1. I don't think that in a measured consideration anyone here thinks of terrorism as the equivalent of serial killing where the act of killing is the source of pleasure. [...]
2. I seriously doubt that there can be a situation where 90% of the population are not in sympathy with the terrorists, but instead favour some negotiated solution, that can yield such a high level of terrorist activity. [...]
full at -
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-o f-Mon-20040906/019714.html >
========
To make sure I'm correctly understanding your ideas I'm going to restate them.
I believe you're saying that:
* Terrorism is not the organized behavior of coalitions of psychopaths (and, therefore, an end unto
itself) but a symptom of something larger - it's the "tip of the iceberg" as you wrote
* Terrorism of a certain intensity cannot be sustained
without a large amount of popular support (you stated a theoretical amount of 90 percent)
* Assuming the above statements are true, it follows that all terrorist situations are, in some broadly understood way, identical even if the locations and specifics differ.
....
This, at least, is what I believe you were saying in your post.
..
Among the many problems with human styles of cognition
(an imperfect and unreliable evolutionary adaptation to be sure) is a tendency to filter events through our
beliefs. Worse, we do this almost always without awareness. Science has the immensely powerful tool of
its method of theory, experimentation and review which
doesn't prevent bias but provides a technique for - sooner or later - neutralizing its effects.
Political thought possesses no similar tool since facts, more often than not, have no commonly agreed upon interpretation.
What does this have to do with terrorism or Chechnya or any of the rest of it?
Only this.
Your theory of terrorism (and I think your ideas can fairly be described as a theoretical sketch) contains two linked ideas that reveal an underlying belief.
These ideas are:
a.) terrorism is always a manifestation of deeper problems
b.) intense and sustained forms of terrorism are dependent upon popular support
The unspoken idea here is that terrorist action has a sort of rough legitimacy because it reflects the frustrations and will of a large group of people (whether in N. Ireland, Chechnya or Palestine). This is the belief that leads you, without reference to particular circumstances or specific facts, to conclude that the Chechnya situation is more or less equivalent to the Palestinian's plight or the former conditions in N. Ireland.
But as I said in my previous post, there are indeed unique situations in the world that only appear to be identical when examined from the surface.
It is possible for an elegant theory to be quite wrong
when its model is applied to real world events - in fact, this happens quite often.
Although your model makes perfect sense and is very logical, I believe there are (and will be) instances when it cannot be used to accurately describe a particular situation.
My reading of the Chechnya crisis is that it is precisely the sort of exception that breaks the would be rule.
Later in your post you ask this:
** Incidentally, if the quote from Putin is serious: What is he really saying, and Why the faith in Putin? **
...
Not a faith in Putin but a better understanding of the
meaning of one of the things he said during his televised statement.
Specifically, this:
Measures would be taken, Putin promised, to overhaul the law enforcement organs, which he acknowledged had been infected by corruption, and tighten borders.
[...]
full -
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e
=2&u=/ap/20040904/ap_on_re_eu/russia_school_seizure_2
>
The reference to corruption and how it related to counter terrorism puzzled me. But later, Peter Lavelle's description of a kind of "business model" in
which both corrupt police and supposed "separatists" benefit from continued violence revealed greater details about Putin's meaning and provided a fuller context.
.d.