Istanbul Atrocity
Posted by: Traveling Dan on 20 November 2003
I'm in Istanbul on business. The bomb at the British Consulate went off a few hours ago; about 4 streets away from where I am. There's been another bomb at the HSBC headquarters: 25 dead or missing and an estimated 400 injured all told. Sirens have been wailing for a while now and it's all too easy to imagine people bleeding and dying.
Just last week I was having a beer and a laugh with a few of the HSBC expats while we watched the rugby - now I don't know if they're still breathing.
I've been through this sort of crap before: I grew up in Beirut and the West Bank, I lived in Cairo for over 8 years and home is in Northern Ireland. I've heard bombs before, I've heard bullets pass by and I've seen the consequences. I've encountered enough pointless, stupid killing and maiming to last me for several lifetimes - and I'm sick of it. What does it ever achieve except to provoke more hatred and still more senseless violence?
For some reason that I can't fathom, this one has really got to me in a way that previous incidents never did. Maybe it's an emotional response in the heat of the moment, maybe I'm just getting older and more fearful, maybe I've reached saturation point or maybe it's the realisation that these atrocities are beyond any understanding I can ever achieve.
Right now I really want to do two things. First, I want to hold my two little boys close and protect them from the madness. Then, I want to close the door on the world and resign from the human race.
And I know I'll never be able to do either ...
Just last week I was having a beer and a laugh with a few of the HSBC expats while we watched the rugby - now I don't know if they're still breathing.
I've been through this sort of crap before: I grew up in Beirut and the West Bank, I lived in Cairo for over 8 years and home is in Northern Ireland. I've heard bombs before, I've heard bullets pass by and I've seen the consequences. I've encountered enough pointless, stupid killing and maiming to last me for several lifetimes - and I'm sick of it. What does it ever achieve except to provoke more hatred and still more senseless violence?
For some reason that I can't fathom, this one has really got to me in a way that previous incidents never did. Maybe it's an emotional response in the heat of the moment, maybe I'm just getting older and more fearful, maybe I've reached saturation point or maybe it's the realisation that these atrocities are beyond any understanding I can ever achieve.
Right now I really want to do two things. First, I want to hold my two little boys close and protect them from the madness. Then, I want to close the door on the world and resign from the human race.
And I know I'll never be able to do either ...
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by Justin
Your insticts are understandable, but ultimately too passive. The irony of all of this is that as more and more middle eastern countries are struck with this sort of thing, they will start to take this issue more seriously. Even the Saudi's seem to be cracking down a bit.
Judd
Judd
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by Simon Matthews
Justin
I think Dan was expressing his understandable dissapointment and disgust with aspects of the human race. When you talk about his passivitity what exactly was that in response to in terms of what Dan said.
As regards to the Saudi's, well a puppet regime propped up by the west and incapable of anything like democracy is one of many catalysts for this type of terrible behavior (without in any way attempting to justify these actions). When Bush talks of liberation and democracy in the middle east do the majority realise that increased democracy in Saudi would show an increase in anti american/western feelings amoung many of the local population.
As regards to today, Dan it sounds like you are four blocks from hell. I cannot remotely imagine what it must be like there, and to be truthfull I am glad of that fact. I would like to be able to say something positive to you but on a day like today that would be disingenuous.
What a terrible waste of life.
I think Dan was expressing his understandable dissapointment and disgust with aspects of the human race. When you talk about his passivitity what exactly was that in response to in terms of what Dan said.
As regards to the Saudi's, well a puppet regime propped up by the west and incapable of anything like democracy is one of many catalysts for this type of terrible behavior (without in any way attempting to justify these actions). When Bush talks of liberation and democracy in the middle east do the majority realise that increased democracy in Saudi would show an increase in anti american/western feelings amoung many of the local population.
As regards to today, Dan it sounds like you are four blocks from hell. I cannot remotely imagine what it must be like there, and to be truthfull I am glad of that fact. I would like to be able to say something positive to you but on a day like today that would be disingenuous.
What a terrible waste of life.
