|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 29 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 9:21am.
From The Independent (UK):
»
Murielle Degauque was, by all accounts, a normal child. A typical girl next door, you might say. True, as a teenager growing up in southern Belgium, she dabbled in drugs and preferred boys to books. But there was nothing to indicate that she would become the first Western woman to launch a suicide bomb attack in the name of jihad when she blew herself up in Iraq last month." Article continued here. When these stories of middle-class inviduals who participate in homicide bombings come out, does it debunk the belief that terrorism stems from sociological conditions instead of from an ideology?
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
I would say it was more close
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 9:37am.I would say it was more closely connected to living a life without purpose.
This is the same argument that pointed out that a good number of terrorists actually come from middle class homes. The root cause of terrorism isn't economic freedom, I would argue, but rather social conditions that permit such activities and a lack of political freedom to pursue happiness.
Terrorism happens because it is socially acceptable, and middle class people end up being terrorists because they have the means. Politically, there are no other options.
I have always thought that political freedom, democracy, would be the end of terrorism. That when societies are free, people won't resort to violence to achieve their ends (hows that for a 2nd Amendment argument). All that said, I abhor how the Bush Administration uses the above language to their own ends, and then talks about how great things are going in Egypt right now.
emmett: I have always thought
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 1:28pm.The Fire: This is what I was trying to hit on. The article listed individuals who have participated in bombings who came from Western countries where, by and large, political freedom is available. In fact, the UK has much more political representation of minority parties than we find here in the US.
I don't think there's a correct answer, at least at this point, since it's a phenomenon that is still trying to be sorted out (regarding why those from Western countries where economic and political opportunity is available still participate in homicide bombings and terrorist attacks).
emmett: That when societies are free, people won't resort to violence to achieve their ends
The Fire: Absolutely. Think of the Second Amendment as a safety valve (as far as protection against government or any other group in power which would turn on the people).
emmett: and then talks about how great things are going in Egypt right now.
The Fire: Of course, I'm sure you wouldn't want the US to involve themselves too much with Egypt's domestic policies.
I'm really not a big fan of giving money to other countries but I'm not so rigid as to believe there's no other option. Given the current climate and policies, offering Egypt more money in exchange for meeting certain criterion might not be a bad idea.
I'm not advocating the money be given upfront. In fact, far from it. We should simply leave the money on the table and lay-out a strict set of guidelines for the country to meet.
Maybe establish a council independent of the Executive to determine whether these goals have been met. When the goals are met provide the funding promised. If the goals are not met then leave the money on the table.
At the very least it will empower the reformists by saying, "Look, this money is on the table." Play the different sides against each other.
The same model could probably be used with Iran as with Turkey. The Europeans are already involved with Iran so get them on the same page and see if they'll begin to promise strong consideration for membership into the EU in exchange for meeting certain conditions.
The US can't quite offer membership into an organization such as the EU but, regardless of your opinion on the Bush administration, the US still carries a lot of weight in international organizations when we push for something. If Iran begins to meet the conditions set forth we could start to advocate for their membership into other organizations.
Again, this will give reformists something tangible to point to.
We need to start pitting the internal parties against each other in a covert manner (and by covert I don't mean have the CIA start launching coups. I'm saying that we shouldn't be so overt with "We're going to come in and knock your house down." Let them knock each other down).
I don't agree with the 2nd am
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 1:52pm.I don't agree with the 2nd amendment as a safety valve theory. Also, I was being a bit sarcastic when I said that things are going great in Egypt right now. They aren't. They're a bit better than in the past (a opposition party won a few more seats, but not much), and Sec. Rice just about fell out of her chair praising Egypt's dictator for allowing just a little bit more political freedom.
The inherent fallacy of terrorism, or any armed opposition to tyranny, is that the only way to get freedom is to act as if you already have it. There is a much deeper discussion on this in "From Dictatorship to Democracy," but think of Gandhi, the "Orange Revolution," or Prague Spring. Exercising human rights and building social and civic institutions in the face of tyrannical government is more effective than bombing.
Huh? I know things aren't gr
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 2:03pm.Egypt and Iran are going to be far more difficult to reform than the Ukraine. Putting incentives on the table for each of these countries, which reformists can point to as a tangible benefit to modertnization, would probably go a long way in defeating the current governments.
I don't agree that "exercising human rights and building social and civic institutions in the face of tyrannical government" is necessarily "more effective" than force.
I'm not going to sit here and dispute that it hasn't worked because, in certain cases, it has proven to be quite successful.
Political theory is not applicable to every situation. You can't just cut and paste to each country and expect the same result.
This goes back to "carrots and sticks." For some "carrots" are more effective while others need "sticks." As a diplomat you just have to have a feel for the situation and use judgement regarding which should be used.