.jpg)
The Guardian has the info.
Am I terribly shocked? No. But then again, I studied terrorism using something other than Parliamentary statements and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. You know, with people who have spent their entire lives studying terrorists, mapping personalities, conducting interviews, modelling radicalization etc.
Marc Sageman in particular has been noting and publishing the trends MI5 have produced since the publication of his Understanding Terror Networks, if not before. Nothing in this report is really new from that. Religious novices? Check. Socially excluded or removed second or third generation immigrants? Check. Low incidence of mental illness? Check.
I'm surprised any of this is even considered news. Anyone who has been following the academic terrorism literature knew this stuff a long time ago. We have reports going back to the Red Brigades and UVF that rule out mental illness, or a particular personality type.
Other background details are interesting, highlighting the difference between the old Al-Qaeda (the professionals in their late 20s to 30s, who have families etc) and the new Al-Qaeda, the kids in their late teens or early 20s. The diversity of background, from sober, nearly areligious (until recently) professional family man with no criminal background, to the kid who has been caught taking drugs and possibly served a sentence for a violent crime, who cannot even read Arabic, is enormous.
And those are just two of the many profiles one could come up with. Factor in racial background, gender, educational history, geographical location etc and you quickly lose anything that resembles a useful description of a potential terrorist.
Even worse, terrorists often tailor their recruitment methods to avoid profiles. By concentrating on certain segments on the population, you just increase the evolutionary adaption of an organization. As the 7/7 bombings show, anyone who had been looking for foreign born, or all Pakistani radicals, for example, would have been caught out. And yes, you could argue the converse, that in fact some lives might have been saved, but the true mark of terrorism is targeting weak points, taking advantage of the unexpected and unconsidered. As soon as you focus on one area, and it becomes obvious (and believe me, with the internet, it will), then terrorist groups will regroup and attack from unexpected directions.
The best way, as Sageman notes, is to map the relationships between known violent radicals, facilitators of violent teachings and those who are involved in activity which is linked to terrorism. Target the smugglers (people or otherwise), the money launderers, the radical Imams with links to training camps in Pakistan or Indonesia or the Middle East. That is how you deal with Islamic terrorism.
And lets not overlook the possibility of a resurgence of rightwing, nationalist terrorism either. Its picking up in the USA, currently, and there could be international implications, when we consider how many have adapted themselves to narrative of the War on Terror, and the persistent Eurabia bullshit.
Anyway, a welcome report, and I am glad to see MI5 seem to know what they are doing.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Aug 21, 2008
Aug 10, 2008
What part of "bomb" don't you understand?
Via Greylodge:
GPOD has an excellent radio inteview of Rachel North by Jon Ronson. I highly recommend you check it out at the following link. I also second Pale Rider's comments at the bottom of the entry, about her treatment at the hands of certain conspiracy theorists.
GPOD has an excellent radio inteview of Rachel North by Jon Ronson. I highly recommend you check it out at the following link. I also second Pale Rider's comments at the bottom of the entry, about her treatment at the hands of certain conspiracy theorists.
Aug 3, 2008
Anthrax, ANTHRAX!
It seems at long last the anthrax case in the USA may be coming to an end and the FBI have their man.
Too bad he's dead.
Ivins added bentonite to the samples of the spores that were used, a chemica that was only used by Iraqi biowarfare specialists. That was how the lie was planted. Unfortunately, the bentonite did not detract from the fact that further analysis showed the spores were grown in Ft Detrick labs.
The letters sent out read:
Implicating Islamic terrorism in addition to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that this was part of the campaign to shore up support for a war in Iraq. The anthrax came from Ft Detrick. Ivins worked at Ft Detrick. Reports leaked to ABC implicating by name Iraq as the source of the anthrax came from Ft Detrick. Link Iraq to Islamic terrorism. Link the anthrax attacks to 9-11. 9-11 = Iraq. Osama bin Laden and Saddam are working together.
The narrative is obvious and bears no real repeating.
The most interesting thing though is that the piggybacking technique of this act of terrorism is an idea that originated on the far-right of the US political spectrum, among the militias dreaming of destroying the Federal Government. There are papers that have been circulated among such groups calling for anonymous follow-up attacks in the case of foreign terrorism against the USA - a grassroots strategy of tension designed to throw society to the far-right while dealing some deadly blows to their establishment enemies (notably centrist and left wing politicians).
I tried doing some looking around on sites that track the far right to see what they had on Ivins, if anything. As it turns out, extremely little. His political affiliations do not seem to be listed, only that he has a very violent temper and apparently came up with a plan to methodically murder all of his co-workers just a month before he offed himself.
However, it is worth noting that, attacks on the media aside (which I suspect were done for publicity), the real attacks on political figures were done on those on the left, Daschle, Leahy and Feingold's office. It is also worth noting that the person who sent fake anthrax letters a few years later - piggybacking off the piggyback terrorism - was none other than Chad Conrad Castagana, a Freeper, Michelle Malkin fan and extreme Christian Nationalist who once said:
So there is no conclusive evidence of this being militia orientated....however the links in methodology are disturbing, especially when we consider how this came from within high ranks of the US military (Maj. Gen. John Parker perpetuated the lie that the USA did not have powder anthrax, only liquid) and also apparently served the interests of the government of the time - well before most manouvering on the Iraq war had even begun to take place. Of course, some figures within the US administration, notably the Pentagon neocons, were pushing for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9-11 (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith etc) but that was not public knowledge at the time.
This raises a lot more questions than it solves, it seems.
Too bad he's dead.
The FBI's lead suspect in the September, 2001 anthrax attacks -- Bruce E. Ivins -- died Tuesday night, apparently by suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the attacks. For the last 18 years, Ivins was a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, where he was one of the most elite government anthrax scientists on the research team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID).
The 2001 anthrax attacks remain one of the great mysteries of the post-9/11 era. After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential. The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters -- with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 -- that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.
If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks.
Ivins added bentonite to the samples of the spores that were used, a chemica that was only used by Iraqi biowarfare specialists. That was how the lie was planted. Unfortunately, the bentonite did not detract from the fact that further analysis showed the spores were grown in Ft Detrick labs.
The letters sent out read:
We have anthrax.
You die now.
Are you afraid?
Death to America.
Death to Israel.
Allah is great.
Implicating Islamic terrorism in addition to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that this was part of the campaign to shore up support for a war in Iraq. The anthrax came from Ft Detrick. Ivins worked at Ft Detrick. Reports leaked to ABC implicating by name Iraq as the source of the anthrax came from Ft Detrick. Link Iraq to Islamic terrorism. Link the anthrax attacks to 9-11. 9-11 = Iraq. Osama bin Laden and Saddam are working together.
The narrative is obvious and bears no real repeating.
The most interesting thing though is that the piggybacking technique of this act of terrorism is an idea that originated on the far-right of the US political spectrum, among the militias dreaming of destroying the Federal Government. There are papers that have been circulated among such groups calling for anonymous follow-up attacks in the case of foreign terrorism against the USA - a grassroots strategy of tension designed to throw society to the far-right while dealing some deadly blows to their establishment enemies (notably centrist and left wing politicians).
I tried doing some looking around on sites that track the far right to see what they had on Ivins, if anything. As it turns out, extremely little. His political affiliations do not seem to be listed, only that he has a very violent temper and apparently came up with a plan to methodically murder all of his co-workers just a month before he offed himself.
However, it is worth noting that, attacks on the media aside (which I suspect were done for publicity), the real attacks on political figures were done on those on the left, Daschle, Leahy and Feingold's office. It is also worth noting that the person who sent fake anthrax letters a few years later - piggybacking off the piggyback terrorism - was none other than Chad Conrad Castagana, a Freeper, Michelle Malkin fan and extreme Christian Nationalist who once said:
Liberals and Lefties everywhere in America's institutions are trying to slowly but increasingly ban Christianity from America, from our site, from our discourse !
They have already succeded in banning any sign of Christianity from ourPublic Schools ! !
If THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST were released today for the first time, it would be slapped with an NC-17 rating !
So there is no conclusive evidence of this being militia orientated....however the links in methodology are disturbing, especially when we consider how this came from within high ranks of the US military (Maj. Gen. John Parker perpetuated the lie that the USA did not have powder anthrax, only liquid) and also apparently served the interests of the government of the time - well before most manouvering on the Iraq war had even begun to take place. Of course, some figures within the US administration, notably the Pentagon neocons, were pushing for an attack on Iraq immediately after 9-11 (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith etc) but that was not public knowledge at the time.
This raises a lot more questions than it solves, it seems.
Jun 15, 2008
Behold the true face of the modern Labour Party
Thanks to Luke Akehurst:
Yup, thats right. The party of Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Eric Blair is now aping the Republicans in their desire to show off to the electorate how tough and stern they can be on issues of "national security". Why he just doesn't go around beating his chest and laughing at sissy "liberals" is beyond me - it would be practically the same thing.
I often considered past critiques of the British Labour Party as having a NeoCon disposition as somewhat laughable. Even John Gray limited that description to Tony Blair in his Black Mass book. But since Brown has come to power, with this almost bizzare emphasis on Britishness, British Jobs for British People and pushing ever more stringent national security agendas, I'm starting to think it could be closer to the truth, in the security and foreign policy realms.
This repellent suggestion also reeks of the political manipulation of the 9/11 victims, much of which went towards justifying laws that just as equally as 42 days would have not stopped the event from happening, as well as a weapon to attack dissenters with. I'm glad Brown's government is on the way out if this is the sort of thing that can seriously be floated among the Labour party. I'd rather take a risk on the Tories being frothing nutcases than deal with the ones we currently have.
That said, this issue does seem to have revived some form of support for Labour. The voters seem to be broadly behind it, and while of course it is always a bad idea to guage support based on comment sections in tabloid newspapers (too easy for party political types to astroturf) the fact that a stream of vitriol can be directed at someone of the background of David Davis by Sun readers seems nothing short of extraordinary. I mean, he's anti-EU, anti-gay rights, pro-death penalty, an ex SAS soldier and often makes proclaiments about "moral degeneration." In other words, he's the sort of person the average Sun reader would normally cheer on.
There is no chance that I can see of Davis losing his seat, especially not to a wanker like Kelvin MacKenzie - no matter how much money Murdoch gives him, and how closely the press stick to the government line ("ooh, isn't Davis such an attention seeker? What an egotistical little twat..."). But I still worry about the wider implications of this 'refendum' - with good reason as it seems.
Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: "Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects".
I'm fed up with us playing softball with the Tories while they posture and pontificate on this issue. If they want to play liberal they should pay the full political price for it and be eviscerated at the polls for being soft on national security. We should have their stance on this issue on every single poster and leaflet at the next General Election and then see how Davis and his mates feel about a referendum on this issue.
Yup, thats right. The party of Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Eric Blair is now aping the Republicans in their desire to show off to the electorate how tough and stern they can be on issues of "national security". Why he just doesn't go around beating his chest and laughing at sissy "liberals" is beyond me - it would be practically the same thing.
I often considered past critiques of the British Labour Party as having a NeoCon disposition as somewhat laughable. Even John Gray limited that description to Tony Blair in his Black Mass book. But since Brown has come to power, with this almost bizzare emphasis on Britishness, British Jobs for British People and pushing ever more stringent national security agendas, I'm starting to think it could be closer to the truth, in the security and foreign policy realms.
This repellent suggestion also reeks of the political manipulation of the 9/11 victims, much of which went towards justifying laws that just as equally as 42 days would have not stopped the event from happening, as well as a weapon to attack dissenters with. I'm glad Brown's government is on the way out if this is the sort of thing that can seriously be floated among the Labour party. I'd rather take a risk on the Tories being frothing nutcases than deal with the ones we currently have.
That said, this issue does seem to have revived some form of support for Labour. The voters seem to be broadly behind it, and while of course it is always a bad idea to guage support based on comment sections in tabloid newspapers (too easy for party political types to astroturf) the fact that a stream of vitriol can be directed at someone of the background of David Davis by Sun readers seems nothing short of extraordinary. I mean, he's anti-EU, anti-gay rights, pro-death penalty, an ex SAS soldier and often makes proclaiments about "moral degeneration." In other words, he's the sort of person the average Sun reader would normally cheer on.
There is no chance that I can see of Davis losing his seat, especially not to a wanker like Kelvin MacKenzie - no matter how much money Murdoch gives him, and how closely the press stick to the government line ("ooh, isn't Davis such an attention seeker? What an egotistical little twat..."). But I still worry about the wider implications of this 'refendum' - with good reason as it seems.
Jun 12, 2008
Well I for one...
Am very glad the government wont be pandering to religious extremists with this new 42 day detention scheme. Furthermore, as I am sure you are aware, I am always glad to see Labour stamp its authority over the potential party rebels on this issue.
Oooh, snark. Its a new direction I'm thinking of taking. It has more satirical potential than justified outrage, for starters, and often makes the point just as well.
Anyway, I'm off to troll retards, authoritarians and Dail Mail readers on Have Your Say, home of such insightful views into the 42 Day Detention legislation such as:
Because apparently we can't protect our freedoms without giving them up, which makes perfect sense.
Fortunately, most of the most recommended comments are ones bemoaning this authoritarian free-fall we seem to be in, though I did notice at least one comment generated by the spEak You're bRanes Twat-o-tron got 172 recommendations:
Sadly, I think most of those votes are non-ironic, given the next comment says:
I'm sure you also noted the dehumanizing terms here. Of course, he also seems to have missed the point of a trial is to ascertain guilt, and is not some sort of bizzare favour to terrorists, and when someone is charged with such a serious crime, they are normally held until the trial ascertains this.
