BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


So, terrrorism - what's that, then?

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:02 / 28.07.05
The term asymmetric[al] warfare (2) is getting thrown around at the moment:

Asymmetric warfare includes "threats outside the range of conventional warfare and difficult to respond to in kind (e.g., a suicide bomber)" - Dictionary of Military Terms.

It seems to me that this kind of conflict is inevitable in a context where any major player unites the Full Spectrum Dominance approach with a notion that you can and should 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. (1), (2).

If you decide to dominate, and to 'address selectively' the wrongs in the world according to your moral convictions, you will gain enemies who find ways to challenge your domination off the battlefield, because they cannot, by definition, match you on it.
 
 
Slim
00:10 / 29.07.05
They certainly do when they fund, arm or train them, or when they order their militaries to commit terrorism acts. But other forms of government can do that too. Or is that not what you meant?

I'm sure you know what I meant but your statement works as well.
 
 
FinderWolf
15:41 / 14.09.05
After about 5 years of just shouting 'we have to defeat the killers' and relying on military alone, implying that liberal leftist hippies who said maybe US/Western policies have aggravated the Middle East and Muslim world were unAmerican and defeatist, making excuses for 'killers', etc., Bush is now singing a slightly different tune (at least in rhetoric only, of course)...

>> Bush to UN: War alone won't defeat terrorism
Reuters - 57 minutes ago

>> UNITED NATIONS - U.S. President George W. Bush told the United Nations on Wednesday that war alone will not win the fight against terrorism and world leaders must tackle conditions that lead the oppressed to take up arms.

Maybe this means that the Bush White House is really beginning to lose its surety of footing; it's certainly losing approval ratings. They're actually beginning to expound a view that sounds surprisingly Left in this instance...
 
 
Ganesh
08:25 / 15.09.05
Yeah, this is the Axis of Evil, isn't it?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:51 / 15.09.05
Whereas Blair is sounding even less moderate, no doubt he's seen the writing on the wall for his legacy and is concerned that, unlike Bush, he doesn't have anyone to write the history books for him to say how great he was.
 
 
grant
14:10 / 15.09.05
In less chipper news, "incitement" to terrorism is now illegal. Blair, Bush, UN General Assembly.

The less-than-chipper part is that we're not sure exactly what "incitement" means. And the UN famously isn't sure what "terrorism" means, either. Legally, I think it's now unclear whether Public Enemy's Fear of a Black Planet constitutes an international crime. Or, for that matter, a comic book called The Invisibles....


I am also hoping this statement (in the Bloomberg link) was taken out of context:
``There are real injustices in our world,'' Blair said, mentioning poverty, conflicts in Israel and Palestine. ``But none of this has caused terrorism.''
 
 
sleazenation
07:42 / 16.09.05
Blair seems to be set on picking an arbitary date of about 20 years, before which acts would today be considered as terrorism would no count... conveniently sidestepping much of the problem of treating IRA terrrists and Nelson Mandella differently that those accused with maybe thinking bad things that the government have decided to equate to terrorism today...
 
 
Supaglue
09:08 / 16.09.05

Sorry Sleaze, just read your post - I've started a thread on it here, but Mods shift it into this thread if you think its better suited, as it is related after all.
 
 
w1rebaby
11:39 / 16.09.05
I am also hoping this statement (in the Bloomberg link) was taken out of context

Unlikely; it's Blair's position that poverty, injustice, war, violence etc not only do not justify terrorism but have no causal connection with it at all. Terrorism is down to ideologies of hate etc.

I can't say I'm taking these Bush statements as an indication of anything serious, I must say. He's only talking to the UN after all.
 
 
grant
13:38 / 23.09.05
Here's an interesting look at the phenomenon of "Al Qaedaism" from the International Herald Tribune.

I'm not entirely sure it says anything that I'd consider new, but it's nice to see it stated so clearly.

The article is about the surprising success of the Afghanistan invasion in stemming the flow of terrorism... and how that all went to hell when the coalition decided to turn on Iraq.

