Reading Current Events

There is an Indian saying that goes "If you cannot take out the butter with a straight finger, bend it". But how far can you bend the finger? Are there any limits? Any lines to be drawn?

It is often said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Is that true? I've always felt that people wouldn't turn into "terrorists", who literally play on their lives, unless they were thoroughly and absolutely convinced about their cause. I know I'm treading on dangerous territory here, and I'm NOT sympathising with any terrorist activity, or even its cause, but what stikes me, in addition to of course the gruesomeness of the event itself, is what must have gone into the making of such a mindset. What is it that turns a man into such a beast...who still feels proud of it, as if it was an act of utmost righteousness? Why would anyone who has a decent job, a family to look after, and who enjoys an acceptable standard of living get compelled to leave everything and die for a cause that he may not even be there to see it accomplished?

The two most important stimulants I could identify are separatist aspirations and religious fundamentalism. And if both of these combine, as in so many instances around the world today, you got yourself a real deadly and complicated potion.

But then again, what leads to separatist tendencies...whether is Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir...wherever...? Surely, there must be *some* element of dissatisfaction and alienation running really deep within a community to motivate them to form lethal "suicide squards". I don't believe any terrorist activity can be sustained for long unless it enjoys atleast some amount of local support. After all, does a common man really care if the region he was born in happens to be in X country or Y, till he gets his basic minimum rights and freedom?

Coming to the second stimulant-religious fundamentalism...well, this usually has to do with the belief that the act would earn the doer a coveted place in the lap of his God. But then, how can *any* God (whoever or whatever that may be) ever be pleased with something so ghastly as 9-11, however "noble" the cause might have been? Okay, one could argue that obviously, such logic and rationality escapes these guys, and thats why they take to such acts...but then, what makes so many people act so irrationally at the same time, and with so much passion and conviction?

And even if I were to go that extra impossible mile, and concede that ends do infact justify the means...do the guys holding 600 people hostage in Moscow really think that even if they were able to strike a deal with the Russian government, a lasting solution could be found to the problem, and that no more blood would flow? or whether *such* desperate measures could take them any close to their cherished goal...and if yes, how much more blood are they willing to see shed? Ditto for those who are engaged in similar battles in the middle-east, Kashmir, and so many other places.

And how should the rest of the world even begin to tackle this cancer? Just surgically, like the way the US has been doing for a long time, and like other nations such as Israel and India seem to be fighting the menace in their own backyard? But doesn't that add still more complex layers to the real issue on hand? Can surgery cure any cancer? Or is it time to to take a completely new look on the human society itself?

Give me a fistful of sky and an ounce of ether... and take eternity in return.

This post was edited by sifar on Oct 25, 2002.

If I try very hard I can think of a few things worth living for, at least one thing worth dying for, but absolutely nothing worth killing for! Though I read something like this somewhere its definitely part of my set of morals.

But who can claim to have the "right" moral? Something that is true for me is most likely to be awfully wrong for you. So who are we to judge any such acts at all? I'm standing on noones side really. Not the "terrorists'" killing innocent victims, but as well not on the nation's side killing innocent victims as well. There is no difference, besides the fact that we tend to tolerate one side and condemn the other. Which one is which is probably just a matter of where and how we were raised. There IS no absolute right or wrong, but its always just a majority decision of the society you live in!

And, whatever happens in Moscow right now, one thing is for sure: the eyes of the world suddenly are focused to the Chechnya problem, a country I guess half of the world never even heard of and I could not even spell before today. So that part of the mission is already accomplished. But I'm afraid we will face another catastrophy, those guys wont just give up, they also found their thing worth dying for...which is obviously a little different to mine, but will sadly enough take not only their lives...

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Beautiful post! Here is my perspective to the human society in the current scenario. I agree, usually a person is only fighting for his/her basic rights, and for freedom - freedom to live, freedom of speech, and other kinds of freedom.

But, the means by which you fight for this freedom define whether you are a terrorist, an extremist or a freedom fighter. If you try to achieve your cause by just means - which does not affect the freedom and the basic rights of others, with whom you are fighting against, then you are a true freedom fighter. Mahatma Gandhi was such a person. The moment you cross the boundaries, and believe that your freedom can be achieved by suppressing the freedom of your opponent, then there is a serious flaw in what you desire. This is totally unacceptable to any society. This is a totally unacceptable way of living in a society.

One can argue, that all peaceful means have been tried and have been fruitless, and that is when one has tried to take the path of extremism, but I would counter it by saying that it just means that you are not patient enough. All the efforts of writings, speeches, peaceful talks, do pay off in the end. Everyone who is sane, and reasonable will try to hear the opponent's point, and will try to move forward to find an amicable solution to the problem. But how do you deal with a person or a government which does not care about the people, and is only there in the region for power, maybe because of the resources available in the region, or for some other kind of power struggle? Will that kind of a leadership, which is undemocratic, listen to any of the people's problems? Will the leaders care for the freedom and the basic rights of a person? My answer is No. In that case, is it okay to use force to outthrow such a leadership? IMHO, Yes, it is not only your right, but a duty, to overthrow such government, and bring in a democratic leadership, which can provide what you exactly need.