Yeah, because as you know, no Islamic terrorists are born in this country, because all the darkies are from Foreign Parts. And white people don't become Islamofascists.
That was sarcasm, for any passing HYS commentators. I know you may be unfamiliar with the term.
However, by and large it seems that the comments are very critical of the government, which is somewhat heartening. I even saw the quote by Hume "better a murderer go free than a honest man be hanged" be mentioned.
Still, once again the fate of UK politics is now in the hands of an unelected chamber of foppish aristocrats, religious nutters and political loan sharks. Oh joy.
Oooh, snark. Its a new direction I'm thinking of taking. It has more satirical potential than justified outrage, for starters, and often makes the point just as well.
Anyway, I'm off to troll retards, authoritarians and Dail Mail readers on Have Your Say, home of such insightful views into the 42 Day Detention legislation such as:
The 42 day period is too short and should be indefinite
Because apparently we can't protect our freedoms without giving them up, which makes perfect sense.
Fortunately, most of the most recommended comments are ones bemoaning this authoritarian free-fall we seem to be in, though I did notice at least one comment generated by the spEak You're bRanes Twat-o-tron got 172 recommendations:
it's sad but true. in my opinion criminals ar islamifying britain because of thir so-called 'humanr ight'. soon we will vote bnp. lets do what the french do and all strike!!!
English_forever, England
Sadly, I think most of those votes are non-ironic, given the next comment says:
The destructive animals who perpetrate this heanous crime, should be allowed no privilages, no sympathy from mis-guided statesmen, and no mercy.
Any foreign creature involved in the plotted deaths of Westerners ought to be put out of their own misery, humanely, and not fawned over by stupid and naive politicians.
I'm sure you also noted the dehumanizing terms here. Of course, he also seems to have missed the point of a trial is to ascertain guilt, and is not some sort of bizzare favour to terrorists, and when someone is charged with such a serious crime, they are normally held until the trial ascertains this.
If they didn't let them into the country in the first place, then they wouldn't have to lock them up. A shame the Government won't deal with border control as a priority issue!
Yeah, because as you know, no Islamic terrorists are born in this country, because all the darkies are from Foreign Parts. And white people don't become Islamofascists.
That was sarcasm, for any passing HYS commentators. I know you may be unfamiliar with the term.
However, by and large it seems that the comments are very critical of the government, which is somewhat heartening. I even saw the quote by Hume "better a murderer go free than a honest man be hanged" be mentioned.
Still, once again the fate of UK politics is now in the hands of an unelected chamber of foppish aristocrats, religious nutters and political loan sharks. Oh joy.
Jun 4, 2008
Hearts and Minds
Welcome to the modern day war zone. Right now, as I speak, a thousand battles are being waged for your submission and allegiance. Commanders and politicians have decided that the enemy is us and that we are to be bought to heel, as soon as possible.
No doubt some of you think I'm using hyperbole, or metaphor to illustrate an example of our socially fractured society and the commodification of identity. And while those certainly are problems, anyone thinking about those in relation to my rant today are wrong. Right now, you and I are quite literally at war with at least one government, namely that of the USA.
Oh to be sure there won't be running battles with light infantry. No air-strikes are going to be called in on your house, and I'm reasonably certain you wont get carted away to Guantanomo Bay, or any other black site that exists. But just because guns aren't being loaded and blood isn't been spilt doesn't mean this isn't a conflict.
You see, war isn't about the clash of armies on the battlefield anymore. Hell, its barely even about killing, except as an advertising hook or a final solution for people who refuse to stop being a pain in the ass. No, warfare has moved through the gentlemanly period of pitched battles and low casualties, blown apart by Napoleon and perfected in the slaughterhouse of WWI. Its not even the dirty political warfare that characterized the Cold War, marked by futile superpower conflict and strategies designed to bleed a superpower by third world proxies, and on the other end of the scale by terrorism.
No, warfare today is about fighting on the psychological and narrative level. Its about capturing the mind, and shackling it to the agenda of the day, regardless of what that agenda may be.
The thing is, you see, as warfare has become less and less about artful strategy and less bound by codes of conduct – be they religious, cultural or legal – the real issue has not been arms, logistics, intelligence and skill, but about the sheer will to fight. Whoever goes on fighting the longest, whoever is willing to do what it takes to persuade the other side to accept their interests, whoever is able to effectively frame the agenda in a certain manner, is the winner in the modern world. You can even suffer strategic setbacks if your message and will is powerful enough.
And of course, if you accept this as essentially true, broadly speaking, then logically you come to the problem being people who wont get the fuck on with the message. The enemy ceases to be those who threaten certain strategic alliances, deposits of raw materials and the lives of the citizenry. No, the enemy becomes anyone who undermines that message and so weakens that will to resolve the conflict – and that person can be anyone, even your own citizenry.
Back in the day, they used to call this PsyOps. It used to only be a wartime enterprise. Dropping leaflets over enemy cities and troop formations. Doing pirate broadcasts using exiles and friendlies from the nation you are at war with to convince them of widespread resentment towards the government. Smear and ridicule important political and military leaders in any way possible.
Like I said, it used to be only a wartime enterprise. But now, thanks to the Cold War terrorism, carried to its conclusion by the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, the difference between peace and war only exists in a legal sense. The potentially endless war on terror means actually endless psychological operations – carried out against not just the enemy, but the civilian population at home as well. The media has to hang the enemy with words and discourses and justifications before the military can do it in fact.
Nowadays, PsyOps is only one part of a much broader school, known as Information Operations. Do you operate a blog, report on the failing and lies and crimes of your country? Then you are are, according to this world-view, engaging in warfare against the state. But its not just about information per se. You have to think about this much more broadly. For example, protests. A protest is not just a protest. It never can be. Its an expression of low intensity conflict relying on moral discourses and popular expression of dissidence, aimed at bringing about a political-military confrontation.
And just where do you think something like Operation MindFuck fits into this system of ideas? Since many of us tend to think of O:MF as a way of mentally shaking people up, getting them to question their assumptions, physically deconstructing the popular discourses of the day, stripping away the bare truth hidden beneath self-serving platitudes...well, in that case, it is nothing more than a direct challenge to state power.
That may dishearten some of you. But the simple truth is, thinking for yourself, and then communicating those thoughts to others, will always be seen that way, so long as this world-view dominates. You may as well get used to it, because unless you decide to never share your views, or have a frontal lobotomy, you will almost certainly do something that could be considered an act of war. And if you get really good at it, you may even end up in a real domestic war – as the crazy elements of the thuggish far right, security services and corporate sponsored smear teams conspire to make your life hell through intimidation, surveillance and character assassination.
And to be honest, once you realize that you are in the war, a certain clarity accompanies that knowledge. You can now diagnose this uneasy feeling all of the above has been creating. You know what it is now, the nature of the Beast is discerned and laid bare. Once you know what the problem is, you can set about dealing with it. Few things are insurmountable, once you understand their purpose and context.
Unfortunately, you have little choice about this. The line has already been drawn in the sand, and you're on the wrong side. What happens next is a matter of policy, insanity, personal whim and plain old bad luck. Because you're not quite the perpetual pain in the ass that, say, Al-Qaeda is, you won't be facing the guns. You can be drowned out by voices of far-right harpies, military “experts” who 'just happen' to be taking pay cheques from the Pentagon and spineless journalists more content with attacking those who search for the truth than politicians who hide it.
There is a spectrum of responses, if you will. If you do this, the response will be that. And if you do something else, the response will differ in proportion. But like all Platonic constructs of reality, there are gaps in the conceptual definitions put forward. And it is in such gaps that the game must be played most effectively. Operation MindFuck works best in areas where they are no response. So go beyond blogging, or political protest, or pranks, or sabotage and mild acts of ontological guerilla warfare. Mix and match, be innovative, experiment and push the boundaries. And remember, even though this is a war, unconventional forces always have the advantage over hierarchies.
No doubt some of you think I'm using hyperbole, or metaphor to illustrate an example of our socially fractured society and the commodification of identity. And while those certainly are problems, anyone thinking about those in relation to my rant today are wrong. Right now, you and I are quite literally at war with at least one government, namely that of the USA.
Oh to be sure there won't be running battles with light infantry. No air-strikes are going to be called in on your house, and I'm reasonably certain you wont get carted away to Guantanomo Bay, or any other black site that exists. But just because guns aren't being loaded and blood isn't been spilt doesn't mean this isn't a conflict.
You see, war isn't about the clash of armies on the battlefield anymore. Hell, its barely even about killing, except as an advertising hook or a final solution for people who refuse to stop being a pain in the ass. No, warfare has moved through the gentlemanly period of pitched battles and low casualties, blown apart by Napoleon and perfected in the slaughterhouse of WWI. Its not even the dirty political warfare that characterized the Cold War, marked by futile superpower conflict and strategies designed to bleed a superpower by third world proxies, and on the other end of the scale by terrorism.
No, warfare today is about fighting on the psychological and narrative level. Its about capturing the mind, and shackling it to the agenda of the day, regardless of what that agenda may be.
The thing is, you see, as warfare has become less and less about artful strategy and less bound by codes of conduct – be they religious, cultural or legal – the real issue has not been arms, logistics, intelligence and skill, but about the sheer will to fight. Whoever goes on fighting the longest, whoever is willing to do what it takes to persuade the other side to accept their interests, whoever is able to effectively frame the agenda in a certain manner, is the winner in the modern world. You can even suffer strategic setbacks if your message and will is powerful enough.
And of course, if you accept this as essentially true, broadly speaking, then logically you come to the problem being people who wont get the fuck on with the message. The enemy ceases to be those who threaten certain strategic alliances, deposits of raw materials and the lives of the citizenry. No, the enemy becomes anyone who undermines that message and so weakens that will to resolve the conflict – and that person can be anyone, even your own citizenry.
Back in the day, they used to call this PsyOps. It used to only be a wartime enterprise. Dropping leaflets over enemy cities and troop formations. Doing pirate broadcasts using exiles and friendlies from the nation you are at war with to convince them of widespread resentment towards the government. Smear and ridicule important political and military leaders in any way possible.
Like I said, it used to be only a wartime enterprise. But now, thanks to the Cold War terrorism, carried to its conclusion by the likes of Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, the difference between peace and war only exists in a legal sense. The potentially endless war on terror means actually endless psychological operations – carried out against not just the enemy, but the civilian population at home as well. The media has to hang the enemy with words and discourses and justifications before the military can do it in fact.
Nowadays, PsyOps is only one part of a much broader school, known as Information Operations. Do you operate a blog, report on the failing and lies and crimes of your country? Then you are are, according to this world-view, engaging in warfare against the state. But its not just about information per se. You have to think about this much more broadly. For example, protests. A protest is not just a protest. It never can be. Its an expression of low intensity conflict relying on moral discourses and popular expression of dissidence, aimed at bringing about a political-military confrontation.
And just where do you think something like Operation MindFuck fits into this system of ideas? Since many of us tend to think of O:MF as a way of mentally shaking people up, getting them to question their assumptions, physically deconstructing the popular discourses of the day, stripping away the bare truth hidden beneath self-serving platitudes...well, in that case, it is nothing more than a direct challenge to state power.
That may dishearten some of you. But the simple truth is, thinking for yourself, and then communicating those thoughts to others, will always be seen that way, so long as this world-view dominates. You may as well get used to it, because unless you decide to never share your views, or have a frontal lobotomy, you will almost certainly do something that could be considered an act of war. And if you get really good at it, you may even end up in a real domestic war – as the crazy elements of the thuggish far right, security services and corporate sponsored smear teams conspire to make your life hell through intimidation, surveillance and character assassination.
And to be honest, once you realize that you are in the war, a certain clarity accompanies that knowledge. You can now diagnose this uneasy feeling all of the above has been creating. You know what it is now, the nature of the Beast is discerned and laid bare. Once you know what the problem is, you can set about dealing with it. Few things are insurmountable, once you understand their purpose and context.
Unfortunately, you have little choice about this. The line has already been drawn in the sand, and you're on the wrong side. What happens next is a matter of policy, insanity, personal whim and plain old bad luck. Because you're not quite the perpetual pain in the ass that, say, Al-Qaeda is, you won't be facing the guns. You can be drowned out by voices of far-right harpies, military “experts” who 'just happen' to be taking pay cheques from the Pentagon and spineless journalists more content with attacking those who search for the truth than politicians who hide it.
There is a spectrum of responses, if you will. If you do this, the response will be that. And if you do something else, the response will differ in proportion. But like all Platonic constructs of reality, there are gaps in the conceptual definitions put forward. And it is in such gaps that the game must be played most effectively. Operation MindFuck works best in areas where they are no response. So go beyond blogging, or political protest, or pranks, or sabotage and mild acts of ontological guerilla warfare. Mix and match, be innovative, experiment and push the boundaries. And remember, even though this is a war, unconventional forces always have the advantage over hierarchies.
Jun 3, 2008
Having moved back home...
Now my degree is more or less over and done with (roll on Graduation Day) my blogging has slowed considerably. Not least since my connection is much slower, but also because I am doing much more reading and catching up on other projects for the moment.
Still, nonetheless, I am around and still noting the events of the world. For example, hearing yesterday morning that Gordon Brown intends to go ahead with the 42 Day Detention scheme, claiming he has come to an agreement with certain Labour dissenters by putting more legislative safeguards into the proposal.
