Comments on: Terrorism and guilt

By: Luc

Luc — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:02:59 +0000

Three quotes from Scott Atran The strategic threat from suicide terror (dec. 2003) http://www.aei- brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=311 page 12 Support and recruitment for suicide terrorism occur not under conditions of political repression, poverty and unemployment or illiteracy as such, but when converging political, economic and social trends produce diminishing life opportunities relative to expectations, thus generating frustrations that radical organizations exploit. page 14 Studies by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and others find no correlation between a nation’s per capita income and terrorism, but do find a correlation between lack of civil liberties (defined by Freedom House) and terrorism. A recent National Research Council report, Discouraging Terrorism, finds that: “terrorism and its supporting audiences appear to be fostered by policies of extreme political repression and discouraged by policies of incorporating both dissident and moderate groups responsibly into civil society and the political process.” page 15 We should promote personal liberty by withdrawing military and political support from those of our “partners” who persistently infringe on human rights and deny political expression to their people. There seems to be a direct correlation between U.S. military aid to politically corroded or ethnically divided states, human rights abuses by those regimes, and rise in terrorism, as initially moderate opposition is pushed into common cause with more radical elements. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regularly document “horrific” and “massive” humans rights abuses occurring in countries that receive the most U.S. aid in absolute terms (Israel, Egypt, Colombia, Pakistan), and the greatest relative increase in aid (Central Asian Republics, Georgia, Turkey) including many “new Partners in the War on Terrorism.”

By: Johnson

Johnson — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:32:00 +0000

The very notion of terrorism, as distinct from any other kind of warmaking, relies upon distinctions between “innocent” and “guilty” and the even murkier distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” agents (and targets) of war. People do not agree about these distinctions and thus people do not agree about who is a terrorist and who is not. If there were near-universal agreement on these matters, I’d feel a lot more secure in determining the moral value of “terrorism” as John does. But there isn’t, so I’m not. IT’S TRUE THAT PEOPLE DON’T AGREE. BUT THEY DON’T AGREE ABOUT A GREAT MANY THINGS IN ADDITION TO ‘TERRORISM’ AND RELATED TERMS. YET THERE IS FAIRLY WIDE AGREEMENT THAT TALKING IS PREFERABLE TO KILLING, AND THOSE WHO DISSENT FROM THIS NOTION ARE TO BE REGARDED WITH CONSIDERABLE SUSPICION. AS TO THE MORAL VALUE OF ‘TERRORISM,’ SURELY, SINCE IT LEAVES CORPSES STREWN ABOUT, THERE’S A PRESUMPTION AGAINST IT. Calling something “terrorism” is like calling something “evil”. The problem isn’t that evil doesn’t exist or is a legitimate concept; the problem is that people almost never agree upon what is evil and what is not (especially in the context of warfare) and so the appelation of “evil” creates a false sense of rational and moral certainty that is used to justify actions that are themselves controversial and not occasionally arguably “evil”. WELL. YES. IF ONE PROPOSES TO KILL, EVEN TO STOP KILLING, THERE’S A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THAT PROPOSAL. AND IT’S BETTER TO KILL SOLDIERS THAN CIVILIANS. THAT’S THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF JUS IN BELLO. SOLDIERS ARE BY PROFESSION AT RISK, AND CIVILIANS PROTECTED. PERHAPS A DEFEASIBLE PRESUMPTION, BUT STILL ENOUGH TO IMPOSE A CONSIDERABLE BURDEN OF PROOF. So, the use of term (“terrorism”, as in the case of “evil”) hurts more than it helps. And, one can argue that everyone that casually uses the term without qualification or care is morally complicit in all acts conducted in the name of “fighting terrorism”, many of which are often morally reprehensible SO ONE CAN ARGUE. BUT CASUAL USE OF TERMS IS A GOOD WAYS FROM ACTS OF KILLING, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT PUT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT (NOT ARMED, NOT PROVEN GUILTY) CIVILIANS AT RISK.