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by Fisbey
Pointless killing indeed - isn't all killing pointless? In my honest opinion when we kill another human being we kill a part of ourselves. I think maybe emphasis (by East and West alike) should be more heavily placed on understanding and respecting the views of those who are different to us. At the end of the day most of us just want a nice place to live, decent food, some company, maybe a few luxuries and a peaceful world for our children to grow up in. Surely there aren't that many lunatics in the world who'll kill each other are there?
Again, in my opinion it's a big subject, but am tempted to think sometimes that it's a case of Western affluence versus Eastern happiness, From the little I have seen I get the impression that many people in the East live very happy and contented lives without the need for the the latest mod con, that we in the West are constantly being told we need to be 'better' people - it's a bloody con. Global capitalism, corporate communism call it what you like, whatever it's a financial and power conspiracy if I ever saw one
Yours hypocritically (with a few mod cons of his own) Fisbey - trying hard not to buy into the madness.
Again, in my opinion it's a big subject, but am tempted to think sometimes that it's a case of Western affluence versus Eastern happiness, From the little I have seen I get the impression that many people in the East live very happy and contented lives without the need for the the latest mod con, that we in the West are constantly being told we need to be 'better' people - it's a bloody con. Global capitalism, corporate communism call it what you like, whatever it's a financial and power conspiracy if I ever saw one
Yours hypocritically (with a few mod cons of his own) Fisbey - trying hard not to buy into the madness.
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by Traveling Dan
I suspect Justin's "passive" comment means that hiding away and pretending it's not happening is no answer. With the benefit of a bad night's sleep, I have to say I agree. If one starts down the road of letting these risks govern your life then it won't be long before you never leave the house again. There's probably more chance of being killed in a road accident (especially with the taxi drivers here) than of being a victim of terrorism. I travel extensively with my work (8-9 months per year - mainly in the East Med / Middle East) and I like what I do and the rewards it brings. So am I going to let a fanatical minority dictate where I go and what I do? Of course not. Am I going to modify my behaviour? Yes. I'll be as cautious as circumstances permit, I'll make certain my family is well provided for should the worst happen and, as soon as I get back, I'm going to exercise my right to get an Irish passport.
Al Qa'eda issued a statement in Turkey yesterday afternoon. They claimed responsibility for the bombings and described them as a "present for Jerusalem"; whatever that means. They threatened further attacks on America and "its lapdogs" with express mentions for Britain, Israel, Italy, Australia and Japan. I can understand the first two and even the third (since Italy sent troops to Iraq), but Australia and Japan? What's that about?
I think what bothers me about the current crop of terrorists is that I don't know what they are trying to achieve. Historically, most terrorist organisations have had a clear objective (however tainted their motivation becomes subsequently) whether it's the overthrow of an oppressor, separatism / self-autonomy, imposition of a particular political or religious ideology or whatever. In theory at least, it has been possible to imagine a point in the future when the terror would stop: if they achieved the objective then there would be no need to carry on.
With Al Qa'eda, I have no concept of what would make them put down their guns and say "that's it lads, job done". There doesn't seem to be a discrenible political motive in the traditional terms of overthrow of governments or creation of a state. They don't seem to be particularly committed to the Palestinian cause or even to the Arab / Islamic brotherhood philosophy. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and/or Iraq would not satisfy them since they were in place before any of that started - and its much too simplistic to see it just in terms of a struggle between Bin Laden and the House of Saud. After these latest incidents, I have difficulty seeing any genuine religious motivation (although I do see the calculated manipulation of religious fervour). It begins to look like terrorism for its own sake.
Does anyone have any thoughts on what motivates these maniacs?
Another question: can anyone think of an instance where terrorism actually achieved its objective? I was thinking about this last night (couldn't sleep) and the only one I could come up with was the events in Somalia a number of years back - and I'm not convinced it can really be classed as terrorism.
Dan
Al Qa'eda issued a statement in Turkey yesterday afternoon. They claimed responsibility for the bombings and described them as a "present for Jerusalem"; whatever that means. They threatened further attacks on America and "its lapdogs" with express mentions for Britain, Israel, Italy, Australia and Japan. I can understand the first two and even the third (since Italy sent troops to Iraq), but Australia and Japan? What's that about?