I think he is bluffing however. There is deep scepticism to this plan across the political spectrum, and absolutely no proven pressing need at all. I'm sure some Labour MPs have been assured by this, but I very much doubt many of the rebels have. Which makes the situation rather more uncertain. I suspect Brown is pushing ahead because he knows if he loses....well, it can hardly get much worse than it already is for him, and in the unlikely event his proposals do win over enough votes to pass the legislation, he can try and use this to put the government back on the intitative and claim to be "tough on terrorism" (but of course not tough on the causes of terrorism).
Apart from that, I haven't much to say. Oh, except for when driving though Bradford upon Avon last week, I stopped to put up several signs saying "NOT the birthplace of William Shakespeare" and "please stop asking us about Shakespeare, that's Stratford upon Avon." Needless to say, I have never heard of anyone ever confusing the two, not least because they are on totally different rivers in seperate parts of the country. Still, someone likely will now, which is all part of the fun.
I'm currently reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer as well. If you want some background information on the Fundamentalist Mormon Church and their very strange ways, I highly recommend picking up a copy.
Still, nonetheless, I am around and still noting the events of the world. For example, hearing yesterday morning that Gordon Brown intends to go ahead with the 42 Day Detention scheme, claiming he has come to an agreement with certain Labour dissenters by putting more legislative safeguards into the proposal.
I think he is bluffing however. There is deep scepticism to this plan across the political spectrum, and absolutely no proven pressing need at all. I'm sure some Labour MPs have been assured by this, but I very much doubt many of the rebels have. Which makes the situation rather more uncertain. I suspect Brown is pushing ahead because he knows if he loses....well, it can hardly get much worse than it already is for him, and in the unlikely event his proposals do win over enough votes to pass the legislation, he can try and use this to put the government back on the intitative and claim to be "tough on terrorism" (but of course not tough on the causes of terrorism).
Apart from that, I haven't much to say. Oh, except for when driving though Bradford upon Avon last week, I stopped to put up several signs saying "NOT the birthplace of William Shakespeare" and "please stop asking us about Shakespeare, that's Stratford upon Avon." Needless to say, I have never heard of anyone ever confusing the two, not least because they are on totally different rivers in seperate parts of the country. Still, someone likely will now, which is all part of the fun.
I'm currently reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer as well. If you want some background information on the Fundamentalist Mormon Church and their very strange ways, I highly recommend picking up a copy.
May 25, 2008
"Academic freedom? A likely story...."
From the Guardian.
As you can expect, I find such news pretty worrying, even though I somehow have managed to avoid arrest so far. I also think the point about turning academics into informants is dead on. Never mind that will cripple real investigation into terrorism, oh no. We've got to be seen to be "tough", even if we end up shooting ourselves in the fucking foot while doing so.
This country is retarded.
A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the "psychological torture" he endured in custody.
Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.
The case highlights what lecturers are claiming is a direct assault on academic freedom led by the government which, in its attempt to establish a "prevent agenda" against terrorist activity, is putting pressure on academics to become police informers.
As you can expect, I find such news pretty worrying, even though I somehow have managed to avoid arrest so far. I also think the point about turning academics into informants is dead on. Never mind that will cripple real investigation into terrorism, oh no. We've got to be seen to be "tough", even if we end up shooting ourselves in the fucking foot while doing so.
This country is retarded.
May 24, 2008
I always find BNP wingnuts loltastic
It's a bad habit really. Whenever I am bored, or need a laugh, I start surfing around the BNP supporting blogosphere, to find something out of touch with reality, nutty, or just plain hilarious to laugh at.
And it works every time. My faith in the batshit insanity of certain sectors of the British public is restored, I realize I'm actually a fairly good writer when I want to be (current postings are evidence to the contrary, I admit, but I have been busy with finals) and I get a laugh in with the deal.
It's a bad past time, really. Habit forming, almost. But now and again I hit the jackpot, like with Sarah Maid of Albion. Talking of course about my favourite subject....terrorism. In particular, the case of Nicky Reilly, the allegedly failed suicide bomber (I say allegedly for the legal reasons, of course). And its a slow Saturday night, and I have nothing planned, so why not?
Certain sections of the press? Come on, name names! If you've got the goods, don't play coy. As it happens, I did a search on this and found out which media outlets she meant: the BBC, Guardian, Independent and Mirror.
Oh dear gosh, its lining up to be a fiendish left wing conspiracy already. Only, not really. Going by the BBC report, they were reporting a description of Reilly given by the police, which was repeated in the Independent. The Guardian bought up his race in the terms of wider counter-terrorism issues (like Al-Qaeda recruiting white converts to Islam in order to avoid racial profiling measures) and the Mirror didn't even mention it themselves - instead publishing a quote by a member of the public saying he standed out at meetings with a suspicious group of people on a street corner due to his colour.
I hardly think this counts as announcing breathlessly - especially since almost all comments on his race or appearance are well down the pages on all the media outlets that I found reporting it.
So presumably Baader-Meinhof, the Provisional IRA, ETA, Nivelles gang, OAS, Action Directe, National Front for the Liberation of Corsica, The June 2nd Movement, November 17th, Antikratiki Dikaiosini, Hawks of Thrace, Revolutionary Struggle, October 22 Group, the Red Brigades, Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, Aginter Press, the (admittedly laughable) Canary Islands Independence Movement, the Ordine Nuovo (founded by the odious Stefano Delle Chiaie), Meibion Glyndŵ, the Irish National Liberation Army, Loyalist Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Volunteer Force, White Aryan Resistance, Continuity IRA and many other groups I can't be bothered to name had or have no white members whatsoever. You know, despite many of them being neo-fascist in orientation, or else ethno-nationalist and thus "real" Europeans.
And if we include ethnically European Americans into the mix...well, where to start? We could go all the way back to the Klan, or right up to the modern day 'Patriot Movement' members, who intermingle with militia organizations such as the Montana Freemen, but who also had links to individuals like Timothy McVeigh, Army of God, Aryan Nations, The Order and other fun loving neo-fascist/Christian groups, many of whom have very clear ideas on what race it is best to be.
But that was unfair of me, using history like that against you. On the other hand, we could always be thankful I didn't decide to start digging into the Russian anarchist terrorists...that stuff goes on forever. We still count Russians as white Europeans, don't we? Don't we? But yes, terribly unfair using history like that, it's a shame we don't have some examples of more modern terrorism carried out by 'white Europeans'.
I hate to break this to you, but he look's white. I'll link to a picture, and feel free to dispute it, I know you will anyway, but he doesn't really look very foreign, does he? Or is this one of those things where he'd have to be one-sixteenth "Muslim foreigner" to fifteen-sixteenth's "white European" to count?
Well, apart from the fact no-one was getting excited over the fact that he was a white convert, GREAT POINT! The Guardian mentioned MI5 were considering if this was a change in tactics and recruiting by Al-Qaeda, which some might consider to be a legitimate concern. You know, if you want to catch terrorists and all that. I think you'll find more people were worried that someone attempted to partake in a suicide bomb attack, full stop, to note his colour and go "OH MY GOD, AND HE WAS WHITE TOO!" Just because BNP members have this funny fascination with race does not mean everyone else does. Stop projecting.
Uh-huh. So what makes, for example, Christianity 'European'? Or Judaism (feel free to ask Nick Griffin if Jews are a European faith or not) for that matter. Or indeed anything that is not laughable NeoPagan Reconstructionism. Are they 'European' by virtue of ethnicity of genesis, geographical location, or practice? Because Jesus sure as hell wasn't white, or located in Europe (depending on whether one considers the Levant Europe, of course. I do, but many do not). Can we expect to see the BNP picketing Christmas celebrations soon? They too, have spread like a virus, after all.
Oh? And what European traditions are these? When I last checked, Islamic and Christian thought were both heavily based on Greek Classical thinking - especially the works of Plato and Aristotle, though a few Roman's slipped the barrier too. Given the Greco-Roman culture is the bedrock of modern Western civilization, I would find the exclusion of Islam...intellectually dishonest, shall we say? And of course, St Thomas Aquinas and (arguably) René Descartes owe an influence to Islamic philosophers such as Al-Ghazali. There was a lot of intellectual traffic flowing along Asia Minor back then, let me tell you.
Or this the European tradition of being a white European? I just want to cover all my bases here, you understand.
OK, I'll take that as an "I'm an idiot with little or no knowledge of the history of philosophy".
It's kinda like the Mysterons, when you think about it...those strange, alien, outside forces....
Unfortunately, the spread of idiocy will go on unchecked...
And it works every time. My faith in the batshit insanity of certain sectors of the British public is restored, I realize I'm actually a fairly good writer when I want to be (current postings are evidence to the contrary, I admit, but I have been busy with finals) and I get a laugh in with the deal.
It's a bad past time, really. Habit forming, almost. But now and again I hit the jackpot, like with Sarah Maid of Albion. Talking of course about my favourite subject....terrorism. In particular, the case of Nicky Reilly, the allegedly failed suicide bomber (I say allegedly for the legal reasons, of course). And its a slow Saturday night, and I have nothing planned, so why not?
Ever since the identity of the man accused of attempting to set off a bomb in an Exeter restaurant was revealed, certain sections of the press have been announcing breathlessly that the suspect, Nicky Reilly, is a white convert to Islam.
Certain sections of the press? Come on, name names! If you've got the goods, don't play coy. As it happens, I did a search on this and found out which media outlets she meant: the BBC, Guardian, Independent and Mirror.
Oh dear gosh, its lining up to be a fiendish left wing conspiracy already. Only, not really. Going by the BBC report, they were reporting a description of Reilly given by the police, which was repeated in the Independent. The Guardian bought up his race in the terms of wider counter-terrorism issues (like Al-Qaeda recruiting white converts to Islam in order to avoid racial profiling measures) and the Mirror didn't even mention it themselves - instead publishing a quote by a member of the public saying he standed out at meetings with a suspicious group of people on a street corner due to his colour.
I hardly think this counts as announcing breathlessly - especially since almost all comments on his race or appearance are well down the pages on all the media outlets that I found reporting it.
The media always get overexcited when they can pretend that white Europeans are as likely to be terrorists as Asians, even if they have to bend the truth into impossible contortions to do so.
So presumably Baader-Meinhof, the Provisional IRA, ETA, Nivelles gang, OAS, Action Directe, National Front for the Liberation of Corsica, The June 2nd Movement, November 17th, Antikratiki Dikaiosini, Hawks of Thrace, Revolutionary Struggle, October 22 Group, the Red Brigades, Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari, Aginter Press, the (admittedly laughable) Canary Islands Independence Movement, the Ordine Nuovo (founded by the odious Stefano Delle Chiaie), Meibion Glyndŵ, the Irish National Liberation Army, Loyalist Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Volunteer Force, White Aryan Resistance, Continuity IRA and many other groups I can't be bothered to name had or have no white members whatsoever. You know, despite many of them being neo-fascist in orientation, or else ethno-nationalist and thus "real" Europeans.
And if we include ethnically European Americans into the mix...well, where to start? We could go all the way back to the Klan, or right up to the modern day 'Patriot Movement' members, who intermingle with militia organizations such as the Montana Freemen, but who also had links to individuals like Timothy McVeigh, Army of God, Aryan Nations, The Order and other fun loving neo-fascist/Christian groups, many of whom have very clear ideas on what race it is best to be.
But that was unfair of me, using history like that against you. On the other hand, we could always be thankful I didn't decide to start digging into the Russian anarchist terrorists...that stuff goes on forever. We still count Russians as white Europeans, don't we? Don't we? But yes, terribly unfair using history like that, it's a shame we don't have some examples of more modern terrorism carried out by 'white Europeans'.
Readers may recall how hard they tried to present Andrew Ibrahim, the young terror suspect arrested in Bristol in April as “white”, even after it was revealed that his father wa an Asian doctor called Nassif.
I hate to break this to you, but he look's white. I'll link to a picture, and feel free to dispute it, I know you will anyway, but he doesn't really look very foreign, does he? Or is this one of those things where he'd have to be one-sixteenth "Muslim foreigner" to fifteen-sixteenth's "white European" to count?
Whatever the truth may be in this instance, I don't really know why the press get so excited on the rare occasion that a white convert gets involved in attempted atrocities, it proves nothing other than that radical Islam is a dangerously infectious condition.
Well, apart from the fact no-one was getting excited over the fact that he was a white convert, GREAT POINT! The Guardian mentioned MI5 were considering if this was a change in tactics and recruiting by Al-Qaeda, which some might consider to be a legitimate concern. You know, if you want to catch terrorists and all that. I think you'll find more people were worried that someone attempted to partake in a suicide bomb attack, full stop, to note his colour and go "OH MY GOD, AND HE WAS WHITE TOO!" Just because BNP members have this funny fascination with race does not mean everyone else does. Stop projecting.
Dengue fever does not cease to be a tropical disease if an Englishman catches it, and and neither does the fact that a few vulnerable or weak minded individuals have been seduced into embracing its deadly doctrine make Islam a European faith.
Uh-huh. So what makes, for example, Christianity 'European'? Or Judaism (feel free to ask Nick Griffin if Jews are a European faith or not) for that matter. Or indeed anything that is not laughable NeoPagan Reconstructionism. Are they 'European' by virtue of ethnicity of genesis, geographical location, or practice? Because Jesus sure as hell wasn't white, or located in Europe (depending on whether one considers the Levant Europe, of course. I do, but many do not). Can we expect to see the BNP picketing Christmas celebrations soon? They too, have spread like a virus, after all.
The few small Muslim enclaves in the Balkans and Chechnya are the residue left from earlier attempts by Islam to colonise Europe, not to any European tradition.
Oh? And what European traditions are these? When I last checked, Islamic and Christian thought were both heavily based on Greek Classical thinking - especially the works of Plato and Aristotle, though a few Roman's slipped the barrier too. Given the Greco-Roman culture is the bedrock of modern Western civilization, I would find the exclusion of Islam...intellectually dishonest, shall we say? And of course, St Thomas Aquinas and (arguably) René Descartes owe an influence to Islamic philosophers such as Al-Ghazali. There was a lot of intellectual traffic flowing along Asia Minor back then, let me tell you.
Or this the European tradition of being a white European? I just want to cover all my bases here, you understand.
Islam is an alien philosophy, with its origins in a set of beliefs so different to those at the root of our own culture that most can either not comprehend it or refuse to acknowledge it.
OK, I'll take that as an "I'm an idiot with little or no knowledge of the history of philosophy".
There is no European tradition within Islam, it is a force from outside, which we have let in and the fact that it has captured or beguiled some of our children does not make it native to our land.
It's kinda like the Mysterons, when you think about it...those strange, alien, outside forces....
Like all infectious conditions, some will fall victim to it, as Nicky Reilly appears to have done, but all that tells us is that we need to take preventative measures before more succumb.
Unfortunately, the spread of idiocy will go on unchecked...
May 16, 2008
Government climbdown on 42 day detentions?
The Guardian seems to think so, and while I certainly hope so, relying on hope alone is a bad idea, and I can see a negotiated climbdown still involving the government seizing powers I'd rather it did not have.
Time, as always, shall tell.
Time, as always, shall tell.
May 15, 2008
Leaderless Jihad
I didn't know this, but Marc Sageman apparently has a new book on Al-Qaeda out, called Leaderless Jihad.
For those of you who don't know who Sageman is, shame on you. He's a former CIA Case Officer and psychiatrist with experience in Pakistan and Afghanistan who has undertaken some very interesting studies on Al-Qaeda.
His previous book, Understanding Terror Networks, is a classic of terrorism literature and has been highly recommended by pretty much every terrorism lecturer and researcher up at the St Andrews. Its a wide-reaching investigation into the background, motivating beliefs and (most importantly) social networks that comprise the nebulous organization called Al-Qaeda. Notes based on this research of 400 Al-Qaeda members can be found here.
These social bonds are the most important factor in recruiting and getting someone into terrorism, which is why I think Sageman's book is so important. If we rely on arguments from religion, personal psychopathy, brainwashing or hatred of 'Western' values, many of which are unproven caricatures as Sageman shows, then we wont be able to carry out the necessary counterterrorism policies - which should be aimed at severing the existing terrorists from a pool of possible recruits, while taking in their current members and working towards a political solution of the underlying factors that led to the emergence of terrorists in the first place.
His new book seemed more focused on what is called the New Wave of Al-Qaeda terrorists. Essentially, these are lone wolf or self-forming cells, who instead of being intensely religious and well educated (the profile of a previous Al-Qaeda member) are younger, probably had more run-ins with the police or a criminal record, and are "bored and looking for thrills".
This seems to be a real possibility. I remember more than a few classes I took with John Horgan where he said the process of radicalization often took place after one made contact with the terrorist group in question. If these "thrillseekers" are looking for jihadist videos, tracts and forums for thrills, sooner or later they are going to be talking with people sympathetic to a jihadist worldview. This taints or affects their thinking into a downward spiral based on the violent and paranoid worldview which could ultimately result in terrorist related activities.
Of course, that's a highly simplified way of putting it, and no doubt the actual processes are much more discrete and subtle. But I think as a simplified and limited explanation, it can work. These people get caught up in a discourse of warriorship, fanatical Islam and martyrdom. "We have always been warriors, we have always fought and been victorious, and now we are weak and persecuted". Its the common theme of too many terrorist group's rhetoric to be just a coincidence.
According to a talk Sageman gave at the New America Foundation "It's more about hero worship than about religion," The vast majority of Sageman's sample did not attended radical madrassas, coould speak Arabic and have not read the Koran. Nearly all joined the movement because they knew/are related to someone who's already in it. The age of these terrorists is decreasing too: In Sageman's 2003 sample, the average age was 26; among those arrested after 2006, it was down to about 20. Its more accurate to describe these people as supermepowered, transnational gang members than terrorists.
All of this has very interesting, and worrying implications for policy and society in general. Especially the latter, since media culture and rhetoric has not caught up with Sageman's studies or knowledge. They'd much rather listen to media heads or politicians than soldiers and academics who study terrorism closely, and to be honest, that's a real shame. Because if we don't understand how Al-Qaeda is morphing and evolving, we're going to be throwing around very dangerous charges and allegations at people who may have had little or nothing to do with such attacks, and be concentrating on totally useless avenues of investigation and prevention.
For those of you who don't know who Sageman is, shame on you. He's a former CIA Case Officer and psychiatrist with experience in Pakistan and Afghanistan who has undertaken some very interesting studies on Al-Qaeda.
His previous book, Understanding Terror Networks, is a classic of terrorism literature and has been highly recommended by pretty much every terrorism lecturer and researcher up at the St Andrews. Its a wide-reaching investigation into the background, motivating beliefs and (most importantly) social networks that comprise the nebulous organization called Al-Qaeda. Notes based on this research of 400 Al-Qaeda members can be found here.
These social bonds are the most important factor in recruiting and getting someone into terrorism, which is why I think Sageman's book is so important. If we rely on arguments from religion, personal psychopathy, brainwashing or hatred of 'Western' values, many of which are unproven caricatures as Sageman shows, then we wont be able to carry out the necessary counterterrorism policies - which should be aimed at severing the existing terrorists from a pool of possible recruits, while taking in their current members and working towards a political solution of the underlying factors that led to the emergence of terrorists in the first place.
His new book seemed more focused on what is called the New Wave of Al-Qaeda terrorists. Essentially, these are lone wolf or self-forming cells, who instead of being intensely religious and well educated (the profile of a previous Al-Qaeda member) are younger, probably had more run-ins with the police or a criminal record, and are "bored and looking for thrills".
This seems to be a real possibility. I remember more than a few classes I took with John Horgan where he said the process of radicalization often took place after one made contact with the terrorist group in question. If these "thrillseekers" are looking for jihadist videos, tracts and forums for thrills, sooner or later they are going to be talking with people sympathetic to a jihadist worldview. This taints or affects their thinking into a downward spiral based on the violent and paranoid worldview which could ultimately result in terrorist related activities.
Of course, that's a highly simplified way of putting it, and no doubt the actual processes are much more discrete and subtle. But I think as a simplified and limited explanation, it can work. These people get caught up in a discourse of warriorship, fanatical Islam and martyrdom. "We have always been warriors, we have always fought and been victorious, and now we are weak and persecuted". Its the common theme of too many terrorist group's rhetoric to be just a coincidence.
According to a talk Sageman gave at the New America Foundation "It's more about hero worship than about religion," The vast majority of Sageman's sample did not attended radical madrassas, coould speak Arabic and have not read the Koran. Nearly all joined the movement because they knew/are related to someone who's already in it. The age of these terrorists is decreasing too: In Sageman's 2003 sample, the average age was 26; among those arrested after 2006, it was down to about 20. Its more accurate to describe these people as supermepowered, transnational gang members than terrorists.
All of this has very interesting, and worrying implications for policy and society in general. Especially the latter, since media culture and rhetoric has not caught up with Sageman's studies or knowledge. They'd much rather listen to media heads or politicians than soldiers and academics who study terrorism closely, and to be honest, that's a real shame. Because if we don't understand how Al-Qaeda is morphing and evolving, we're going to be throwing around very dangerous charges and allegations at people who may have had little or nothing to do with such attacks, and be concentrating on totally useless avenues of investigation and prevention.
Apr 18, 2008
You know its time to log off the internet when.... #1
Start of a brand new series which will just prove I really should log off more often.
You know its time to log off the internet when....
1) You have a dream in which Rick Astley personally rickrolls you, but then you wake up and feel depressed because nothing that cool will ever really happen.
2) You realize there is a market for War on Terror slashfic
You know its time to log off the internet when....
1) You have a dream in which Rick Astley personally rickrolls you, but then you wake up and feel depressed because nothing that cool will ever really happen.
2) You realize there is a market for War on Terror slashfic
Apr 5, 2008
The most interesting thing...
About the current terrorism trial going on in the UK is the complete lack of concentration on the actual level of threat. Every newscast I have seen has been concentrating on the videos the guys made, presumably for the sake of drama.
What has been overlooked is could the guys have actually said what the government claimed they could do, which is create explosives from liquid to down a plane? I've seen a number of things to cast doubt on this.
Firstly, I had a number of conversations with various terrorism experts up at St Andrews who expressed a level of doubt over what was intended by the operation itself. Some, such as Dr John Horgan, suggested it was perhaps intended to embarass the security services, show the futility of their extra security. Previously, that would have almost certainly involved actually killing people, but in today's hyper-sensitive media climate, even the attempt alone can cause mass hysteria.
Secondly, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer has also cast doubt on the official narrative of events.
And finally, there is this discussion on Schneier on Security which seems to be backing up the claim of Lt. Col. Wylde, and treating the official version of events with some skepticism.
Of course, the plot did ultimately succeed....it triggered a hilariously out of proportion government response and scared a bunch of sheep....uh, I mean, Daily Mail and Sun readers. That's all you really need to do now.
What has been overlooked is could the guys have actually said what the government claimed they could do, which is create explosives from liquid to down a plane? I've seen a number of things to cast doubt on this.
Firstly, I had a number of conversations with various terrorism experts up at St Andrews who expressed a level of doubt over what was intended by the operation itself. Some, such as Dr John Horgan, suggested it was perhaps intended to embarass the security services, show the futility of their extra security. Previously, that would have almost certainly involved actually killing people, but in today's hyper-sensitive media climate, even the attempt alone can cause mass hysteria.
Secondly, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer has also cast doubt on the official narrative of events.
"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst.
And finally, there is this discussion on Schneier on Security which seems to be backing up the claim of Lt. Col. Wylde, and treating the official version of events with some skepticism.
It's like trying to blow up a plane with your elementary-school science project volcano.
Of course, the plot did ultimately succeed....it triggered a hilariously out of proportion government response and scared a bunch of sheep....uh, I mean, Daily Mail and Sun readers. That's all you really need to do now.
Mar 18, 2008
John Gray kicking up a storm on Comment is Free
While some of you may remember that I was not totally impressed with the conclusion to John Gray's book, Black Mass, I nevertheless found it a good and enjoyable read, which tied up the links between utopianism, religion, the Enlightenment and secular extremist movements rather well. Gray's got a lot of perspective in his worldview, which I like. He instinctively understands both the historical context of the movements and how that applies when considered in the current context of events.
Which is why I am enjoying his book review/Comment is Free article. Gray committed the hideous crime of knocking down a few New Atheist sacred cows, and so the usual suspects have come running, howling and moaning with their usual strawmen about atheist inspired terrorism, totally ignoring the context of the argument or addressing any of the issues.
I have yet to see a commenter actually address his point about repressed religion being much like repressed sexuality, or the origins of secular liberalism being tied into the history of Christianity, and Nietzsche's critical attacks on this. I have yet to see someone either deny that belief in such secular follies as free markets, global revolution or the global spread of democracy and progress are any less ridiculous than belief in a god, or try to claim they are in some way different.
Sure, the comments page may be filled with 300+ screaming monkeys trying to make Gray look like an idiot, but if they think they succeeded in this task, they're only fooling themselves.
Even a committed agnostic such as myself can take pleasure in such a spectacle.
Which is why I am enjoying his book review/Comment is Free article. Gray committed the hideous crime of knocking down a few New Atheist sacred cows, and so the usual suspects have come running, howling and moaning with their usual strawmen about atheist inspired terrorism, totally ignoring the context of the argument or addressing any of the issues.
I have yet to see a commenter actually address his point about repressed religion being much like repressed sexuality, or the origins of secular liberalism being tied into the history of Christianity, and Nietzsche's critical attacks on this. I have yet to see someone either deny that belief in such secular follies as free markets, global revolution or the global spread of democracy and progress are any less ridiculous than belief in a god, or try to claim they are in some way different.
Sure, the comments page may be filled with 300+ screaming monkeys trying to make Gray look like an idiot, but if they think they succeeded in this task, they're only fooling themselves.
Even a committed agnostic such as myself can take pleasure in such a spectacle.
Feb 17, 2008
Risk, Threat and Security: The case of the whinging militarists
This is my analysis of the RUSI paper on Risk, Threat and Security in the United Kingdom, released on the 15th of February 2008. All opinions expressed within are personal and have been undertaken in a private capacity, with no gains for the writing provided.
The essay seeks to deal with the problem of the “security crisis” the UK faces, apparently made far worse by attitudes at home and disparities between military commitments and spending.
This paper would have us believe we are unsure of overseas military adventures and afraid of the security situation at home and that these two together have created a “paradox” of undeclared yet publically fought wars. Yet is this really anything new to a British public? The Cold War, with its paradoxes of spies, terrorism, the threat of superpower nuclear war, shifting alliances and ideological battle lines was fought for much longer, and with much higher stakes. Equally, British action in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, with internal issues of dissension that came from the Industrial Revolution and process of urbanization, along with external commitments both to the Empire and maintaining the balance of power within an increasingly uncertain and fragmenting Europe could also be seen as a similar time. As we can see, examined critically, the paper's first claim falls flat.
This is all supposedly in no small part a consequence of the UK having a “loss of confidence in our own identity, values, constitution and institutions”, which has presented a perfect target for terrorists. Apparently our uncertainty about our own identity and the surety of our enemies is our problem, and not theirs. Yet, as Baudrillard has noted with some irony, it seems to be that the least democratic in society seem to believe that everyone must share their values, that not sharing values becomes a threat in a country where the basic values are determined by institutions and voting. A natural consequence of democracy is divisions “about interpretations of ...history...and political identity.” Is this any more different than the mind numbingly boring divisions between Marxists, Liberals and Christians that have been staple fare of British debate for the last 2 centuries? Again, we have an old condition that has existed for a long time, dressed up as new, with barely any thought given as to the origins of their existence.
Furthermore, if we continue with Baudrillard's thought for a moment, perhaps this strength of identity is in part the problem of the fundamentalists? Aside from breeding a lack of irony, fundamentalism also breeds an absolute and concrete identity, one which easily makes the leap into paranoid delusions about enemies and solutions for problems. Some would consider it perhaps not a good idea to take our cues from Jihadists when it comes to identity politics.
Furthermore, this lack of historical knowledge of Islamic terrorism within the UK is further highlighted by a trendy attack against 'multiculturalism', an ill-defined term at the best of times. According to the paper, the government should be “laying down the line” to immigrant communities, instead of “deferring” to them. The fact that Britain helped to encourage, arm and train Islamic militants, made alliances with nations that materially supported such militants and then went on to let them establish themselves in the UK should be entirely overlooked. I refer in part to the 'Afghan Arabs' who fought the Soviet Union, but equally other, lesser known groups who were considered valuable allies because of their hatred of the 'godless Communists'. Equally, we cemented alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, giving them a shred of respect and legitimacy they never should have been allowed in the first place. By maintaining this relationship, we have allowed them to spread the virulent Wahhabist conceptions of Islam into the country virtually unchecked. The same goes for Pakistan, where we refused to make a stand against military support of Deobandi schools, which produced fighters for the disputed Kashmir region.
Apparently we should consider 7/7 as a failure of multiculturalism. Yet, why are the London pub bombings or IRA attacks not? These are seemingly raised into the arena of “political terrorism” (one presumes, given they are not mentioned at all) and thus far less dangerous. But as work from professionals in the field, such as Marc Sageman and Robert Pape show, Islamist terrorists are no less influenced by politics than the IRA. Religion, like nationalism, is just one ideological source for political dissension, no different than any other. If we insist on looking at failed “cultural” reasons for terrorism, then the public discourse will overlook political reasons, such as continued support for the US led war on terror, Israeli actions in the occupied territories, a continued policy of aiding repressive leaders within the Middle East and other policy positions, real or imagined.
Moving onto external threats, these seem to be equally misplaced. First there is the usual old worry, about Britain's reliance on sea trade and the diminishing power of the Royal Navy to police the world's waterways. Never mind that this role is more than adequately fulfilled by the USA, Britain's closest military ally, an international power capable of policing most of the world's oceans even while fighting a war (as during the first Gulf War). The reason we should be worried, of course, is that this is a military think tank and more pork for the military would not be a bad thing. Especially given most ex-military personnel move onto jobs either consulting for or providing logistics, IT services and arms to those branches of the military.
There is no naval threat to the UK. Areas where there have been naval issues are either so far removed from affecting UK trade as to be laughable (such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard snatching Royal Navy sailors in the Straits of Hormuz) or not traded with anyway and so pose no threat, such as the coastline of Somalia. Russia's navy remains the single weakest and most underfunded aspect of its military, and equally China is lagging far behind the USA, and is concentrating on regional ambitions, not picking fights with UK freight vessels.
Technology, equally, has always been an issue and is so blatantly obvious one wonders why it was included in this report at all, given how little of substance (other than: “Internet = possibly BAD”) is actually said on the subject.
The question of Chinese leadership and resource issues, while important, is approached in an equally banal way. The Chinese had their free market revolt in 1989, and it was ruthlessly crushed by the CCP. China, like Chile, like Yeltsin's Russia, can easily combine free markets with authoritarian rule and only an addled brain from reading too much Friedman or Fukuyama could make one think otherwise. China has also taken steps to break apart possible dissident groups through controlling access to information and a hugely powerful intelligence force directed against its own citizenry. The real question is that, when violence does break out, will the world's media stand by the Chinese leadership, like they did in 1989, or will they and the elected leaders of countries like the USA and EU heavyweights, come out and rightly criticize China as they should? That is what will inform China's response and thus any future security issue.
The question of global warming is actually dealt with fairly well, considering how botched this essay is so far. Of course, it is so general and such an unknown area, it is hard to make mistakes anyway, but it all seems plausible and done without a lack of hyperbole or distortion.
Equally, their position on Russia is far more tempered than many current commentators, such as the Wall Street Journal. They note that trends in Russia do also have external inputs and that collusion with the Russian robber barons of the 90s was a terrible mistake. However, it also overlooks that President Putin has often been very accommodating towards the European Union and working with it towards common goals – often against more Eurosceptic Russian politicians. His continued presence in Russian politics, though lessened, suggest this trend will continue, though the choice of the new President's foreign minister should equally be taken into account.
Alas, when the issue moves to that of collective security and multinational institutions, the fundamental dishonesty of the report's writers comes to the fore again. They would have us believe involvement in NATO, the EU and UN is because of “essentially ideological reasons.” Obviously trying to woo the foreign policy Realists, they fail miserably because they do not take into account that all three groups promote UK interests more than it costs to be a member of them. NATO, for example, includes the greatest military power in the world, the United States, in a position where it can be counted on supporting the UK (and indeed, much of the rest of Europe), militarily, not only shouldering the burden of military spending that allows the US to actively take part in the defence of Europe, but also in the event of foreign security issues in places like the Middle East and South West Asia. Naturally, the EU benefits the UK economically and in its political relations with nearby countries, and the permanent veto and seat that the UK has on the UNSC makes it a diplomatic power to be courted and wooed, as well as listened to.
Instead, the essay promotes a return to interests before 'ideology', claiming that “foul-weather friends are preferable to fair-weather ones”, not realizing the irony of much of our modern political situation is shaped by such foul-weather friends as Saddam Hussein, the Pakistani ISI, Russian crime lords etc
And of course, such a flexible policy requires a flexible military...which means of course, more military spending. The writers are aware enough to understand that the public wont support that, that it sees no need to go to such expense to defend against the problems the essay has outlined. And so apparently, we must “re-discover” ourselves, leading back to the sorry dance being done around identity and culture, replete with the failures and criticisms I noted above. Apparently uncertainty, instead of being an acceptance of the unstable condition of the world and open-mindedness to solutions, is a weakness. This is of course why the uncertain and divided Allies lost World War Two against the Fascist Axis, with its powerful shared identity. Or something.
The report then goes on to make an attack against ideological think tanks, stating that instead of grand projects, one should put experience in history and expertise (in other word, the think tank which produced this report). Overlooking for the moment this attempt to obliquely reference themselves as the last hope of a fatally politicized Britain, we should consider that what they are saying, is in fact in and of itself an ideological position. Its one that can be found easily within the writings of Edmund Burke, if one cares to look. That they try not to portray themselves as ideological conservatives, but instead as skilled persons with expertise and experience in the current political climate should rightly sound alarm bells, because it is no different to New Labour, the American Neo-Conservatives or any other Grand Theory political groups who have come to prominence recently. Also, if the world is changing as fast as they have us believe, then why should we trust in groups rooted in historicism, ideologically? This is just one of the many areas the thesis of the paper shoots itself in the foot.
Their solution is as banal as much of their analysis. Scare-mongering throughout the paper, relyinh on shoddy scholarships, distortions and arguments taken from hack tabloid commentators, they hype the problem of cultural identity, then propose...a committee to solve the problem. Two committees, actually, since two useless institutions are better than one. Such useless measures, if one accepts the premise of the essay, and one which would have little noticeable effect, except in enlarging the voice of the UK military establishment both within Parliament and within the Cabinet itself.
This is nothing more than a shameless power grab done under the guise of modern security thinking, and, to be honest, I feel dirty after reading it. Despite its use of language, it has all the intellectual credibility of a Sun editorial, and about as much coherency. It relies on trying to paint a doom and gloom situation, then propose a response which actually doesn't match up to their terrorizing statements, hoping that the former will provoke enough fear for that problem to be overlooked. In the media especially this has been the case, with the various daily papers falling over themselves to congratulate or condemn the essay, while overlooking the real meat of what is being proposed, in favour of shock headlines.
One of the problems cited in the paper is that of no coherent analysis of the security risk to the UK. This paper, with its inclusion of “latent threats” that have not emerged and may not emerge for many years yet, should be considered part of that problem, and not the solution.
The essay seeks to deal with the problem of the “security crisis” the UK faces, apparently made far worse by attitudes at home and disparities between military commitments and spending.
This paper would have us believe we are unsure of overseas military adventures and afraid of the security situation at home and that these two together have created a “paradox” of undeclared yet publically fought wars. Yet is this really anything new to a British public? The Cold War, with its paradoxes of spies, terrorism, the threat of superpower nuclear war, shifting alliances and ideological battle lines was fought for much longer, and with much higher stakes. Equally, British action in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, with internal issues of dissension that came from the Industrial Revolution and process of urbanization, along with external commitments both to the Empire and maintaining the balance of power within an increasingly uncertain and fragmenting Europe could also be seen as a similar time. As we can see, examined critically, the paper's first claim falls flat.
This is all supposedly in no small part a consequence of the UK having a “loss of confidence in our own identity, values, constitution and institutions”, which has presented a perfect target for terrorists. Apparently our uncertainty about our own identity and the surety of our enemies is our problem, and not theirs. Yet, as Baudrillard has noted with some irony, it seems to be that the least democratic in society seem to believe that everyone must share their values, that not sharing values becomes a threat in a country where the basic values are determined by institutions and voting. A natural consequence of democracy is divisions “about interpretations of ...history...and political identity.” Is this any more different than the mind numbingly boring divisions between Marxists, Liberals and Christians that have been staple fare of British debate for the last 2 centuries? Again, we have an old condition that has existed for a long time, dressed up as new, with barely any thought given as to the origins of their existence.
Furthermore, if we continue with Baudrillard's thought for a moment, perhaps this strength of identity is in part the problem of the fundamentalists? Aside from breeding a lack of irony, fundamentalism also breeds an absolute and concrete identity, one which easily makes the leap into paranoid delusions about enemies and solutions for problems. Some would consider it perhaps not a good idea to take our cues from Jihadists when it comes to identity politics.
Furthermore, this lack of historical knowledge of Islamic terrorism within the UK is further highlighted by a trendy attack against 'multiculturalism', an ill-defined term at the best of times. According to the paper, the government should be “laying down the line” to immigrant communities, instead of “deferring” to them. The fact that Britain helped to encourage, arm and train Islamic militants, made alliances with nations that materially supported such militants and then went on to let them establish themselves in the UK should be entirely overlooked. I refer in part to the 'Afghan Arabs' who fought the Soviet Union, but equally other, lesser known groups who were considered valuable allies because of their hatred of the 'godless Communists'. Equally, we cemented alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, giving them a shred of respect and legitimacy they never should have been allowed in the first place. By maintaining this relationship, we have allowed them to spread the virulent Wahhabist conceptions of Islam into the country virtually unchecked. The same goes for Pakistan, where we refused to make a stand against military support of Deobandi schools, which produced fighters for the disputed Kashmir region.
Apparently we should consider 7/7 as a failure of multiculturalism. Yet, why are the London pub bombings or IRA attacks not? These are seemingly raised into the arena of “political terrorism” (one presumes, given they are not mentioned at all) and thus far less dangerous. But as work from professionals in the field, such as Marc Sageman and Robert Pape show, Islamist terrorists are no less influenced by politics than the IRA. Religion, like nationalism, is just one ideological source for political dissension, no different than any other. If we insist on looking at failed “cultural” reasons for terrorism, then the public discourse will overlook political reasons, such as continued support for the US led war on terror, Israeli actions in the occupied territories, a continued policy of aiding repressive leaders within the Middle East and other policy positions, real or imagined.
Moving onto external threats, these seem to be equally misplaced. First there is the usual old worry, about Britain's reliance on sea trade and the diminishing power of the Royal Navy to police the world's waterways. Never mind that this role is more than adequately fulfilled by the USA, Britain's closest military ally, an international power capable of policing most of the world's oceans even while fighting a war (as during the first Gulf War). The reason we should be worried, of course, is that this is a military think tank and more pork for the military would not be a bad thing. Especially given most ex-military personnel move onto jobs either consulting for or providing logistics, IT services and arms to those branches of the military.
There is no naval threat to the UK. Areas where there have been naval issues are either so far removed from affecting UK trade as to be laughable (such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard snatching Royal Navy sailors in the Straits of Hormuz) or not traded with anyway and so pose no threat, such as the coastline of Somalia. Russia's navy remains the single weakest and most underfunded aspect of its military, and equally China is lagging far behind the USA, and is concentrating on regional ambitions, not picking fights with UK freight vessels.
Technology, equally, has always been an issue and is so blatantly obvious one wonders why it was included in this report at all, given how little of substance (other than: “Internet = possibly BAD”) is actually said on the subject.
The question of Chinese leadership and resource issues, while important, is approached in an equally banal way. The Chinese had their free market revolt in 1989, and it was ruthlessly crushed by the CCP. China, like Chile, like Yeltsin's Russia, can easily combine free markets with authoritarian rule and only an addled brain from reading too much Friedman or Fukuyama could make one think otherwise. China has also taken steps to break apart possible dissident groups through controlling access to information and a hugely powerful intelligence force directed against its own citizenry. The real question is that, when violence does break out, will the world's media stand by the Chinese leadership, like they did in 1989, or will they and the elected leaders of countries like the USA and EU heavyweights, come out and rightly criticize China as they should? That is what will inform China's response and thus any future security issue.
The question of global warming is actually dealt with fairly well, considering how botched this essay is so far. Of course, it is so general and such an unknown area, it is hard to make mistakes anyway, but it all seems plausible and done without a lack of hyperbole or distortion.
Equally, their position on Russia is far more tempered than many current commentators, such as the Wall Street Journal. They note that trends in Russia do also have external inputs and that collusion with the Russian robber barons of the 90s was a terrible mistake. However, it also overlooks that President Putin has often been very accommodating towards the European Union and working with it towards common goals – often against more Eurosceptic Russian politicians. His continued presence in Russian politics, though lessened, suggest this trend will continue, though the choice of the new President's foreign minister should equally be taken into account.
Alas, when the issue moves to that of collective security and multinational institutions, the fundamental dishonesty of the report's writers comes to the fore again. They would have us believe involvement in NATO, the EU and UN is because of “essentially ideological reasons.” Obviously trying to woo the foreign policy Realists, they fail miserably because they do not take into account that all three groups promote UK interests more than it costs to be a member of them. NATO, for example, includes the greatest military power in the world, the United States, in a position where it can be counted on supporting the UK (and indeed, much of the rest of Europe), militarily, not only shouldering the burden of military spending that allows the US to actively take part in the defence of Europe, but also in the event of foreign security issues in places like the Middle East and South West Asia. Naturally, the EU benefits the UK economically and in its political relations with nearby countries, and the permanent veto and seat that the UK has on the UNSC makes it a diplomatic power to be courted and wooed, as well as listened to.
Instead, the essay promotes a return to interests before 'ideology', claiming that “foul-weather friends are preferable to fair-weather ones”, not realizing the irony of much of our modern political situation is shaped by such foul-weather friends as Saddam Hussein, the Pakistani ISI, Russian crime lords etc
And of course, such a flexible policy requires a flexible military...which means of course, more military spending. The writers are aware enough to understand that the public wont support that, that it sees no need to go to such expense to defend against the problems the essay has outlined. And so apparently, we must “re-discover” ourselves, leading back to the sorry dance being done around identity and culture, replete with the failures and criticisms I noted above. Apparently uncertainty, instead of being an acceptance of the unstable condition of the world and open-mindedness to solutions, is a weakness. This is of course why the uncertain and divided Allies lost World War Two against the Fascist Axis, with its powerful shared identity. Or something.
The report then goes on to make an attack against ideological think tanks, stating that instead of grand projects, one should put experience in history and expertise (in other word, the think tank which produced this report). Overlooking for the moment this attempt to obliquely reference themselves as the last hope of a fatally politicized Britain, we should consider that what they are saying, is in fact in and of itself an ideological position. Its one that can be found easily within the writings of Edmund Burke, if one cares to look. That they try not to portray themselves as ideological conservatives, but instead as skilled persons with expertise and experience in the current political climate should rightly sound alarm bells, because it is no different to New Labour, the American Neo-Conservatives or any other Grand Theory political groups who have come to prominence recently. Also, if the world is changing as fast as they have us believe, then why should we trust in groups rooted in historicism, ideologically? This is just one of the many areas the thesis of the paper shoots itself in the foot.
Their solution is as banal as much of their analysis. Scare-mongering throughout the paper, relyinh on shoddy scholarships, distortions and arguments taken from hack tabloid commentators, they hype the problem of cultural identity, then propose...a committee to solve the problem. Two committees, actually, since two useless institutions are better than one. Such useless measures, if one accepts the premise of the essay, and one which would have little noticeable effect, except in enlarging the voice of the UK military establishment both within Parliament and within the Cabinet itself.
This is nothing more than a shameless power grab done under the guise of modern security thinking, and, to be honest, I feel dirty after reading it. Despite its use of language, it has all the intellectual credibility of a Sun editorial, and about as much coherency. It relies on trying to paint a doom and gloom situation, then propose a response which actually doesn't match up to their terrorizing statements, hoping that the former will provoke enough fear for that problem to be overlooked. In the media especially this has been the case, with the various daily papers falling over themselves to congratulate or condemn the essay, while overlooking the real meat of what is being proposed, in favour of shock headlines.
One of the problems cited in the paper is that of no coherent analysis of the security risk to the UK. This paper, with its inclusion of “latent threats” that have not emerged and may not emerge for many years yet, should be considered part of that problem, and not the solution.
Jan 31, 2008
Who is driving downed US spy-satellite?
HIMEOBS is driving downed US spy-satellite, according to an email from "Agent Rapier" that I recieved earlier today.
For those of you who don't know, a 10,000 pound US satellite is falling out of the sky, and is expected to land somewhere in the USA, with all its wonderful variety of toxic chemicals over the place.
Or is it? As mentioned above, I was contacted by a HIMEOBS agent and ordered to relay this message on my blog. So, as I promised, here it is, HIMEOBS' claims as to what is really going on (click to expand the image):
For those of you who don't know, a 10,000 pound US satellite is falling out of the sky, and is expected to land somewhere in the USA, with all its wonderful variety of toxic chemicals over the place.
Or is it? As mentioned above, I was contacted by a HIMEOBS agent and ordered to relay this message on my blog. So, as I promised, here it is, HIMEOBS' claims as to what is really going on (click to expand the image):
Never Forget
It has been exactly one year since that terrible day. That day when terror, in the guise of a slick marketing campaign, was visited upon Boston. That day, when the Boston police showed that, for all practical purposes, LED lights and wires in a box can be just as devestating as an army at the borders. That day, when we learned about the Fifth Column of cartoonists within our borders, who even now seek to undermine us.
In short, on this terrible date, 365 days ago, we learnt what is was to fear the Mooninites.
Never forget!
In short, on this terrible date, 365 days ago, we learnt what is was to fear the Mooninites.
Never forget!
Jan 10, 2008
Book Review: Black Mass
Over Christmas, I managed to get my hands on a brand-spanking new copy of John Gray's Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religions and the Death of Utopia. Thinking this was perfect reading for the holiday season, I prompty bought it (and got a recommendation from the the guy at the till for Straw Dogs, also by him) and proceeded to give it a read.
I have to say, I'm not too surprised of the content of the book. A lot of people apparently are, but the simple fact is our current political discourse in the Western world is highly warped, with a focus on internal state politics, instead of international political theory. In International Relations, however, we do not have a left/right or liberal/conservative distinction, which, when taken to its extremes, as in the USA political discourse, ends up branding centrist and liberal-right parties as "left-wing", or the NeoConservatives as actual Conservatives, when they borrow heavily from liberal and Communist thought.
Such inconsistencies don't exist. Instead, we have Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and Constructivism. There are also basic offshoots of these, such as NeoRealism, Postmodernism, Idealism, Cosmpolitanism etc but the above are the 4 main theories one will run into on most University campuses and in the majority of the text books dealing with the subjects.
There are no hard and fast rules tying the theories to internal politics either. One of the greatest Realists of this century, Hans Morgenthau, protested so heavily against the Vietnam war he was spied on by the US government, while Nixon and Kissinger, two other Realists, were in charge of the country's foreign policy. You have Marxists who support economic colonialism, and liberals who favour war to open international markets. I suspect the reason for this is that, aside from times of war, foreign policy is not an area usually high on voters priorities, and thus has escaped media and political corruption, for the most part.
Either way, Gray's thesis is similar to anyone who has been following trends in international political theory over the past couple of years. Gray has returned to Classical Realism in order to critique "ideological crusaders" and the fanatics who threaten the world. He goes one step further than most commentators however (such as Robert Kaplan) in blaming both residual millennarian thought within current political theory, and the death of religion as a means of rational enquiry into metaphysical and philosophical speculation. He draws quite a distinction between the Scholastic scepticism of an Aquinas and the unshaking faith of Von Hayek, as a perfect example of this.
Gray convincingly explains how Christian millennarian teleology was inherent in Enlightenment era thinking about human perfectibility and set a terrible precedent for modern theories. Children of Enlightenment thought and those who opposed it while accepting many of its basic assumptions (the Counter-Enlightenment) eventually resulted in the terrible creation of Bolshevism and Nazism in the 20th century. In particular he does an excellent job with explaining the millennarian content of Communist Russian thought, dispelling with ease the racist/apologist "Oriental Despotism" theory of why Communism there was so violent.
He then turns to more modern theories. Being English, he manages to catch the subtelties of British politics far more than many Americans, and aptly starts with Thatcher and the death of traditional Conservativism. The birth of Neo-Liberalism was a death blow for most traditional conservatives over the world. Fully embracing the free market and the revolutionary, chaotic power of the market to overturn traditional relationships, family structures and ways of life, "Conservatives" who bought into the solution of the Free Market became the new revolutionaries.
And so millennarian thought shifted from the syncretic and left wing movements to the right. He then charts the failure of NeoLiberalism and how it morphed into the more "honest" NeoConservativism, which at least accepted that the Market required a violent actor to sometimes ovecome barriers to its operations.
And then, the book's focus shifts. Its understandable, when you understand Gray's own political background, but about half the book becomes devoted to the political opinions of Tony Blair and the American NeoConservative right and how we can see this sort of thinking driving the invasion of Iraq. Much of the book is devoted to this, which is kind of a shame, as I was hoping he would delve more into the philosophical contradictions of the NeoCons some more. He does, interestingly, make a case for Tony Blair being the first British NeoCon, an excellent and accurate description of his deeply held views. A crypto-NeoCon, keeping the public face of a Neo-Liberal.
Gray ends the book by making the case for Realist thought in the modern world. Much of it is well known to anyone who has taken the time to read the above links, so I wont delve into it in any real depth. Suffice to say, while Realism is certainly an attractive option in the face of ideological crusaders, we have to remember that the current political climate arose as a reaction to Realism. We increasingly see the role of state as that of a moral body (rightly or wrongly, I share Realist scepticism on this, but it is the perception) and do feel moral outrage at the wrongs of the world. A return to Realist thinking would look very much like the early days of the Cold War, where it dominated the US foreign policy establishment. And without the checks on US action by the Soviet Union now being present, would the world really look that much different than it already does?
Realism places stability as its ultimate goal, as its own "Holy Grail". The fear of destablization will eventually resolve itself into military interventionism, which will, in the current military/political evolution of the planet, most likely only increase the scope of the conflict. In trying to create a balance of power, where no state can even think it has the advantage to engage in international political rearragenment of the current system, the USA as global hegemon, would end up supporting a balance of terror. One which may spill over in the presence of irrational agents, of which the world has a large supply.
In conclusion, the critique of this book is brilliant, and far more developed than many others like it. However, the solution it provides is weak, and chosen out of lack of current options instead of for any defensible reason. Realism has been tried in the past, and it was not as successful a model as its proponents would like people to think. New thinking is needed on the topic of international relations theory, desperately, but this book does not provide it, despite its formidable intellectual arguments against the current state of affairs.
I have to say, I'm not too surprised of the content of the book. A lot of people apparently are, but the simple fact is our current political discourse in the Western world is highly warped, with a focus on internal state politics, instead of international political theory. In International Relations, however, we do not have a left/right or liberal/conservative distinction, which, when taken to its extremes, as in the USA political discourse, ends up branding centrist and liberal-right parties as "left-wing", or the NeoConservatives as actual Conservatives, when they borrow heavily from liberal and Communist thought.
Such inconsistencies don't exist. Instead, we have Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and Constructivism. There are also basic offshoots of these, such as NeoRealism, Postmodernism, Idealism, Cosmpolitanism etc but the above are the 4 main theories one will run into on most University campuses and in the majority of the text books dealing with the subjects.
There are no hard and fast rules tying the theories to internal politics either. One of the greatest Realists of this century, Hans Morgenthau, protested so heavily against the Vietnam war he was spied on by the US government, while Nixon and Kissinger, two other Realists, were in charge of the country's foreign policy. You have Marxists who support economic colonialism, and liberals who favour war to open international markets. I suspect the reason for this is that, aside from times of war, foreign policy is not an area usually high on voters priorities, and thus has escaped media and political corruption, for the most part.
Either way, Gray's thesis is similar to anyone who has been following trends in international political theory over the past couple of years. Gray has returned to Classical Realism in order to critique "ideological crusaders" and the fanatics who threaten the world. He goes one step further than most commentators however (such as Robert Kaplan) in blaming both residual millennarian thought within current political theory, and the death of religion as a means of rational enquiry into metaphysical and philosophical speculation. He draws quite a distinction between the Scholastic scepticism of an Aquinas and the unshaking faith of Von Hayek, as a perfect example of this.
Gray convincingly explains how Christian millennarian teleology was inherent in Enlightenment era thinking about human perfectibility and set a terrible precedent for modern theories. Children of Enlightenment thought and those who opposed it while accepting many of its basic assumptions (the Counter-Enlightenment) eventually resulted in the terrible creation of Bolshevism and Nazism in the 20th century. In particular he does an excellent job with explaining the millennarian content of Communist Russian thought, dispelling with ease the racist/apologist "Oriental Despotism" theory of why Communism there was so violent.
He then turns to more modern theories. Being English, he manages to catch the subtelties of British politics far more than many Americans, and aptly starts with Thatcher and the death of traditional Conservativism. The birth of Neo-Liberalism was a death blow for most traditional conservatives over the world. Fully embracing the free market and the revolutionary, chaotic power of the market to overturn traditional relationships, family structures and ways of life, "Conservatives" who bought into the solution of the Free Market became the new revolutionaries.
And so millennarian thought shifted from the syncretic and left wing movements to the right. He then charts the failure of NeoLiberalism and how it morphed into the more "honest" NeoConservativism, which at least accepted that the Market required a violent actor to sometimes ovecome barriers to its operations.
And then, the book's focus shifts. Its understandable, when you understand Gray's own political background, but about half the book becomes devoted to the political opinions of Tony Blair and the American NeoConservative right and how we can see this sort of thinking driving the invasion of Iraq. Much of the book is devoted to this, which is kind of a shame, as I was hoping he would delve more into the philosophical contradictions of the NeoCons some more. He does, interestingly, make a case for Tony Blair being the first British NeoCon, an excellent and accurate description of his deeply held views. A crypto-NeoCon, keeping the public face of a Neo-Liberal.
Gray ends the book by making the case for Realist thought in the modern world. Much of it is well known to anyone who has taken the time to read the above links, so I wont delve into it in any real depth. Suffice to say, while Realism is certainly an attractive option in the face of ideological crusaders, we have to remember that the current political climate arose as a reaction to Realism. We increasingly see the role of state as that of a moral body (rightly or wrongly, I share Realist scepticism on this, but it is the perception) and do feel moral outrage at the wrongs of the world. A return to Realist thinking would look very much like the early days of the Cold War, where it dominated the US foreign policy establishment. And without the checks on US action by the Soviet Union now being present, would the world really look that much different than it already does?
Realism places stability as its ultimate goal, as its own "Holy Grail". The fear of destablization will eventually resolve itself into military interventionism, which will, in the current military/political evolution of the planet, most likely only increase the scope of the conflict. In trying to create a balance of power, where no state can even think it has the advantage to engage in international political rearragenment of the current system, the USA as global hegemon, would end up supporting a balance of terror. One which may spill over in the presence of irrational agents, of which the world has a large supply.
In conclusion, the critique of this book is brilliant, and far more developed than many others like it. However, the solution it provides is weak, and chosen out of lack of current options instead of for any defensible reason. Realism has been tried in the past, and it was not as successful a model as its proponents would like people to think. New thinking is needed on the topic of international relations theory, desperately, but this book does not provide it, despite its formidable intellectual arguments against the current state of affairs.
May 24, 2007
The War on Terror: A four way dialogue
The Prospects of Fanaticism and Terrorism: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Osama bin Laden and Jean Baudrillard in Virtual Dialogue (International Journal of Baudrillard Studies Volume 1, Number 1).
This is a sort of cut-up dialogue taken from the above online journal which I found quite fascinating as a read. Not so much for the argument itself, although there are occasional gems of brilliance from all sides, but for how it is developed and put together overall.
The original was composed by Gerry Coulter, Assistant Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at Bishop’s University in Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada and can be found here.
This is a sort of cut-up dialogue taken from the above online journal which I found quite fascinating as a read. Not so much for the argument itself, although there are occasional gems of brilliance from all sides, but for how it is developed and put together overall.
The original was composed by Gerry Coulter, Assistant Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at Bishop’s University in Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada and can be found here.
The following virtual dialogue is the outcome of an experiment involving the insertion of fragments of contemporary radical theory into the competing hegemonic discourses on terrorism. Specifically, the thought of Jean Baudrillard is injected into the space occupied by sermons on terror from some of its proponents on both sides of the terrorist war between the White House and Osama bin Laden. The combatants in this war are dedicated to keeping public discourse in protective isolation from radical theory and its potential disruptive effects on the certainty each side propounds. The goals of this experiment are to contribute to a disruption of these protective processes and to introduce more uncertainty into the discussion of terrorism and its certainties of death and counter death.
The gathering of fragments involves a strategy of disruption: “The fragment is like a nucleus of an ephemeral destiny of language, a fatal particle that shines an instant then disappears. At the same time, it allows an instantaneous conversion of points of view, of humours and passions”. This experiment also provides an example of how new opportunities for perception arise when we suspend concern for linearity and emphasize the role of uncertainty. These new perceptions affect not only our view of hegemonic discourse, but lead to a renewed understanding of theorists such as Baudrillard. The voices which speak in this dialogue do not do so in historico-chronological sequence. This is a dialogue exchanged for history at a time when we can no longer tell each other histories. The strategic use of Baudrillard’s thought is directed at providing a more uncertain space, a space for non believers, at a time when it seems we are only being given a choice between two competing fanaticisms.
II. Soft World Order
Osama bin Laden: “When you talk about the invasion of New York and Washington, you talk about the men who changed the face of history and went against the traitors. ...These great men have consolidated faith in the hearts of believers and undermined the plans of the crusaders and their agents in the region”.
George W. Bush: “...our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil”.
Dick Cheney: “More people died there on September 11 than we lost in combat in the Gulf War. When you think of that attack and of the merciless horror inflicted at the World Trade Center, no punishment for the terrorist seems too harsh. ...in dealing with the terrorists themselves, we will be relentless and they will come to understand the meaning of justice. ...We cannot deal with terror. It will not end in a treaty. There will be no peaceful coexistence, no negotiations, no summit, no joint communique with the terrorists. The struggle can only end with their complete and permanent destruction”.
Jean Baudrillard: “There is no remedy for this extreme situation, and war is certainly not a solution... and this is indeed its raison d’etre: to substitute, for a real and formidable, unique and unforeseeable event, a repetitive rehashed pseudo-event. The terrorist attack corresponded to a precedence of the event over all interpretive models; whereas this mindless military, technological war corresponds, conversely, to the model’s precedence over the event, and hence to a conflict over phony stakes, to a situation of ‘no contest”.
Bush: “We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network”.
Baudrillard: “No one can say how it will all turn out. What hangs in the balance is the survival of humanity, it is not about the victory of one side. Terrorism has no political project, it has no finality; though it is seen as real, it is absurd”.
Bin Laden: “I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only... This is all that we had hoped for”.
Baudrillard: “We are far beyond ideology and politics now. No ideology, no cause -- not even the Islamic cause can account for the energy which fuels terror. ...Terrorism, like viruses, is everywhere. ...It is at the very heart of the system which combats it... as though every machinery of domination secreted its own counter apparatus, the agent of its own disappearance -- against that form of almost automatic reversion of its own power, the system can do nothing. And terrorism is the shock wave of this silent reversion”.
Bin Laden: “They also lack a fair cause to defend. They only fight for capitalists, usury takers, and the merchants of arms and oil, including the gang of crime at the White House. This is in addition to crusader and personal grudges by Bush the father”.
Cheney: “The best defense against a terrorist attack is to go destroy the terrorist. And then we're doing that”.
Baudrillard: “And so you go to terrorism, which is an enormous fantasy of a political order of the State the better to murder it, to massacre it. But what game is terrorism playing? Terrorism makes no more sense than the State does. They are accomplices in a circular set-up”.
Bin Laden: “Terrorism against America deserves to be praised because it was a response to injustice, aimed at forcing America to stop its support for Israel, which kills our people”.
Bush: “We're at war. There has been an act of war declared upon America by terrorists. ...Behind the sadness and the exhaustion, there is a desire by the American people to not seek only revenge, but to win a war against barbaric behaviour, people that hate freedom and hate what we stand for”.
Baudrillard: “...it is a mistake to see terrorist action obeying a purely destructive logic. It seems to me that the action of the terrorists, from which death is inseparable... does not seek the impersonal elimination of the other. It has to be made to lose face. And you never achieve that by pure force and by eliminating the other party”.
Bin Laden: “We stress the importance of the martyrdom operations against the enemy -- operations that inflicted harm on the United States and Israel that have been unprecedented in their history, thanks to Almighty God. We also point out that whoever supported the United States, including the hypocrites of Iraq or the rulers of Arab countries, those who approved their actions and followed them in this crusade war by fighting with them or providing bases and administrative support, or any form of support, even by words, to kill the Muslims in Iraq, should know that they are apostates and outside the community of Muslims. It is permissible to spill their blood and take their property”.
Baudrillard: “I do not praise murderous attacks - that would be idiotic. Terrorism is not a contemporary form of revolution against oppression and capitalism. No ideology, no struggle for an objective, not even Islamic fundamentalism, can explain it. ...I have glorified nothing, accused nobody, justified nothing. One should not confuse the messenger with his message. I have endeavored to analyze the process through which the unbounded expansion of globalization creates the conditions for its own destruction”
Bush: “We will use the military might of the United States. We will use our intelligence-gathering capacity of the United States. We will use every diplomatic means of the United States. We will disrupt their financial networks. We will do everything we can to achieve our objective, which is to rout out and destroy global terrorism”.
Baudrillard: “The US, like everyone else, now has to face up to a soft world order, a soft situation. Power has become impotent. But if America is now no longer the monopolistic centre of world power, this is not because it has lost power, but simply because there is no centre anymore”.
III. Fundaments
Bin Laden: “Keep this saying before your eyes: ‘It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land.’ Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks. Your wish to the crusaders should be as came in this verse of poetry: ‘The only language between you and us is the sword that will strike your necks’”.
Baudrillard: “And this is precisely the kind of hatred that explains the September 11 terrorist attacks”.
Bush: “War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing”.
Baudrillard: “With its totalizing claim, the system created the conditions for this horrible retaliation. The immanent mania of globalization generates madness, just as an unstable society produces delinquents and psychopaths. In truth, these are only symptoms of the sickness. Terrorism is everywhere, like a virus. It doesn’t require Afghanistan as its home base... Globalization... is based, as colonialism was earlier, on immense violence. It creates more victims than beneficiaries, even when the majority of the Western world profits from it. Naturally the United States, in principle, could liberate every country just as it has liberated Afghanistan. But what kind of a peculiar liberation would that be? Those so fortunate would know how to defend themselves even with terror if necessary”.
Bin Laden: “In the end, I advise myself and you to fear God covertly and openly and to be patient in the jihad. Victory will be achieved with patience. I also advise myself and you to say more prayers”.
Baudrillard: “...there was in all religions... a power of illusion, the power of the very violent denigration of the real. It was radical even in the first religions. Symbolic culture has always been lived as a denigration of the real, something like a radical distrust: the idea that the essential happens elsewhere than in the real. And that possibility is disappearing, little by little, without pressure from the operation of the world -- the idea that the world is real and that all that is required now is to operate in the real. There is not even a utopian world any longer. There is no utopia. ...now, utopia has gone into the real, we are in it”.
Bush: “And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: ‘Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me’”.
Baudrillard: “Perhaps, but it is not religiosity that drives them to terrorism. All the Islam experts emphasize this. The assassins of September 11th made no demands. Fundamentalism is a symptomatic form of rejection, refusal; its adherents didn’t want to accomplish anything concrete, they simply rise up wildly against that which they perceive as a threat to their own identity”.
Bin Laden: “O ye who believe! When ye meet a force, be firm, and call Allah in remembrance much (and often); That ye may prosper. God, who sent the book unto the prophet, who drives the clouds, and who defeated the enemy parties, defeat them and make us victorious over them. Our Lord! Give us good in this world and good in the Hereafter and save us from the torment of the Fire! [Koranic verse]. May God's peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad and his household”.
Bush: “We cannot know all that lies ahead. Yet, we do know that God had placed us together in this moment, to grieve together, to stand together, to serve each other and our country. And the duty we have been given -- defending America and our freedom -- is also a privilege we share. We're prepared for this journey. And our prayer tonight is that God will see us through, and keep us worthy. ...May God bless America”.
Baudrillard: “It is what haunts every world order, all hegemonic domination -- if Islam dominated the world, terrorism would rise against Islam, for it is the world, the globe itself, which resists globalization”.
Bin Laden: “God Almighty says: ‘Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil.’ So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan”.
Bush: “As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love. May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country”.
Baudrillard: “Is there still room between these two fanaticisms for a non-believer to exercise his liberty?”.
IV. Symbolic Challenge
Baudrillard: “Wars are often begun in the name of justice, indeed this is almost always the official justification. Yet, while they themselves want to be so justified and are undertaken with the best of intentions, they normally don’t end in the manner in which their instigators had imagined”.
Bush: “Not only am I pleased with the great cooperation that we're having with our friend, the Japanese; I am most pleased that the Saudi Arabians yesterday cut off relations with the Taliban, and that President Putin, in a strong statement to the world, talked about the cooperation that Russia and the United States will have in combating global terrorism as well. The coalition of legitimate governments and freedom-loving people is strong”.
Baudrillard: “Bush aspires to return to trusted ground by rediscovering the balance between friend and foe. The Americans are prosecuting this war as if they were defending themselves against a wolf pack. But this doesn’t work against viruses that have already been in us for a long time. There is no longer a front, no demarcation line, the enemy sits in the heart of the culture which fights it. That is, if you like, the fourth world war: no longer between peoples, states, systems and ideologies, but, rather, of the human species against itself”
Cheney: “...what we're asking nations to do, and which the Paks have clearly made a decision to do, is we're asking nations to step up and be counted. They're going to have to decide. Are they going to stand with the United States and believe in freedom and democracy and civilization, or are they going to stand with the terrorists and the barbarians, if you will? And it's a fairly clear-cut choice”.