By: Damien Smith

Damien Smith — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:41:44 +0000

Read Nick Lemann’s report on “What Terrorists Want” in the New Yorker from October 2001. Excerpt: “Fearon and Laitin believe that civil wars get under way because of specific dynamics that don’t have much to do with over-all political conditions, ideology, or religious and ethnic disputes. (They do, however, believe that a high level of poverty almost certainly plays a role.) Laitin told me his evidence shows that grievance—for instance, oppression on the basis of ethnicity, religion, language, or political belief—does not necessarily lead to open rebellion against the government, as you’d expect. And when there is a rebellion there is no assurance that solving its stated grievance will cause it to stop. (Two other ambitious international research projects on civil war—one conducted by a team at the World Bank, the other by a C.I.A.-funded State Failure Project at the University of Maryland—have reached similar conclusions.) Fearon and Laitin’s explanations of the escalations of civil wars rely on fine-grained examinations of the ways people interact on the ground. “We prefer micro-mechanisms to master narratives,” Laitin says.” The link is: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011029fa_FACT1

By: Colin

Colin — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:55:28 +0000

In case there is any confusion, that should be “Islamic Jihad” in paragraph “2” above (not simply “Islamic”)…

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:51:19 +0000

By: Colin

Colin — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:49:16 +0000

I have no interest in a detailed debate over the merits (and demerits) of the various parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but my point about terrorism and suicide bombing being little more than a shrewd and calculated—and often very effective—political strategy, derives from the following facts: 1. There was terrorism in Israel before 1967, i.e. when Gaza was still administered by Egypt and the entire West Bank plus East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan. 2. There was terrorism and suicide bombings throughout the 90s, (though admittedly at a lower level than today), even after Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords in 1993. Arafat’s Fatah party had renounced terrorism as a political instrument, but Hamas and Islamic were more than happy to make up the slack. Still, by the time of the Camp David peace talks, the Israeli military was almost entirely gone from the Palestinian territories, certainly from the populated areas, and goods and people moved as freely as they ever had across the Green Line. By 2000 the Palestinian Authority was in defacto control of nearly 90% of the territories and the Palestinian standard of living had tripled in the space of seven years. In other words, there was less “oppression” in the Palestinian territories than there had ever been since Israel had first occupied them in 1967. True, many Palestinians were frustrated by the slow pace of their nation’s march to political and economic independence and were greatly irritated by the presence of Israeli “settlements”, but most rational observers on both sides felt that a final treaty was inevitable (Barak headed a very dovish government in Israel in 2000), that a two-state solution (with a viable, contiguous Palestine in the West Bank) was simply a matter of time. Whether the start of the Second Intifada was accidental and spontaneous or calculated and deliberate, there is little doubt that for Hamas and Islamic Jihad it offered a golden opportunity to extend their influence and advance their agenda—which, let’s not forget, is not any peace with Israel at all but its outright elimination. Suicide bombings multiplied , Israeli repression followed, and the cycle of violence was launched. There is genuine hardship and human rights violations in the Palestinian territories now and the suicide bombings play into the hands of that faction of the right wing in Israel which continues to argue against any Palestinian state whatsoever. But if terrorism is a simple consequence of “oppression”, why was there any before 1967? I think the answer is obvious. And specifically what “oppression” provoked the bombings in Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, Riyadh and Karbala? But I digress…

By: msg

msg — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:48:38 +0000

So, not only do we have to do the heartbreaking research necessary to understand the causes of terrorism, most of which will make most of us very uncomfortable, but we have also to slog through the vitriolic spew of those who feel they’re the innocent targets of terrorist attacks. Why are we doing this? So that people who have been driven mad by suffering don’t destroy us all, and with us the future. – The actual motives behind the Madrid bombings specifically are unknown to me at this time. There may be a statement from the Spanish government soon, and there may be news that purports to explain those motives, but it seems less likely now than three years ago that we’ll get the truth from any government about anything this volatile. And the news media are as vulnerable to coercion as politicians. So it’s a people’s thing. – Debating wilfull ignorance is a waste of time, as is reading it. Donald Johnson’s advice seems most appropriate now. – Parsing statements like “…merely politics or religion by another means…” is almost sexual it’s so frustrating. Politics and religion pretty much covers the totality of human social experience as far as I can see. – The courage necessary to commit a suicide bombing, even when it’s suffused with insane conviction, would be hard for people to understand, obviously, when cowardice has become so commonplace it’s practically a human character trait. It seems clearly less brave to rain bombs on people from high altitudes, than to use one’s own body and life to deliver them. Yet we’re told to revere the pilot and scorn the young zealot with the bomb strapped to her chest. But that doesn’t seem to have been the case in Madrid anyway. It’s the next one we want to concern ourselves with I think; and somewhere up there there’s a nuke. Attitudes of vicious retaliation will virtually guarantee the use of nuclear weapons, sooner rather than later. The distinction, between the mass damage to innocent people from nuclear warfare and the mass damage to innocent people from suicide bombs, is one I have a hard time making.

By: Leveller

Leveller — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:39:50 +0000

As a people, and most of them as individuals, Palestinians support suicide bombing. This is a morally squalid position to take, but they have been misled by Arafat and humiliated by Sharon and other Israelis for many years. It’s true that, partly as a consequence of their suppport of suicide bombing, Palestinians are oppressed—hours spent just getting to work or even to the hospital & etc. Does it follow that they are justified in killing innocent people—that is, people who are not engaged in acts of oppression? Who have done nothing to deserve to die? It’s also true that Sharon leads the preponderant power in the region and hence bears primary responsibility for the situation of the Palestinians. Rather than lead a withdrawal from settlements many of which are an obvious strategic liability, Sharon (with broad popular backing) regularly stages operations the foreseeable effect of which is the killing of innocent Palestinians. Sharon says these operations are intended to prevent suicide bombings. But the innocent people killed are not suicide bombers, and often have done nothing wrong, let alone something so wrong as to deserve death. (I don’t mean to suggest that it isn’t true that many, usually most, of the Palestinians killed are either currently armed and dangerous or guilty of perpetrating suicide bombings. Just that many innocent Palestinians are also killed and that this outcome is quite foreseeable.) Both Arafat and Sharon have a lot to answer for. Even if those on whose behalf they supposedly act are oppresssed or endangered, that does not justify killing innocent (not engaged in oppression/bombing) people. If one asks “what else can the Palestinians do except engage in and cheer on suicide bombings?” my answer is that disciplined civil disobedience and ordinary politics and diplomacy have scarcely been tried and have considerable promise. These alternatives also have a substantial moral advantage over the killing of innocent people.)

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:12:16 +0000

The bad grammar in my previous post is due (I like to think) to my exasperation. But anyway, people interested in understanding terrorism would be well-advised to read Atran and probably some of the other papers mentioned in this thread (which I’ll do myself). I’d also like to see some papers on the mentality of Western policymakers in democratic regimes who support murderous policies, but am not aware of any. Citations would be appreciated.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:06:31 +0000

Scott Atran’s work is on the web. I haven’t read the other references people have put up, but they sound consistent with Atran’s work, which I have read. Atran is interested in understanding the roots of terror and how to eliminate it and I imagine that’s true of the other papers people are citing. But what’s going on in this thread appears to have turned into a fairly typical flamewar. Have fun.

By: Anti-Leveller

Anti-Leveller — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:23:43 +0000

I recognize that Sadaam Hussein was an abominable tyrant and I applaud his removal. To suggest, as you clearly have, that we ought to have considered Osama bin Laden’s opinions beforehand or that we somehow deserved the Madrid bombings because we helped depose Sadaam, is deeply insulting. All I can say in response is fuck you! Dear Juan, I of course agree that Saddam’s departure is a great blessing. I of course agree that Osama’s opinions are those of a moral cretin. I of course agree that no Spaniard did anything that serves to justify the attack. What could justify this slaughter of the innocent? I also believe that Aznar’s policies were contrary to the wishes of the Spanish people and the interests of the Spanish state. And that one of the foreseeable effects of these policies was that an attack like this one might occur. Nothing Spain did contributed signficantly to the departure of Saddam. If Aznar had adopted a different policy, the attack in all probablity would not have occurred. Osama’s actions are evil through and through. They are also somewhat predictable, and there’s no reason that a state should not take them into account when determining its foreign policy. And no reason why a state should not shape a foreign policy that reduces the risks of mayhem to its citizens. Would that Bush would have done as much for the US, by making war against al Qaida and other Islamist terrorists, period.

By: Luc

Luc — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:06:29 +0000

Did that research conclude that curfews, roadblocks, military rule etc. are not oppression or did they state that those factors are of no influence on Palestinian terror? It doesn’t. What those papers refer to is why the method of suicide bombing is chosen by the organizations and by the individual. Krueger concludes it isn’t the lack of money and education, and the other researchers are just as inconclusive (Sarray: “a mix of guilt, shame and an overwhelming desire to avenge perceived injustice”) I may be bluffing, but then please give a quote where they state that: the idea that terrorism (especially suicide bombing) is spawned by “oppression”, when researched scientifically, appears to be nonsense. The fact is that the Palestinians have to deal with oppression in their daily lives, and the fact is that some of them resort to terror. In the Palestinian case the terror and the oppression are related. And I know of no research disputing that. And I don’t consider the reference to Clausewitz “war is a continuation of politics by another means” as very subtle. the consensus is that extreme oppression (in the normal meaning of the word) is not what dispatches suicide bombers but something far more ordinary and calculated; i.e. (in Colin’s words) “(terrorism) is, in nearly all cases, merely politics or religion by another means”. What am i to conclude from that?