I think what bothers me about the current crop of terrorists is that I don't know what they are trying to achieve. Historically, most terrorist organisations have had a clear objective (however tainted their motivation becomes subsequently) whether it's the overthrow of an oppressor, separatism / self-autonomy, imposition of a particular political or religious ideology or whatever. In theory at least, it has been possible to imagine a point in the future when the terror would stop: if they achieved the objective then there would be no need to carry on.
With Al Qa'eda, I have no concept of what would make them put down their guns and say "that's it lads, job done". There doesn't seem to be a discrenible political motive in the traditional terms of overthrow of governments or creation of a state. They don't seem to be particularly committed to the Palestinian cause or even to the Arab / Islamic brotherhood philosophy. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and/or Iraq would not satisfy them since they were in place before any of that started - and its much too simplistic to see it just in terms of a struggle between Bin Laden and the House of Saud. After these latest incidents, I have difficulty seeing any genuine religious motivation (although I do see the calculated manipulation of religious fervour). It begins to look like terrorism for its own sake.
Does anyone have any thoughts on what motivates these maniacs?
Another question: can anyone think of an instance where terrorism actually achieved its objective? I was thinking about this last night (couldn't sleep) and the only one I could come up with was the events in Somalia a number of years back - and I'm not convinced it can really be classed as terrorism.
Dan
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by Phil Barry
I've long been concerned with 'fundamentalism', starting with concerns about assholes in the US,later realizing there are assholes all over.
I am currently playing with this hypothesis:
1) people choose fundamentalism out of confusion about the world
2) the attraction of fundamentalism is the certainty expressed by fundmentalist leaders
3) but they know that their certainty is false
THEREFORE anything that throws their beliefs into doubt appears to be so evil that any action is justified.
We're talking about millions of people throughout the world who have chosen fundamentalism. I don't know what WILL solve the problem, but I think suppression is likely to drive more people into the arms of the assholes.
Regards.
Phil
I am currently playing with this hypothesis:
1) people choose fundamentalism out of confusion about the world
2) the attraction of fundamentalism is the certainty expressed by fundmentalist leaders
3) but they know that their certainty is false
THEREFORE anything that throws their beliefs into doubt appears to be so evil that any action is justified.
We're talking about millions of people throughout the world who have chosen fundamentalism. I don't know what WILL solve the problem, but I think suppression is likely to drive more people into the arms of the assholes.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by Tim Oldridge
"Another question: can anyone think of an instance where terrorism actually achieved its objective?"
Dan
That is an almost impossible question to answer.
To begin with, it depends on your definition of terrorist. Even if you get past the hackneyed terrorist /freedom fighter question, people who "win" very soon cease to be characterised as terrorists. Most civil wars involve, at least at the beginning, an irregular guerrilla force using unconventional/terror tactics against established regular forces. In many ways, the American War of Independence might be better characterised as the first American Civil War. l think even to start answering the question you have to exclude regular forces of an established state or province from the definition of terrorist – whatever the morality of the cause, tactics and strategy. Dresden, My Lau, Algiers, Bloody Sunday all raise perfectly valid questions of definition, but don't really help here.
Secondly, the concept of a body of people "winning" raises the whole question of cause and effect. For example, in the Indo-China wars of 45 to 73 or so, the Viet Minh/Viet Cong were undoubtedly an armed civilian force which used terror tactics. They were also on the winning side. Whether they *won*, depends whether you think the US withdrew and the Saigon regime collapsed because of the guerrilla/terrorist war in the South or the success of the regular forces in the North. Some of course say that the US didn't lose......
Possibly better examples are the many "withdrawal from Empire" conflicts following WWII. Many would say that the British would have withdrawn whether or not the Mau Mau in Kenya had fought. It's had to say that the Mau Mau won, but their basic aim was achieved (although probably not by them).