Excerpts:"We've captured or killed two-thirds of their known leaders," [Bush] said last year. And yet however degraded Al Qaeda's operational capacity, nearly every other month, it seems, Osama bin Laden or one of his henchmen appears on the world's television screens to expatiate on the ideology and strategy of global jihad and to urge followers on to more audacious and more lethal efforts.

This, and the sheer number and breadth of terrorist attacks, suggest strongly that Al Qaeda has become Al Qaedaism - that under the American and allied assault, what had been a relatively small, conspiratorial organization has mutated into a worldwide political movement, with thousands of followers eager to adopt its methods and advance its aims.

Call it viral Al Qaeda, carried by strongly motivated next-generation followers who download from the Internet's virtual training camp their tradecraft in terror.


and, in 1980:

Among the thousands of holy warriors making this journey was the wealthy young Saudi Osama bin Laden, who would set up the Afghan Services Bureau, a "helping organization" for Arab fighters that gathered names and contact information in a large database - or "qaeda" - which would eventually lend its name to an entirely new organization.

The connections between Madrid and the internet are also not surprising, but interesting. One person's idea in one place is implemented by other people in another place -- a homegrown cell with an international database/communications system.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:49 / 26.09.05
It seems to end up in the same place as that series from last year that I'm now completely blanking on ('The Power of Nightmares') that said that Al Qaeda doesn't really exist, it's merely a name that disaffected martyr-seekers use to claim responsibility for their attacks.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:08 / 26.09.05
I think 'viral' is mistaken; Al Qaeda is emergent. Circumstances exist which imply Al Qaeda, so there is one. It's not quite like slime mould, which has no leaders; it definitely has individuals who are repositories of knowledge, capability, and ethos, but at the same time, those individuals are not indispensible. Take them away, and you have a void in the pattern, but the pattern is resilient, because it is propped up by the conditions which first produced it, so it will change to accomodate that void, or fill it.
 
 
quixote
23:22 / 01.10.05
There was months-worth of discussion about this very topic as part of the Madrid summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held March 11, 2005. The discussions, especially under the forum "Defining Terrorism," have input from people all over the world (as well as too many, apparently North American, trolls). That was the original pre-March 11 discussion, which is now archived. The ongoing discussion is at the new Madrid 11 site. Many thoughtful posts, and may be of interest to the people reading this topic.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:51 / 19.01.06
wasn't sure where exactly to put this, looked through threads for Al Qaeda related stuff...

----

from Yahoo News:

Bin Laden Warns of Attacks, Offers Truce

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Jazeera on Thursday broadcast portions of an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a possible truce to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

The voice on the tape said heightened security in the United States is not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations," he said.

"The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. But the operations are happening in Baghdad and you will see them here at home the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission," he said.

"We do not mind offering you a long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere to," he said. "We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America."

The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by Al-Jazeera.

There was no immediate confirmation of the tape's authenticity, although the voice resembled that of bin Laden's in previous messages.

It has been more than a year since the last confirmed message from bin Laden — the longest period without a video or audiotape from the al-Qaida leader. The last audiotape purported to be from bin Laden was broadcast in December 2004 by Al-Jazeera. In that recording, he endorsed Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi as his deputy in Iraq and called for a boycott of Iraqi elections.

Al-Jazeera's editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Sheik would not comment on when or where the tape was received. He said the full tape was 10 minutes long. The station aired four excerpts with what it "considered newsworthy," he said, but would not say what was on the remainder.

Al-Sheik said the tape seemed to have been made "recently" but would not saw what led him to that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------

This is rather unique - Al Qaeda talks about a "truce" with the West?? And also hints ominously that more 9/11-type attacks in the US are underway and on their way?

The likely Bush response will be 'we don't negotiate with terrorists', even though in Iraq US envoys have reportedly tried to talk with insurgents to calm them down and offer them compromise. But would anyone, even the idealized best US President ever, really want to sit down with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden after 9/11 and say 'what can we do to make you happy and stop attacking us?'
 
 
Jack Fear
15:01 / 19.01.06
Of course, he's pulled this "truce" bullshit before.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:46 / 19.01.06
It's also highly questionable as to whether it's within his powers to either organise more attacks or to order a truce. And not fighting the USA in it's current state would be a tad contradictory to considering it a valid target five years ago.
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply