|
Aswad -> RE: Another Domestic Terrorist (8/1/2011 7:55:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You stated that a handful of Islamic terror attacks were committed world-wide not just in the West. My point was that in the few days after the terrorist attack in Norway numerous serious attacks were committed by Islamicists. I made that point by citing five attacks I know of, and included links to the stories. There are many that don't make it to the Western press. I excluded a number of very seriouus attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are serious attacks all the time around the world. Muslims are the target of about half of them, which puts it squarely in the same camp as domestic terrorism. Most of the attacks are in the Middle-East, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you go by fatalities. Going by other criterion, you might find a lot of action in Asia and Africa. On the American continent, Colombia and Mexico are examples accounting for a majority of the events in the western hemisphere between them. Perhaps it would be useful to agree on a definition for the word terrorism, so that we could run through the GTD and assemble some figures that match what we're talking about.
There are a handful of major attacks in the western hemisphere per year.
Now, just so we're clear, I'm not saying people in Iraq should be unconcerned with Sunni terrorism. I would, however, suggest that the events we see in the region we might once have called Christendom are overall far too low to justify general islamophobia, and that at present, it is likely our best defense against jihadist attacks to rather seek to integrate the Muslim minorities and have them work on any problematic individuals internally (as a rule, they know quite well what it means to live with terrorism, and prefer peace and stability).
It is our neighbours that know where to strike, and how.
Using the Oslo incident as an example, we were one random car crash away from an initial death toll of about a thousand, including most of the government and significant fractions of the key infrastructure. The crash cost the perpetrator a major detour, as well as ca. 2 hours lost, and necessitated the improvisation of the schedule and plan beyond that point. As it stands, the political effects of the attack are just as I expected, and going by what I've read so far, I think people are underestimating just how predictable the effects would have been to the perpetrator, and thus underestimating the degree of success he has had in extremely polarizing society and setting in motion things that are likely to lead downhill fast. There are people training for similar attacks in Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, who now have their "White Hero" (paraphrased translation).
That's the difference domestic makes: someone who knows your weak points, slipping past your guard unnoticed to stab you where it hurts. By contrast, a foreign attack must have a lot more backing to accomplish something. Bear in mind that 9/11 was a well funded, multiperson attack. If our population density were the same height as that in New York, this lone attacker, with one attack, financed off credit cards, could have killed about 15.000 people. With two or three accomplices, he could have taken out most of the non-radio communication in the country, probably including the emergency services in the capital city. That would have allowed him to get away, and muslims would be stuck with the blame in a city where they are 25% of the population and about 25% of the rest are out on the right wing, leading to an immediate and violent multiparty confrontation that could quickly spiral out of control.
By contrast, the attacks on 9/11 resulted in two wars, as they were meant to, securing the goals of the organization in their region, but beyond the direct casualties, the domestic effects were pretty limited initially. Long term consequences are impossible to speculate on in both cases, but it should be clear that there is a significant risk associated with domestic terrorism, and I would argue that it is far worse than what we have seen from Sunni jihadists in our own areas.
Perhaps this makes it clear how I am not attempting apologetics.
quote:
You should remember Ireland was occupied for far longer than Norway so I understand the point. I don't agree, and not because its Muslims versus the US and allies.
I think you may have misread me again.
Classification of terrorism is not straight forward. Ireland was indeed a comparable situation. Depending on the perspective, one could classify the IRA as freedom fighters, an insurgency movement, a seperatist movement or a terrorist movement. But their enemy was essentially next door, whereas ours was not, making attacks on collaborators a bit more iffy in my eyes. Also, some infrastructure was shared, as ours was not, again making that a bit more iffy, though not much. Either way, I will cede the point as the distinction I make is subjective in its value preference dimension.
Hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, directed at the West, are also comparable. But their attacks on their own population are not. However, the political history behind those attacks is no less convoluted. If you are unfamiliar with the background in Afghanistan, I can summarize it for you (just ask). As for the situation in Iraq, it is known that Saddam used an iron hand to suppress the desire of two majorities to go kill each other off, and that there were incidents of terrorism there prior to the US occupation. What has changed, to borrow a well known phrase, is that now three wolves and a sheep gets to decide what's for dinner. In this regard, Saddam was analogous to Tito, and if you know anyone who lived under him and after, they'll tell you things were better back when he was alive, even though they feared him as much as anyone ever feared Saddam. The US simply let the genie out of the bottle, with predictable (and predicted) consequences in the region.
IRA is not relativizing, but perspectivizing as part of an aggregate over European organizations that have carried out attacks on civilians in Europe, compared to the number of deaths caused by Sunni jihadists. There were about 1800 deaths attributed to the late IRA, with a third being civilian fatalities, averaging 120 incidents per year. There are 6.3 million people in Ireland today, vs 34.3 million in Iraq, the equivalent toll being about 9800, comparable to an average year in Iraq (about 8000), or essentially equal to the fatalities from Sunni jihadists in the entire western hemisphere for the past decade (whereas the late IRA spans two to three decades).
ETA gets about half the toll of the IRA, and they're generally considered seperatists. Summing the other organizations would take a bit of time, and a lot of them have primarily targetted infrastructure (e.g. RAF and RZ), but it should be pretty clear that we see numbers that indicate a comparable level of risk. If Bush wasn't so eager to set off a major upsurge in global terrorism, these numbers would exceed Sunni jihadist figures in the West by a significant margin. As it is, the jihadists are an issue, but hardly worth stigmatizing all Muslims for.
Also, raising the specter of the IRA addresses a seperate issue: Europe harbors a great potential for internal violence as a result of the unwillingness of nation states to accomodate people who wish to expatriate or to seperate parts of a nation from its main body, some of which is likely a consequence of inadequacies in the functioning of our democracies (often a "winner takes all" model that effectively lets the majority groups have power on a round robin basis, while the minorities are left with little to no voice in local or national government across the board). Not all, of course.
So, no, I didn't mean to just dangle the IRA out there, and I'm not unsympathetic to the situation that underlies that conflict.
quote:
Indeed there is but I don't think it is a straightforward comparison with Norway decades ago.
Ceded, but filing a note that what is considered a collaborator or "acceptable losses" is a factor in determining targets and motivation. As for the death count you cite, the best figure I can find gives 56.000 in the same period as you give 122.000, and I am inclined to believe the former figure over the latter, but not dead set on it.
quote:
I do take your points seriously, that is why I responded.
I'll take that as a compliment.
quote:
It really depends on your point with regard to the IRA. People keep bringing them up in every argument I see as a method to relativise the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism is different as it can occur in any part of the world while the IRA arose after centuries of vicious sectarianism. I also classify the IRA as terrorists even if their cause is legitimate. I don't like Adams but my point is that it is better to have types like him onside if it results in a meaningful peace.
Correct in regard to the IRA. I might have left them out, save that most US citizens know little of European terrorism, but most have heard of the IRA, which makes it easier to relate to the point I was making for those without that familiarity. The global nature of the Sunni jihadist movement and others is indeed troubling, and they should not be ignored by anyone willing to study the issue. But, it is better to ignore it than to be driven into some common knee jerk reactions that are far too prevalent, as the death toll is still limited.
Quite simply put: given a choice between increased jihadist activity in the West, and a right wing network of domestic organizations starting to ramp up their activities (paramilitary training is now being actively offered in some of these communities by ex-military), where do you think the greatest potential for destruction resides?
Again, a sadly inadequate analysis on my part, which I apologize for, but this thread would be dead and buried before I could make one, given my reduced capacity the past few years. I hope some of my meaning was conveyed, nonetheless.
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