That said and answering your question without explicitly defining my terms:
- the irregulars of the American independence movement ended up on the winning side, but it probably was not their terror tactics that won the day
- independence for Algeria was achieved by a body of men and women who used terror as a key part of their strategy. Interestingly, the terrorists opposing them – formed from the white inhabitants of Algeria – definitely failed in preventing independence despite terrible atrocities in Algeria and mainland France and widespread French sympathy
- not something I know much about, but the Dutch did eventually win independence from the Spanish, and I'm reasonably sure guerrilla tactics were involved.
- the terrorists fighting for a Jewish state against their British "protectors" in the late 1940s probably succeeded in their terms, but it is hard to say whether, the aftermath of the Holocaust, the State of Israel would have come about anyway
- in Zimbabwe, the freedom fighter/terrorists fought the white regime with truly terrible tactics and black rule did come about. Arguably a win for the terrorists
- in South Africa, it is hard not to characterise part of the struggle against apartheid as terrorism. The white regime did succumb, but causation is as hard here as in my other examples
- in Western Europe, the post-68 Red Brigade/Baader Meinhof revolutionary gangs I think can be said to have failed but it is difficult to know as their aims were never very clear. If their aim was solely death and destruction targeted largely at the middle class beneficiaries of the post-WWII boom years I might be wrong
- it's too early to say of course, the violent part of the Irish republican struggle since the late 1960s looks like it has not achieved its aims (British withdrawal from the north etc). There are of course good arguments that the violence has achieved something.
Not terribly helpful I know, but you did ask…………..
Timo
Dan
That is an almost impossible question to answer.
To begin with, it depends on your definition of terrorist. Even if you get past the hackneyed terrorist /freedom fighter question, people who "win" very soon cease to be characterised as terrorists. Most civil wars involve, at least at the beginning, an irregular guerrilla force using unconventional/terror tactics against established regular forces. In many ways, the American War of Independence might be better characterised as the first American Civil War. l think even to start answering the question you have to exclude regular forces of an established state or province from the definition of terrorist – whatever the morality of the cause, tactics and strategy. Dresden, My Lau, Algiers, Bloody Sunday all raise perfectly valid questions of definition, but don't really help here.
Secondly, the concept of a body of people "winning" raises the whole question of cause and effect. For example, in the Indo-China wars of 45 to 73 or so, the Viet Minh/Viet Cong were undoubtedly an armed civilian force which used terror tactics. They were also on the winning side. Whether they *won*, depends whether you think the US withdrew and the Saigon regime collapsed because of the guerrilla/terrorist war in the South or the success of the regular forces in the North. Some of course say that the US didn't lose......
Possibly better examples are the many "withdrawal from Empire" conflicts following WWII. Many would say that the British would have withdrawn whether or not the Mau Mau in Kenya had fought. It's had to say that the Mau Mau won, but their basic aim was achieved (although probably not by them).
That said and answering your question without explicitly defining my terms:
- the irregulars of the American independence movement ended up on the winning side, but it probably was not their terror tactics that won the day
- independence for Algeria was achieved by a body of men and women who used terror as a key part of their strategy. Interestingly, the terrorists opposing them – formed from the white inhabitants of Algeria – definitely failed in preventing independence despite terrible atrocities in Algeria and mainland France and widespread French sympathy
- not something I know much about, but the Dutch did eventually win independence from the Spanish, and I'm reasonably sure guerrilla tactics were involved.
- the terrorists fighting for a Jewish state against their British "protectors" in the late 1940s probably succeeded in their terms, but it is hard to say whether, the aftermath of the Holocaust, the State of Israel would have come about anyway
- in Zimbabwe, the freedom fighter/terrorists fought the white regime with truly terrible tactics and black rule did come about. Arguably a win for the terrorists
- in South Africa, it is hard not to characterise part of the struggle against apartheid as terrorism. The white regime did succumb, but causation is as hard here as in my other examples
- in Western Europe, the post-68 Red Brigade/Baader Meinhof revolutionary gangs I think can be said to have failed but it is difficult to know as their aims were never very clear. If their aim was solely death and destruction targeted largely at the middle class beneficiaries of the post-WWII boom years I might be wrong
- it's too early to say of course, the violent part of the Irish republican struggle since the late 1960s looks like it has not achieved its aims (British withdrawal from the north etc). There are of course good arguments that the violence has achieved something.