By: Peter King

Peter King — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:23:09 +0000

I can see Colin’s point, Luc: you are very good at bluffing and misreading. Here’s a bit of what Kusum Mundra resumes from his and other studies… Acts of terrorism, particularly where the actor accepts her/his demise as certainty, assault our notion of human rationality to the core. Facing the conundrum, a number of scholars have attempted to understand this extreme behavior by looking for clues in the a) psychological profiles of the suicide bombers, b) in the external conditions of poverty or other economic woes, or c) have sought explanation in the chaotic discourse of religious beliefs and ideology… Psychological investigations have also produced a mixed bag… Sarraj (2002), a noted Palestinian psychologist, argues that the primary motivations behind suicide bombing are a mix of guilt, shame and an overwhelming desire to avenge perceived injustice… Krueger and Maleckova (2002) show that contrary to the popular notion, poverty, lack of education and other factors of economic opportunities are not directly linked with the bomber’s sample profiles… A number of other scholars have concentrated on religious teachings and the process of socialization in preparing the mindset of a prospective suicide bomber (Juergensmeyer, 2000; Benjamin and Simon, 2002; Kelsay, 2002). In short, contrary to your original charge (“You gave your opinion the authority of scientific evidence, while it is simply an opinion“), there is plenty of (social-)scientific research on the subject, and the consensus is that extreme oppression (in the normal meaning of the word) is not what dispatches suicide bombers but something far more ordinary and calculated; i.e. (in Colin’s words) “(terrorism) is, in nearly all cases, merely politics or religion by another means”.

By: msg

msg — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:30:33 +0000

“…America will finally risk stepping through the fantasmatic screen separating it from the Outside World, accepting its arrival into the Real world, making the long-overdue move from ‘A thing like this should not happen HERE!’ to ‘A thing like this should not happen ANYWHERE!’. America’s ‘holiday from history’ was a fake: America’s peace was bought by the catastrophes going on elsewhere. Therein resides the true lesson of the bombings: the only way to ensure that it will not happen HERE again is to prevent it going on ANYWHERE ELSE.” Welcome To The Desert Of The Real Slavoj Zizek textz.com

By: Luc

Luc — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:06:43 +0000

Hopefully the name Alan Krueger in a google search will yield more. It does. A column by Alan Krueger http://www.irs.princeton.edu/krueger/05292003a.pdf And the original source, a paper by a graduate student of his, Claude Berrebi http://www.princeton.edu/~cberrebi/edu-pov-terror.pdf I was aware of that research, but I didn’t have the references. It is a column and a piece by a graduate student, so its value is limited. But the statement of Colin The point I was making is simple: the idea that terrorism (especially suicide bombing) is spawned by “oppression”, when researched scientifically, appears to be nonsense. is not supported by this research by Berrebi. The first paragraph of his conclusions VIII. Conclusions If there is a link between income level, education, and participation in terrorist activities, it is either very weak or in the opposite direction of what one intuitively might have expected. According to the findings of this paper, there is no reason to believe that increasing the years of schooling or raising the income level of individuals, without simultaneously modifying the educational content and monitoring (or at least limiting) the possible use of any additional income, will decrease the trend towards terror, the level of terror, or using means of terror. There is nothing about oppression there. It is about education and income and its relation to terrorism. And to put it into a context the author even wrote the following sentence (page 20): Further, highly educated individuals may be more aware of situations of injustice and discrimination, and may be more aggravated by their implications, again inducing them to participate in terrorist activities. suggesting that it may be possible that there can be a link between oppression and terrorism. And as for Kusum Mundra’s “Suicide Bombing as a strategic instrument of protest: an empirical investigation” http://www.economics.ucr.edu/seminars/10-01-03%20Kusum%20Mundra%20Intro.pdf It again contains nothing about oppression. Is concludes that suicide bombing is a deliberate strategy. And its main part is about developing a theoretical model. If you refer to science at least read the damned papers.