[lbo-talk] Re: Low Life (was "Come friendly bombers" )

[snitsnat]

At 06:59 PM 7/15/2005, James Heartfield wrote:
> > CB: You think the bombers didn't identify
> > at all with the colored victims of the white British invasions ?
>
>I honestly do not think so, Charles. Certainly the bombers are unlikely to 
>have sympathised with the 500 Yugoslavs killed in the British/American 
>bombings of 1999. On the contrary, they wanted to see more of them killed, 
>and many Al Qaeda supporters were volunteers in the war against the Serbs, 
>which was the last occasion when Osama bin Laden directly collaborated 
>with the US authorities.
>
>I know that some listers are struggling to understand the obvious, the 
>bombers were motivated by an Islamist belief, not an anti-imperialist one. 
>Abd Samad Moussauoi cites some of the propaganda that inspired his 
>brother, Zacarias Moussaoui to get involved in the World Trade Center bombing:
>
>"Today a Muslim society no longer exists, there is no more Islam and there 
>are no more Muslims. Muslim society will only come back into being when 
>existing regimes have been destroyed and given way to a power which 
>respects divine intervention to the letter. All the societies in the 
>world, with no exceptions, are idolatrous and full of infidels, conscious 
>that authority belongs only to God. For when a man dares to invent laws, 
>he proclaims himself the equal of God. And all peoples which subject 
>themselves to such a man without resistance or rebellion are in a state of 
>adoration of him by their obedience to him. The true Muslim today is the 
>Muslim who makes jihad against all governments whose legislation is human 
>in origin, in order to topple them and reinstate divine legislation.' (The 
>Making of a Terrorist, p 49)
>
>Everyone is an apostate, all human government is wicked. That is not an 
>anti-Imperialist ideology, is is an anti-human one. It legitimates killing 
>people of all colours, and all religions, including Muslims who live in 
>law-governed societies.

So, can't we simply look at them as we might look at christian terrorists 
in the u.s.? they are motivated by their beliefs. That doesn't stop anyone 
from examining the social conditions which may breed their attraction to 
those beliefs.

I've forgotten the name of the woman who interviewed terrorists across the 
world. I want to say it was Jennifer something. I've posted material from 
here as has Doug. There was a nice long piece in the FT, oh about 14-16 
months ago perhaps? Doug, do you remember it?

What I can't fathom, though, is why this matters. What's at stake? If you 
determine it's religiously motivated and for inexplicable reasons some 
people are attracted to the ideology, while others aren't, what do you do 
about it? Anything?

If it's true that it's relative deprivation (which does have some support 
in the literature IIRC), then what's the solution? Is there one? How do we 
craft a message, if we want to end this war? Does it matter? Just ignore 
it? Muddled questions. I know. And, btw, I just read where you said you 
went postal. You're a cool guy for that.

kelley

"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."

                        -- rwmartin