Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

a lovely country ארץ נהדרת

February 18, 2010

it is thursday

my favorite day of the week since i was 9 years old

you can start smelling the weekend.

looking forward to what erez nehderet will do about the mossad job in Dubai tomorrow?

a few thoughts:

not exactly a song of ‘values’. for the lyrics, which i had a hard time figuring out, looks here.

i’m talking pedicure on our toes, toes

  • why do western countries measure Israel by western values?

we went to dubai to kill a terrorist on his way to iran, on his way to get more arms into gaza.

our team was traced.oops. that is part of the risk. it would have been nice if we had erased the video.

now, do the government summoning up our ambassadors really expect us to use israeli passports? we have to use foreign ones and once in a while it will be british. and once in a while we will be caught.

i think this is all noise that will go away in 2 weeks. then again, i am way out of my territory

don’t stop. make it pop

softpower: terrorism and the next US president

November 17, 2008

war on terrorism

if an american city is attacked by terrorist nuclear power, the world as we know it will change. human rights issues out the window

this guys is a very biased and it is very difficult to listen to him:

  • lets call it extremism, not terrorism
  • the old testament is a very violent book
  • America supports: israel, saudi arabia, iran under the shah, undemocratic oppressive regimes
  • Islam is under attack post 6 day war, after israel did that thing

key takeaways:

intelligence vs human rights. no way to fight terrorism according if playing by the rules

claim: most moslems would chose moderation over violence

a violent response is ‘what divides you and unites us’

linguistics is very difficult to apply to this matter. what is the definition of terrorism? who gets to call whom a terrorist. this is a big issue

time: al-quida sees this is a 1000 year initiative. so time is on their hands

discussion:

fresh – can restart, sometimes easier than continuing

credible and balanced approach

in 90s many US attempts to appease islam which did not play well.

when did terrorism start? actually the jewish zealots under roman rule in 66-73 AD are the first. called sicarii

historical lessons:

  • win the hearts and minds (in the Moslem world)

therefore

  • avoid over-reaction. makes terrorists strive. violent and repressive turns out to be a recruiting tool and create legitimacy. creates violent cycles of action and re-action. who started?
  • avoid under-reaction. latin american governments and marxist groups.

study algeria and FLN. movie ‘the battle of algiers’.

also bbc, 2004 dirty war. does a good job of people’s believes.

joseph nye, coined softpower:

The basic concept of power is the ability to influence others to get them to do what you want. There are three major ways to do that:

  1. one is to threaten them with sticks;
  2. the second is to pay them with carrots;
  3. the third is to attract them or co-opt them, so that they want what you want.

If you can get others to be attracted to want what you want, it costs you much less in carrots and sticks. [1]

sacred violence

October 13, 2008

talk about the book sacred violence

key takeaway:

torture can be done unto only someone you deem not equal, lower being

history is driven by extremists, not moderate majority. violent extremists can blow every plan

geneva convention is a joke. it was written by majorities to control violence.

international law ignores politics (as economic policies) and therefore are irrelevent

rather than write a book on law, get politically involved

can terrorism ever be justified?

October 6, 2008

notes by nicola harrington. thanks nicola!

Host: Stuart Gottlieb, Director of Policy Studies

Presenter: Tamar Meisels, Tel Aviv University

Hague Convention 1907 sets out the framework for legal warfare

Terrorism:- “A continuation of politics through other means”

A liberal cannot accept that terrorism is acceptable, ever, to achieve political goals. Against humanist view that cannot utilise other people for objective that they do not share and have no say in.

Terrorism – civilian targets to instill fear
Political assassination – political targets
Guerrilla warfare – combatant targets

Is democracy bad in relation to terrorism?  Terrorists are free riders on the moral restraints, rule of law etc of a democracy: they can rely on the fact that the state/military will not respond in equal kind/force, if it did, it would anihilate the terrorists quickly because of unequal capacity.   Don’t pay your taxes but enjoy the benefits that everyone else does. Don’t respect the ROL but benefit from its existence and the moral restraint of that society and state.  Abusing the freedoms of that society.

They all have options: political assassination, guerrilla warfare, negotiating table.

Erica Chenoweth, Wesleyan University, Discussant

Two by two matrix:
– Intended/unintended deaths of civilians
– Anticipated/unanticipated deaths of civilians

*Terrorism – intended and anticipated
*Collateral – unintended but anticipated
*Accident – unanticipated and unintended

Spectrum

Can terrorism be justified against totalitarian regimes deploying violence against their own civilians? Flip side of the Free rider argument [if terrorism is wrong because the state cannot and does not use those means, what happens and what is legitimate against a state that does?]

Policy challenges:
Principal agent problem – who takes responsibility, can we only manage to define action categories but not group categories, is it the terrorist actors or the terrorist groups who are responsible?

Huge question in the US – who are the terrorists, should it be treated as criminality or warfare?  (Patriot Act).  Who can you target with criminal justice: individuals, not groups.  [Gavin – In the UK can only try the individual, so if the leaders have not themselves carried out a violent act or cannot be very closely linked to you, you don’t have the means to try them.]

“Western” standards of – “Moral” justifications – Targeting civilians – link to “moral justification” – religious association

Est. 7% of terrorist groups have achieved their aims – happens as a substitution for mass support. Can legitimize through the violence cycle with the “enemy” e.g. FLN.

Difference between limited vs maximalist violence – some have aims for territorial claims, others to wipe another group out

Hamas – where is it on the spectrum?

“Accountability” of the terrorists – ? According to international law are not meant to be fighting so irrelevant.  How can you hold them to account and to whom?

Hiroshima – In the above terms, it was terrorism.

Al-Quaeda declared war – US let them even though not a state [in my view, one of the singlest most fundamental mistakes in the fight against terror – legitimized something as  a war (“legal” – holy war) vs criminal acts.