's an urgency about it because we're looking over our collective shoulder at China's economy starting to growl it's thirst for that oil, and we know what's going to happen to the demand versus the supply of oil as Chinese demand really comes on line in a few years. I think that virtually every move being made on the grand geopolitical chessboard is a strategic positioning related directly to that. There are going to be three major power players in the near future: the US, the EU, and whatever pan Asian confederation emerges with China and India. The rest of the world will constitute the oceans of influence around those three economic continents.

Chris

[flowperson]

Spot on Chris.

flow....

[Tao_Equus]

Almost....but we forget Russia at our peril.

Tao

[Pathless]

It amazes me that in a thread that should be questioning the roots of terrorism, people are talking about "global power politics." Politics, especially on a global level, are the problem. Global politics boil down to a politics of imperialism, and if there are three or four "key players" competing for domination of the world, it should be clear that there are going to be some big losers all around--not to mention the meek of the Earth, who are constantly being killed, tortured, raped, and maimed for the fascist ambitions of imperial (christian?) capitalism.

If people in America are truly concerned about eradicating the roots of terrorism, we need to do some deep digging and collective soul-searching. We had a poignant, painful opportunity in the days immediately following 9/11, but took an opposite route of military retaliation and fascist sentimentalizing, each fueling the other. Now nearing 2008, we still, as a nation of people, or perhaps more accurately, as capitalists and complicit workers, haven't mustered the courage or even desire to take an honest look at the happenings in the world, and the role of Anglo-Saxon colonial and imperial ambitions in the mad rush and push over the cliff to hell.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Let's try to get beyond the glib and flippant, and try to examine more carefully some of the factors that lead to this response.

• The West has historically propped up unpopular rulers, such as the Shah of Iran. We supplied them with arms that upset the historical balance that enabled the downtrodden to rebel against corrupt tyranny.
• The West has exploited the resources of the Middle East, ensuring the flow of oil, without concern whether the common person benefitted.
• The West has treated the Middle East as quaint and primitive (see above), unready for full partnership in the world community, and certainly not ready to manage their own nuclear technology.
• The West organized and abetted the establishment of Israel, which is seen by Muslims not only as a theft of land, and a displacement of thousands of their people, but as a denial of the human rights of remaining Muslims to participate as equals in the new nation.
• The West, in particular the US, has refused to recognize that a Muslim's religious fervor is as sincere and legitimate as a Christian's or a Jew's.
• The West has continuously held the threat of war over the Middle East to keep them in their place.

Frankly, it is easy to understand why the Middle East is frustrated. Since the monarchs we have put in place are deeply invested in the status quo, just as we intended, the people are unable to fight back as nations. Therefore they fight back through extra-national organizations such as Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. And when driven to fight, these groups use the tactics that work, not just the tactics that their enemies regard as fair.

If the United States has had a consistent foreign and domestic policy since its formation, that policy has been one of extermination of the other. Starting with the original inhabitants of the America and extending outward to all who would stand in the way of American economic interests and hegemony of power, the American governing elite have always embraced military force and even vigilante violence in imposing their will on others. It seems to be the first method of operation, as was aptly illustrated in the quick drive to war after 9/11. The characterizations that Dr Free lists above can be slightly modified to fit a population and used as a template for US military policy. It's a shoot down, never ask questions sort of policy which has brought us to where we are today, a nation of television-brainwashed fools who go in for the jingoism of the moment without ever taking a considered look backwards or inwards to get a more accurate diagnosis of the problems afflicting us. Until we are willing to stop vilifying others while continuing to insist on our moral righteousness and altruistic intentions--despite the mounting evidence to the contrary--we will never have peace, we will never rest, we will never be satisfied, and we will never live like sisters and brothers with all of those whom we share this planet with.

I posted a link to this article elsewhere, but am pinning it here as well. It provides an insightful and incisive look at American history and policy towards the other, as well as highlighting the fact that Americans have used terrorism throughout the history of the nation. Our state terrorism continues to this day in our support of Israel, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, here at home against minorities and the poor. Again I say we are, for the most part, a nation of hypocrites, and we should all be ashamed. After a period of shaming and introspection, we may have something to contribute to the world.

"Those Who Deny the Crimes of the Past"

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Pathless

It amazes me that in a thread that should be questioning the roots of terrorism, people are talking about "global power politics." Politics, especially on a global level, are the problem.

But, we can't really talk about terrorism without talking about global politics. It's all linked together. We need to understand what's really going on, what the real motives are behind it all. I'm tired of hearing that it's a clash of religions. It isn't, that's just propaganda.

Chris

[madeinrussia89]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Almost....but we forget Russia at our peril.

Tao

Cold War Continued, anyone?

[Pathless]

The reverberations of a declared "war on terror" continue to shake the world. Unfortunately in the general clamor, suppression of indigenous peoples, targets of terror for centuries, continues to be under-reported and generally unacknowledged, even as it escalates--another casualty in a "war" that aims at wiping out resistance and dissent.

...[In New Zealand] Maori resistance is being called ‘terrorism’. As elsewhere, 9/11 has provided a whole new pretext for surveillance of domestic dissent. With the Cold War over, state security agencies in New Zealand and elsewhere, including police forces, have had to find new enemies within to justify their budgets and powers. Yet in colonial-settler states like New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United States, the new enemies are often the old enemies – Indigenous Peoples who have survived generations of genocidal policies, and who continue to assert their fundamental rights to self-determination. Creating and sustaining a climate of fear is to the benefit of those in New Zealand who would rather conveniently forget some hometruths about the basis for New Zealand’s much-vaunted democratic welfare state. Invasion and colonial occupation. We may well be living in the 21st century, but colonialism is alive and kicking.

...

There’s nothing “postcolonial” about the era that we live in. This week’s actions clearly illustrate that the governments of colonial settler states, like leopards, don’t change their spots, but just stalk their prey in other ways, to paraphrase Maori lawyer Moana Jackson. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the non-Maori majority have a responsibility to challenge the New Zealand government’s actions now and in the future, and resist a new wave of McCarthyism which threatens to cast a chilling spell on all who dissent against the status quo. If they do not know it already, non-Maori need to learn the real history of not only the Tuhoe people and their territory, but also the history of colonization in Aotearoa. And to understand that this process continues. Elsewhere, people would do well to see through the mythmaking prancing and posturing of the New Zealand government on the world stage as it boasts about how progressive it is. As a friend said to me yesterday, if this were happening in Burma, the story would have much more airtime. If Burma was applying for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, there would be outrage and protests around the world. Why should the New Zealand government be able to terrorize whole communities and criminalize Maori sovereignty activists and their supporters and not expect strong challenges to its colonial hypocrisy?

full article: Dissident Voice : New Zealand Government Is Not Fit to Sit on UN Human Rights Council