Not terribly helpful I know, but you did ask…………..
Timo
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by JohanR
quote:
Another question: can anyone think of an instance where terrorism actually achieved its objective?
I would add the Palestinians to the list. They started out with terrorism like airplane hi jacking. Before this nobody hardly know they existed, a couple of years later "everybody" in the west was running around with palestinian scarfes and today the terrorist leader is their president.
JohanR (near Töreboda, Sweden, where the letter bomb was invented)
JohanR
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by Rasher
I remember a time when Christmas brought the Gary Glitter Gang Show touring around the country, his Christmas single in the charts every year etc. Every list of the greatest singles ever, he would be there. I saw a “list” pop songs program a couple of years back, and instead of playing his record, they just briefly mentioned his nomination before hurriedly moving on to the next one. I thought then that there is nothing like disgrace for a turn of fate.
Until Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are disgraced or smeared, nothing will stop them. So a smear campaign is the only way. It is a peaceful solution too. Propaganda war should begin now.
Naive I know.
Until Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are disgraced or smeared, nothing will stop them. So a smear campaign is the only way. It is a peaceful solution too. Propaganda war should begin now.
Naive I know.
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by ErikL
"Another question: can anyone think of an instance where terrorism actually achieved its objective?"
John Brown
John Brown
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by ErikL
"Does anyone have any thoughts on what motivates these maniacs?"
They're jealous of the economic and political power of the West, they're shameful that their proud states are stuck in prior centuries, and they're sick of the West treating them like a cheap gas station while ignoring the conditions under which they live. At least these are the things Tom Friedman said after interviewing a bunch of journalists, students, activists, and politicians in the Middle East.
I sometimes see it all as a cry for attention.
Per Japan, I believe they're named as they're one of (if not the) biggest financial contributor to the rebuilding of Iraq.
PS- Dan, I hope your expat friends and their families were unharmed in yesterday's bombings. Best wishes.
They're jealous of the economic and political power of the West, they're shameful that their proud states are stuck in prior centuries, and they're sick of the West treating them like a cheap gas station while ignoring the conditions under which they live. At least these are the things Tom Friedman said after interviewing a bunch of journalists, students, activists, and politicians in the Middle East.
I sometimes see it all as a cry for attention.
Per Japan, I believe they're named as they're one of (if not the) biggest financial contributor to the rebuilding of Iraq.
PS- Dan, I hope your expat friends and their families were unharmed in yesterday's bombings. Best wishes.
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by mykel
I may be talking outta my rear here but...
Ludwig said...
While from what little history I know, elements of this statement can not be debated. ie The way the west helped "develop" the resources.
However, from what I have seen the peoples of these nations are quite poor in relation to the opulance that the ruling class lives in. While we buy the product ( at prices set by OPEC ) we have no control over how this revenue is distributed. So my question becomes how can we be responsible for treating them as a cheap gas-station and keeping them in abject poverty when their own governments set the price and determine the usage of the revenue?
So, If I'm really off-base in this, could somebody please enlighten me as to what I have missed?
regards,
michael
Ludwig said...
quote:
and they're sick of the West treating them like a cheap gas station while ignoring the conditions under which they live
While from what little history I know, elements of this statement can not be debated. ie The way the west helped "develop" the resources.
However, from what I have seen the peoples of these nations are quite poor in relation to the opulance that the ruling class lives in. While we buy the product ( at prices set by OPEC ) we have no control over how this revenue is distributed. So my question becomes how can we be responsible for treating them as a cheap gas-station and keeping them in abject poverty when their own governments set the price and determine the usage of the revenue?
So, If I'm really off-base in this, could somebody please enlighten me as to what I have missed?
regards,
michael
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by ErikL
What Friedman meant is the West is happy to ignore the autocratic governments, lack of human rights, etc in the Mid E as long as there's a steady supply of crude.
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. It's also the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
Saudi Arabia is a perfect example. It's also the biggest sponsor of terrorism.