But, in this struggle for power, there will be lives lost, but this should not be termed as a freedom struggle or a terrorism, but should be treated like a war against the leadership. What role does innocent people play in such a war? Absolutely none. Your war is against the leadership, so deal with them like in a war, the innocents should not be hurt deliberately. IMO, this means of wars is unjustifiable. Engage the military of the opposition in a combat and deal only with the military and strictly the military targets, no innocent citizens please, and I believe that its a justifiable cause.

But, whenever there is more than one person, or a multiple groups fighting a government, it is quite natural that they all will have some conflicting interests. The moment a group brings into the picture a "religion", I feel that the original cause of the war is totally lost. Religious fundamentalism is the cancer out here, and not the people. Religion has caused most wars in the world then any other cause. And, I firmly believe that religion is the culprit which will bring the downfall of the human species. I strongly condemn any kind of religious fundamentalism, be it by Muslims, or by Hindus.

The question still remains, how do we control this cancer of religious fundamentalism? As you have said, surgery like the Americans do does not cure it. It simply kills the fundamentalists, but the ideologies still remain. Sadly, I see no cure for it! Does anyone else know any cure of religious fundamentalism?

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

In that case, is it okay to use force to outthrow such a leadership? IMHO, Yes, it is not only your right, but a duty, to overthrow such government, and bring in a democratic leadership, which can provide what you exactly need.

hmm…doesn’t that bring in an element of value judgment? But then, I guess we are living in a “relative” world and objective opinions aren’t really possible. And that, perhaps, is another reason for the current world situation (or for that matter, any historical situation). My truth can be very different from your truth. And the funny part is, both of us can be true at the same time. Because as Martin said, there IS no absolute right or wrong.

Engage the military of the opposition in a combat and deal only with the military and strictly the military targets, no innocent citizens please, and I believe that its a justifiable cause.

You know, for some reason, I find it hard to believe that even military targets always make just targets. It is not the guy, though he *may be* too, in military fatigues who takes the political decisions. He’s serving his country as a defence guy, and he would have to fight the war even if he personally disagrees with his government’s policies. Don’t you think it is the political leaders who should ultimately pay the price for their misadventures, and not the men in uniform, who have a rather marginal role to play in *causing* the dissatisfaction in the community in the first place? Of course, if the military started to misuse its liberties and started to harass the civilians, the situation would be different.

The moment a group brings into the picture a "religion", I feel that the original cause of the war is totally lost.

I couldn’t agree more.

The question still remains, how do we control this cancer of religious fundamentalism?

Firstly, perhaps by seeing to it that people’s most basic needs are met throughout the world. And secondly, by understanding that the true message of any religion, which talks of man’s salvation and growth, is love, compassion and most importantly, tolerance for the other person’s opinions. Everything else is secondary. If we cannot learn to love here, there is no other “heaven” where we can find love and peace. But then, this is the responsibility of each and every human on the face of earth. Can we afford to wait for a messiah to drill this basic sense into our minds? Not to mention, if in the process, the messiah founded another religion….well, then nothing more needs to be said!

Give me a fistful of sky and an ounce of ether... and take eternity in return.

This post was edited by sifar on Oct 26, 2002.

And, I firmly believe that religion is the culprit which will bring the downfall of the human species. I strongly condemn any kind of religious fundamentalism, be it by Muslims, or by Hindus.

And dont forget the worst of'em all, the Christians. Christians brought more pain all over the world than all other religions together! Their crusades not even killed lives but whole civilizations and extinguished whole cultures once and for all, or robbing them their identities even until today.

Still, education is the key! Who are those people believing in their hail brought by some imaginary superpower? Mostly those who dont find any perspectives to life in reality being slaves to their own circumstances, living in poverty and without ever learning more than how to get their food for the next day.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

The two most important stimulants I could identify are separatist aspirations and religious fundamentalism.

You forget poverty. Many terrorists and suicide bombers do not have a decent job, but they do have a family to look after. In places with an unemployment rate of 90% or higher, it's not hard to understand the rationale of a man who trades in his life for the promise of giving his wife and children food to eat and a house to live in.

And how should the rest of the world even begin to tackle this cancer?

Trying to no longer give other nations reasons to hate your country would help. Trying to find working ways to increase proverty in poor countries would help. It would also help if people stopped being raised with religious doctrines with a world outlook comparable to that of that Austrian guy with the funny mustache.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

You forget poverty.

I agree I didn’t *explicitly* mention poverty, but the point I was making in the entire post was that even the ostensible stimulants – separatist aspirations and religious fundamentalism – have deep rooted feelings of dissatisfaction and alienation at the bottom. Such irrational jingoism and fundamentalism cannot find ground unless the fuel of poverty and denial of freedoms exist. And that’s why I talked of a fresh look on the functioning of the human society itself.