Baudrillard: “If terrorism is a sort of murderous advertising campaign which keeps our imagination on tender hooks, it can be countered only by a piece of more effective advertising”.
Bush: “...at the United Nations, I will set out my vision of our common responsibilities in the war on terror. I will put every nation on notice that these duties involve more than sympathy or words. No nation can be neutral in this conflict, because no civilized nation can be secure in a world threatened by terror”.
Baudrillard: “Is it not a paradox that the West uses as a weapon against dissenters the following motto: Either you share our values or…? A democracy asserted with threats and blackmail only sabotages itself. It no longer represents the autonomous decision for freedom, but rather becomes a global imperative”.
Bush: “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail”.
Bin Laden: “...during the Tora Bora battle last year. In that great battle, faith triumphed over all the materialistic forces of the people of evil, for principles were adhered to, thanks to God Almighty. ...We were about 300 Mujahideen. We dug 100 trenches that were spread in an area that does not exceed one square mile... our centers were exposed to a concentrated bombardment. ...the bombardment was round-the-clock and the warplanes continued to fly over us day and night. To sum it up, the battle resulted in the complete failure of the international alliance of evil, with all its forces, [to overcome] a small number of Mujahideen - 300 Mujahideen hunkered down in trenches spread over an area of one square mile under a temperature of -10 degrees Celsius. ... If all the world forces of evil could not achieve their goals on a one square mile of area against a small number of Mujahideen with very limited capabilities, how can these evil forces triumph over the Muslim world?”.
Baudrillard: “We must see the thing beyond the opposition of good and bad. I look for the confrontation with the event as it is without equivocation. Whoever is unable to do that, is led to a moral falsification of history... Evil does not retreat in proportion to the advance of the good. Therefore the concept of progress is, outside of the rationality of the natural sciences, in fact, problematic. Montaigne said: “If the evil in men were eliminated, then the fundamental condition of life would be destroyed”. ... Good and evil are irresolvably bound up with one another, this is fatal in the original sense: an integral part of our fate, our destiny. ...in reality one would have to turn the whole debate on its head. The exciting question is not why there is evil. First there is evil, without question. Why is there good? This is the real miracle”.
Bush: “We're a nation that can't be cowed by evil-doers... We will rid the world of the evil-doers... on the Lord's Day, I say to my fellow Americans... Your government is alert. The governors and mayors are alert that evil folks still lurk out there”.
Baudrillard: “Hence the stupidity of all that is reported about the terrorists: everywhere the wish to palm off meaning onto them, to exterminate them with meaning”.
Bin Laden: “It is important to hit the economy, which is the base of its [America’s] military power...If the economy is hit they will become reoccupied”.
Cheney: “Once the bubble burst in the stock market, we're not collecting those capital gains revenues any more -- the way we were for a while. That's had a big impact on revenue. The terrorism attack of 9/11 clearly didn't help. It had a significant impact. You look at industries like the airlines, the travel business, and so forth, they've all been adversely affected by that. And, of course, we've got the ongoing war on terror, and now the operations in Iraq. So, I think it's not surprising that we got a deficit at this stage”.
Baudrillard: “...terrorism claims to really aim at capital (global imperialism, etc.) But it mistakes its enemy, and in doing so it aims at its true enemy, which is the social. Present day terrorism aims at the social in response to the terrorism of the social”.
Bush: “Al Taqua is an association of offshore banks and financial management firms that have helped al Qaeda shift money around the world. Al Barakaat is a group of money wiring and communication companies owned by a friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden. Al Taqua and Al Barakaat raise funds for al Qaeda; they manage, invest and distribute those funds. They provide terrorist supporters with Internet service, secure telephone communications and other ways of sending messages and sharing information. They even arrange for the shipment of weapons. They present themselves as legitimate businesses. But they skim money from every transaction, for the benefit of terrorist organizations. They enable the proceeds of crime in one country to be transferred to pay for terrorist acts in another. The entry point for these networks may be a small storefront operation -- but follow the network to its center and you discover wealthy banks and sophisticated technology...”.
Baudrillard: “...a new terrorism has come into being, a new form of action which plays the game, and lays hold of the rules of the game, solely with the aim of disrupting it. ... they have taken over all the weapons of the dominant power. Money and stock-market speculation, computer technology and aeronautics, spectacle and the media networks -- they have assimilated everything of modernity and globalism, without changing their goal, which is to destroy that power. ...Suicidal terrorism was a terrorism of the poor. This is a terrorism of the rich. This is what particularly frightens us: the fact that they have become rich. (they have all the necessary resources) without ceasing to wish to destroy us”.
Bin Laden: “We realized from our defense and fighting against the American enemy that, in combat, they mainly depend on psychological warfare. This is in light of the huge media machine they have”.
Baudrillard: “The media make themselves into the vehicle of the moral condemnation of terrorism and of the explosion of fear for political ends, but simultaneously, in the most complete ambiguity, they propagate the brutal charm of the terrorist act, they are themselves terrorists, insofar as they themselves march to the tune of seduction”.
Bush: “This is a different war from any our nation has ever faced, a war on many fronts, against terrorists who operate in more than 60 different countries. And this is a war that must be fought not only overseas, but also here at home. I recently spoke to high school students in Maryland, and realized that for the first time ever, these seniors will graduate in the midst of a war in our own country”.
Baudrillard: “This paradoxical configuration is the only original form of our time, and subversive because insoluble. There is neither victory or defeat: no sense can be made of an event which is irremediably spectacular, or irremediably symbolic. Everything in terrorism is ambivalent and reversible: death, the media, violence, victory”.
Bush: “I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today”.
Baudrillard: “Of course there are those who committed these acts, but the spirit of terrorism and panic reaches far beyond them. The Americans’ war is focused on a visible object, which they would like to destroy. Yet the event of September 11th, in all of its symbolism, cannot be obliterated in this manner. The bombing of Afghanistan is a completely inadequate, substitute action”.
Bush: “Flags are flying everywhere -- on houses, in store windows, on cars and lapels”.
Baudrillard: “The worst that can happen to global power is not to be attacked or destroyed, but to suffer a humiliation. Global power was humiliated on September 11 because the terrorists inflicted something the global system cannot give back. Military reprisals were only means of physical response. But, on September 11, global power was symbolically defeated”.
Bush: “It is time for us to win the first war of the 21st century decisively, so that our children and our grandchildren can live peacefully into the 21st century”.
Baudrillard: “War is a response to an aggression, but not to a symbolic challenge. A symbolic challenge is accepted and removed when the other is humiliated in return (but this cannot work when the other is crushed by bombs or locked behind bars in Guantanamo). The fundamental rule of symbolic obligation stipulates that the basis of any form of domination is the total absence of any counterpart, of any return”.
Bush: “I think the way to fight off evil is to do some acts of goodness”.
Baudrillard: “Evil is the world as it is and as it has been. Misfortune is the world as it never should have been. The transformation of evil into misfortune is the most lucrative industry of the twentieth century. ...Misfortune is a mine whose ore is inexhaustible. Evil, in contrast, can’t be subdued by any form of rationality. This is the illusion of the West: because technological perfection seems within reach, one believes by extension in the possibility of realizing moral perfection, in an future free of contingencies in the best of all possible worlds.
V. Generalized Terror
Bush: “What we saw was how to take real -- data on a real-time basis to determine if there was an outbreak of any kind, including a terrorist attack. The best way to protect the homeland is to understand what's taking place on the homeland so we can respond. ...an incredibly useful tool for America, a useful tool to protect ourselves”.
Bin Laden: “Planes poured their lava on us, particularly after accomplishing their main missions in Afghanistan. The US forces attacked us with smart bombs, bombs that weigh thousands of pounds, cluster bombs, and bunker busters. Bombers, like the B-52, used to fly over head for more than two hours and drop between 20 to 30 bombs at a time. The modified C-130 aircraft kept carpet-bombing us at night, using modern types of bombs”.
Cheney: “In Desert Storm, it usually took up to two days for target planners to get a photo of a target, confirm its coordinates, plan the mission, and deliver it to the bomber crew. Now we have near real-time imaging of targets with photos and coordinates transmitted by e-mail to aircraft already in flight. ...Today our commanders have a real-time display of our own forces on their computer screens. ...on a single bombing sortie, a B-2 can hit 16 separate targets, each with a 2,000-pound, precision-guided, satellite-based...”
Baudrillard: “...nothing takes place in real time. Not even history. History in real time is CNN, instant news, which is the exact opposite of history”.
Bush: “We are patient; we're deliberate. ...The issue is international terror. I like our chances against bin Laden, however. There's no cave deep enough for him to hide. He can run, and he thinks he can hide, but we're not going to give up until he and every other potential killer, and every other body who hates freedom will be brought to justice”.
Baudrillard: “Without a doubt, the Taliban Regime has been smashed. However, the network of the international terror organization, al-Qaida, still exists. And Bin Laden, dead or alive, has, above all, disappeared. This lends him a mythical power; he has achieved a certain supernatural quality... What is at issue is more than the control of a territory or a population or the disbanding of a subversive organization. The stakes have become metaphysical”.
Bush: “They will try to hide, they will try to avoid the United States and our allies - but we're not going to let them. They run to the hills; they find holes to get in... this is a great nation; we're a kind people. None of us could have envisioned the barbaric acts of these terrorists. But they have stirred up the might of the American people, and we're going to get them, no matter what it takes”.
Bin Laden: “A message to our Muslim brothers in Iraq, may God's peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you. ...We are following up with great interest and extreme concern the crusaders' preparations for war to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth, and install an agent government, which would be a satellite for its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv, just like all the other treasonous and agent Arab governments”.
Bush: “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act... And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for pre-emptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives...".
Baudrillard: “...what kind of state would be capable of dissuading and annihilating all terrorism in the bud...? It would have to arm itself with such terrorism and generalize terror on every level. If this is the price of security, is everybody deep down dreaming of this? ...Understood: terrorism is still a lesser evil than a police state capable of ending it. It is possible that we secretly acquiesce in this fantastic proposition. There’s no need of “political consciousness” for this; it’s a secret balance of terror that makes us guess that a spasmodic eruption of violence is preferable to its rational exercise within the framework of the State, or to total prevention at the price of a total programmatic domination”.
Bush: “Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere”.
Baudrillard: “Terrorism emerges when no other form of resistance seems possible. The system takes as objectively terrorist whatever is set against it. The values of the West are ambivalent, at a definite point in time they could have a positive effect and accelerate progress, at another, however, they drive themselves to such extremes that they falsify themselves and ultimately turn against their own purpose”.
Cheney: “And as the leading power, we have a further responsibility to help keep the peace of the world and to prevent terrorists and their sponsors from plunging the world into horrific violence. President Bush takes that responsibility very seriously, and he is meeting it with great resolve and with clarity of purpose”.
Baudrillard: “The terrorist hypothesis is that the system will commit suicide in response to the multiple challenges posed by deaths and suicides. ...It is the terrorist model to bring about an excess of reality, and have the system collapse beneath that excess of reality”.
Cheney: “Fortunately, in this period of challenge, the United States has a leader in President Bush, who has the patience and the resolve and the moral clarity necessary to wage the war on terror and to win it”.
Baudrillard: “What we hate in ourselves -- the obscure object of our resentment -- is our excess of reality, power, and comfort, our universal availability, our definite accomplishment... And this is exactly the part of our culture that the terrorists find repulsive (which also explains the support they receive and the fascination they are able to exert). Terrorism's support is not only based on the despair of those who have been humiliated and offended. It is also based on the invisible despair of those whom globalization has privileged, on our own submission to an omnipotent technology, to a crushing virtual reality, to an empire of networks and programs that are probably in the process of redrawing the regressive contours of the entire human species, of a humanity that has gone "global." (After all, isn't the supremacy of the human species over the rest of life on earth the mirror image of the domination of the West over the rest of the world?). This invisible despair, our invisible despair, is hopeless since it is the result of the realization of all our desires. ...if terrorism is derived from this excess of reality and from this reality's impossible exchange, if it is the product of a profusion without any possible counterpart or return, and if it emerges from a forced resolution of conflicts, the illusion of getting rid of it as if it were an objective evil is complete. For, in its absurdity and non-sense, terrorism is our society's own judgment and penalty”.
VI. Irony
Cheney: “...only the terrorists themselves want to live in such a world, where law is replaced by brute force and morality is defined by vicious and violent men”.
Baudrillard: “Terror is dissipated by irony”.
VII. Epilogue
Baudrillard’s contribution to the virtual dialogue illustrates how theory can stand as a challenge to the real. A further interesting effect of this virtual dialogue is that the voice of Baudrillard is so relatively comforting. We are now living through a period in which it seems there is very little to believe in and this is a key problem for the proponents of terror. Each side of the current terror war offers a substitute for uncertainty. The value of Baudrillard’s thought at the present moment is its reminder that it is also important not to believe: “So today, with the loss of utopias and ideologies, we lack objects of belief. But even worse, perhaps, we lack objects in which not to believe. For it is vital -- maybe even more vital -- to have things in which not to believe”. Against the thought of Baudrillard, the prospects of fanaticism are not good, and terrorism did not stand a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
