Under the Shadows of Terrorism:, The Futility of Stoicism (1 Viewer)

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
You may remember Euripides was a member here awhile back. Here is one of his articles.



The Ruthless Critic


Group: Mods
Posts: 1011
Member No.: 5940
Joined: 5-November 03



"Under the Shadows of Terrorism; The Futility of Stoicism".

The 7th of July terrorist attacks which set off four bombs throughout the London public transport system have murdered 50 and injured 700 people. This is the worst bombing Britain has seen since Pan Am Flight 103 bombing on December 21, 1988. With theses attacks on London and the British nation a leading member of the ‘coalition of the wiling’. This event forces those of us who aren’t taking in by Tony Blair’s much loved “stoicism” to ask a few questions.

After the Madrid bombings perpetrated by Islamists in 2004, the London Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens said that a terrorist attack on London was “inevitable”. Now the main messages following the attacks from politicians are ‘business as usual’… there is a problem that comes to attention.

If the attacks as Stevens was convinced were Inevitable (he was sadly validated), and we continue on our approach to the war on terror set before the terrible events are we not inviting the ‘inevitable’ to happen again?

I think yes, the current political wisdom is circular and self-serving and self-confirming. The current ‘Hawkish’ position taken by leaders of the western world and their aggression towards Middle Eastern states confirms in the minds of the Islamist terrorists the Imperialism of western nations and the attack on political ‘Islam’. With their conclusions confirmed yet again the Islamists continue the circle of violence with their campaign of terror as we’ve seen in New York, Bali, Madrid and now London and furthermore the daily terror attacks on “collaborators”.

The problem we face is how to respond and to defeat “the politics of terror”? The current politics of aggression which is terrorism in a different manifestation and greater magnitude just continue the cycle. Thus one of the greatest struggles of modernity is in fact a struggle against old dogmas of an eye for an eye politics. ‘Business us usual’ is not an option because it does not transcend the current condition of universal terrorism, Business as usual in effect amounts to its continuation as the cause and consequence of “the politics of terror”.

“The politics of terror” are a cycle of violence. The western nation’s spoken commitment is to defeat terror, why haven’t the political elite broken this cycle?

Albert Einstein once remarked that you can not solve a problem with the same mind that created it. This is the essence of the problem that we face; the mind’s who created “the politics of terror” narrow scope allows them to see the opportunity in devastation. The Straussian “elected aristocracy” known as Neo-conservatives see the war on terror as a means to creating myths that hold hierarchical societies together, while providing economic activity in the military industry which the multiplier effect spreads to other sectors. The Islamists continue “the politics of terror” because in devastation there is opportunity. With continued animosity against the western world the Islamists find new recruits to the cause of political Islam, the degenerated conditions of the Middle East caused by the western reaction to terrorism only feed into the dissatisfaction and the Islamist notion of western nations as the “far enemy”.

Thus for the politics of freedom and liberty to have any hope we must first recognise that the threat of terrorism serves to protect the very forces which perpetuate its existence, the philosophy of “Stoicism” and “business as usual” help no one.
 

heybraham

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
288
Location
google earth
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
one thing i hate about this 'war' on 'terrorism' is the fact that there is no background information about terrorism presented to the public. it's like they have something to hide. there is a reason behind every act, terrorists aren't robots, they die for values they uphold. every society has different values and qualities, if you ignore them, you are no better than Hitler. or Stalin. or George W. Bush. we live in an ignorant world. ...i guess that's not really news.

is it possible to 'defeat' terrorism? if you don't understand a race or culture, or in this case; an ideology, you don't simply 'DEFEAT' it do you? and do you think violating our rights and our privacy will equate to security?

it's refreshing to see insightful news articles once in a while.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
It's not like you can sit down with the public and have a proper conversation to them and explain the intricacies of the situation. As for whether you can 'Defeat' a race or ideology without understanding it, that just sounds a little bit like airy fairy crap... Hitler (who wasn't exactly a jewish scholar) did a pretty good job of crushing the jews...
 

braindrainedAsh

Journalist
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
4,268
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
Interesting article.... I agree with the author that we can't continue to fight terror with terror, and the cultural imperialism that the west continues to propagate (our way of life is right, our culture is better... blah blah) only adds to the problem. It creates greater resentment, and whenever you have marginalized people you have rebellion.

I think an interesting example is the Vietnam war, during our last great "The West vs an intangible ideology" battle, The Cold War. The West stipulated that Vietnam needed to be divided north and south. That was what created the war and the killing. If we had just let them decide for themselves what they wanted, then the situation wouldn't have been as bloody. Simplistic explanation obviously, but hopefully clear enough.

I think it is similar to what is happening now in Afganistan/Iraq. If the people wanted an uprising, wouldn't they have created it themselves? Instead we have gone over there and imposed our Western ideas upon them and this has bred resentment again. I think that the west needs to get over the idea that we are culturally superior to other cultures and countries. It only breeds resentment, and creates violence.

How can we condemn terror when the war in Iraq was an act of terror itself? I'm not saying terrorism should be tolerated, but fighting bombs with bombs is not the solution.
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
If we had just let them decide for themselves what they wanted, then the situation wouldn't have been as bloody.
Oh yes, I imagine if the US didn't get involved the north would have embraced the south with hugs and kisses.

If the people wanted an uprising, wouldn't they have created it themselves?
There have been many attempted uprisings by various political factions (not just ones that support my world view) that were all overpowered.

I'm not saying terrorism should be tolerated, but fighting bombs with bombs is not the solution.
I agree. I don't like the ammount of bombs that have been dropped and believe that the war could have been won with bombs merely targetted around the most dangerous military areas.

But the American forces of course care more about the life of an American marine than an Iraqi civilian...(at least in some situations).
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
No...we should stand back and allow innocent people to keep getting blown up. I wonder how many of them actually opposed the "War on Terror", not that it matters to terrorists, because they're just "upholding their ideologies".

Ah, let's not fight them with bombs. Perhaps they're pissed because Bush never invites them to his Dude Ranch like he does with every other foreign leader.
 

heybraham

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
288
Location
google earth
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Cyan_phoeniX said:
yes. of course it could. Stop thinking that 'rights' and 'privacy' is some universal thing that is just 'there.' I hate when people stop there argument with rights as if it is a given and nobody can go further from that.
hate what you want.

and yes, 'rights' and 'privacy' are pseudowords, then again, isn't democracy?
 

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
There have been many attempted uprisings by various political factions (not just ones that support my world view) that were all overpowered.
Some with the help of the US. Like after the first Gulf War, the US aided the Iraqi government in overpowering the movement in the South.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top