Many terrorists and suicide bombers do not have a decent job, but they do have a family to look after. In places with an unemployment rate of 90% or higher, it's not hard to understand the rationale of a man who trades in his life for the promise of giving his wife and children food to eat and a house to live in.

Totally agree. And that’s what I meant was if people had their most basic economic needs met, they would find no reason to take to such acts, and if they did in spite of it, then it is because they find their “cause” so motivating that they are willing to die and kill for it. This motivation could be the suffering of the peoples they identify with, or could be the irrational belief that such act would lead to their spiritual/religious salvation. But in either case, denial of basic rights can be spotted as the basic problem.

Trying to no longer give other nations reasons to hate your country would help. Trying to find working ways to increase proverty in poor countries would help.

I agree, once again. But do you trust the governments, who thrive on popularity derived out of milking such jingoistic sentiments, to do the job? And can the civil society afford to wait till our political leaders start thinking in a more mature and humane way?

At the moment, not many people in the developing world really trust the intentions of the developed west on its commitment to the endless “development goals” that are drafted in plush rooms. The earth summit was a debacle like so many other summits of its kind. Whatever happened to the extravagant plans that were drawn at Rio? Who are we fooling?

Give me a fistful of sky and an ounce of ether... and take eternity in return.

I have been walking around and thinking about the people in Al Quaida who might be drawn into a terrorist group.

The head leaders I discount...I'm pretty sure what their aims are.

In the extreme Muslim religion I understand male rules supreme in all decisions. The religion itself supports your right to rule your household without interference unless..extremes are brought before a Judge or Religious leader. I'm pretty sure their statistics and ours on abuse of domestic "rights" are about the same.

If I were impoverished male head of household, inclined to sell a child or put them to work as soon as they could do the tasks, instead of losing their support income to educate them, I would be very open to at least supporting Al Quaida. They are resistance fighters to knowledge and a way of life that I am ill prepared for, do not understand, do not want to risk losing what I DO have.

Extreme poverty, ill managed government, arid farmlands, battleground of super powers for decades. The one money making crop is illegal in most of the "civilized world", that is a guaranteed draw of the "best of minds and ethics". Role models.

A program of land enrichment, water conservation and irrigation, needed tools, crop management, teachers, engineers, doctors, medical supplies....basic's. So much cheaper than war.

Work with me to give me the ability to feed myself and my family, have water to drink and grow food enough to sell, a crop to bargain with, shelter from the weather extremes, don't make my faith an issue, it is older than yours, probably. It guarantees me relief if this earth cannot.

Threaten me when I'm struggling to survive...what do I have to lose?? My role models have been here from my memory, my father's memory...and they deliver what they promise.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was edited by gentledeepwaters on Oct 30, 2002.

The tricky thing about morals - particularly from a standpoint of conflict with other people - is which morals are actually justified. In (for an example) the current terrorism problems, it is fairly easy to see that people who kill others are wrong, but when does killing others in retribution (for past or current wrongs) become right?
Morals are an interesting subject, no doubt. As an atheist, one of my favorite things to do is debate with (reasonable) members of religions. One invariable topic is what is wrong and what is right. The essential problem that all people who embrace a religion have is conformity to the morals of their faith. Many of them have good, humanitarian strictures - but at the same time the only reason they recognize any morals is because they feel that doing right will give them access to heaven.
With such an attitude, unfortunately, it is very easy to corrupt the goodness that all religions seem to espouse. The people that accept what other sources have to say on the behavior required of them can easily be manipulated. It becomes too easy for demagogues or cultural movements to gain acceptance by taking advantage of this fervent acceptance of others's words.
As a result, religious movements are easy to corrupt. Powerful leaders or social factors can turn an essentially beneficial religion into an instrument for destruction. The only reason that Islam has such problems today is that the Arabic world is completely embraced by one religion. In such an atmosphere, dissatisfaction can quickly take the form of oppression and terrorism.
For many years I professed to have no morals - seeing what these misguided religious morals did to the world. But unfortunately a lack of morals is more distressing to a great many people than the presence of morals commanding one to kill for faith. As a result, I have decided that because I have been living my life in a certain way, I might as well call my values morals to appease others.
The only thing that I can ever be sure of is other people. Social groups, governments and afterlives are abstract concepts, and I do not particularly care for most worldly possessions, but I can connect to individuals. I don't believe in placing abstractions above humans - so it seems nonsensical to kill or repress others for those intangible ideas. I feel that if others would take a more people-oriented view, it would be a great deal harder to hate them. For people are essentially alike.
I also don't approve of destroying the environment. This, too, is easy to accept once the religious viewpoint is broken away from. Outdated concepts of humanity's god-ordained superiority stop us from seeing that we are all part of a large ecosystem. We can't destroy our environment and our fellow lifeforms for the sake of an idealogical superiority complex.
I would also like to believe in love, but that is a more complicated story - and definitely more rambling than this

you can come to terms and realize, you're the only one who cannot forgive yourself -Pearl Jam

Beautifully put.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?