[Osx-nutters] jesus camp

[David Cake]

At 2:41 PM +0100 19/9/06, guy hammond wrote:
>Religious terrorism is different. Want territory? OK, we can negotiate*. Want
>freedom for your people? Again, that's something that can be got**. Want
>revenge on ancient blood-enemies? That too is possible, and when you're all
>dead the matter is done with. Or maybe we can just drop a UN peacekeeping
>force in to keep you physically separate***.

	Just.... no.
	Religious terrorism doesn't just suddenly spring into peoples 
heads. You can't just assume that religion is like schizophrenia. 
Religious groups have an ideology, a grievance.
	I mean, which terrorists are we talking about here? Islamist 
terrorism of various kinds variously fits into the 'freedom for your 
people', ideological, and revenge camps.

	And besides, explain to me how its so easy to negotiate with, 
say, groups like the Red Army Faction whose goal overthrowing 
capitalism and overthrowing governments.

>But "because the voices in my head told me so" isn't any basis for dialogue.

	Nor is it the basis of any major world religion. What you are 
saying is that you think religious terrorism is special because you 
don't understand them -- this has more to do with you than them.

>Political suicide bombers do it because they want their
>children/relatives/tribe/whatever to get the benefit of their political goal.
>They can be reasoned with because it's all about the goal. If your goal is a
>shortcut to heaven, there's nothing anyone can offer you.

	Suicide bombers bomb because they want to advance a political 
goal. They might be more willing to countenance the suicide part for 
religious reasons, but that doesn't explain why they bomb. And after 
all, we really care more about the bombing than the suicide part.

>* Tho' if you're Israel and you offer your enemies 98% of the West Bank and
>50% of Jerusalem and they simply walk out as Arafat did, it's a pretty clear
>clue that it was never about that to start with.

	Much as you might disdain his reasoning, Fatah was an 
outwardly largely nationalist group without an explicit religious 
agenda. Its Arab nationalist primarily. Which was part of why they 
lost power to Hizbollah.

>** There was nothing non-terrorist about the ANC by any reasonable modern
>definition - it just so happened that collective Western opinion happened to
>broadly agree with their goals.

	Absolutely. Its part and parcel of the demonisation of 
terrorism that we conveniently relabel any group currently looked on 
favourably as non-terrorist. And, of course, this question is always 
lurking at the core of the question of Israel, too. Terrorism clearly 
was a part of the foundation of the state of Israel too.
	Cheers
		David