Eshin Direct

Write a new comment 22 comments

1. Permalink # Robert McClelland said

   I don’t think the terrorists are committing these acts to force governments to withdraw their troops from Iraq. I think it’s being done to stir up hatred towards Arabs in general and provoke reprisals that in turn stirs up more hatred by the Arab community towards America.

2. Permalink # Eyal said

   You say: “intimidation will not succeed”. That’s a very logical thing to say. However, terrorists don’t only act to intimidate, they do it also as revenge, as religious duty and as an expression of hatred. As long as Islam remains stuck in the 7th century it won’t matter what the Western world does, or does not do. Just as a memory refersher, these killings didn’t start because of USA and British occupation and exploitation of Iraq. I don’t recall anyone “defending their nation” by bombing the US embassy in Nairobi for example 6 years ago. Or how about 24 years ago when Arabs seized the Iranian embassy in London and executed 2 hostages. So looking at this terrorism situation now in Iraq in isloation from the big picture of cultural and religious clash is naive and dangerous. All you need to do is look at the mass rallies of ordinary people in the streets calling for jihad, celebrating deaths of Western people, burning flags and chanting death to the infidels. So the bottom line point is that this problem runs much deeper than a few terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters), and it goes way beyond the current situation in Iraq. Any tolerance and sympathy towards people who execute in cold blood un-armed people (be it civilians, captured soldiers etc.) to advance a political or religious agenda is to be condemmed and fiercely opposed to, for the sake of this entire world.

3. Permalink # Eshin said

   Realitically, I don’t think a lot of nations really had to deal with the threat of terrorism before the Iraq war. Now, because the US wanted to draw in the coalition of the willing, it threatens to become a global problem. Prior to this, including the incidents Eyal mentioned, there was a reason behind the hatred. I’m not aware of that many Koreans and Japanese being killed by militants prior to the Iraq war.

   The coalition of the willing was until now the coalition of the reluctant. With this act, they will become the “willing” that the US finally wants. I condemn these terrorists stupidity while at the same time I say, there should never have been a coalition of any kind in the first place.

   But now the gloves are off, my logic takes me to the dark place of believing that a complete peace will only be won by total victory by either side. The elimination of one or the other culture is what will put this to bed. I somehow don’t think that either would have both the stomach or the ability to do that.

   Nukes anyone?

4. Permalink # Eyal said

   Condemning the terrorists and the coalition is fine, creating a causative linkage between the two, and hence a hint of sympathy, is where the logic fails. There were dozens of muslim terrorist attacks all over the world which happened before the war in Iraq. Does it really matter whether innocent people are killed by muslim terrorists in Nairobi, Tanzania, Yemen, London, Cebu, Paris, Cairo, Munich, Bali, New York, 20,000 feet high in the sky above somewhere or, if it’s Korean or Japanese?

   The problem was already global, assigning it to the USA and the BRITISH is not only unfair but also factually incorrect. The issues throughout the attacks are exactly the same: cultural and religious legitimacy to acts of violence in order to advance a “cause”. And until this issue is addressed it will just get worse and worse and not just in the hot spots.

   The change will come through the pockets. One of the main drivers of this wave of islamic terror is money from countries like Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries. Without putting a stop to this financing and without a strong local regime to oppose the grassroots of those movemements I don’t see how it can be stopped. But to get to this the road is long and maybe you are right, it may require a certain catastrophe as a fertile background for this type of radical change.

5. Permalink # Eshin said

   Creating a link between the two is NOT indicative of sympathy for terrorism. I do not sympathise with these people but I do understand their actions. Hell, if someone invaded my country, I’m not quite sure what I’d do.

   This hostage was in Iraq. Supposedly believing he was rebuilding Iraq. Iraq was in need of rebuilding because the US invaded. Why else would S. Korea be in there? In the years preceding the Iraq war, how many S. Korean ventures, civilians, troops etc, were there in Iraq? What were the demands of the terrorists? Don’t send more troops into Iraq.

   Don’t make this out to be a wider issue than it is. It is Iraq that was the cause and effect of this.

   All I am saying is that countries who previously were unlikely to be in the firing line of terrorists are now caught up in it. Yes, terrorists might have planned terror attacks in these countries eventually but they may never have, given increased vigilance. Now these nations are blindly following the US into these endeavours, needlessly exposing themselves to risk.

   I believe the nations and their peoples are allowed to choose whether they should be put in the firing line. Not Washington.

   In most cases, there is historical rationale for attacks in the places you cited. While the execution is indiscriminate, it is targetted towards identified enemies. Bali, while the bombing was indiscriminate, was done in the fatally correct assumption that it was predominantly populated by Australians, whose government was had committed troops already to Afghanistan. I know you might consider these terrorists to be fanatical and blindly driven, but there is a logic to their madness.

   The ‘coalition of the willing’ now just adds nations that otherwise may have been ignored to the list. Just because America is attacked, doesn’t mean the world should be plunged into the chaos. The world should learn to get along without worrying what America does to be honest.

   I don’t sympathise with the terrorists. I just state it as I see it. Personally, I find them loathesome and I’d enjoy putting a bullet through their head. But then again, I’d like to do the same to Bush. So, on behalf of someone who really doesn’t want to be caught up in a conflict that has spanned millenia, I really just want them to leave out nations that had no prior reason to be involved out of it.

6. Permalink # Eshin said

   And yes, it’s very nice to say that all this terror is being funded by certain gulf countries. I’m sure it’s true. But we’re all the idiots for buying their oil in the first place. While you might deride Islamic people for living with a 7th century mentality, it is their oil that allows us all to maintain our 21st century lifestyle.

   Anyway, the solution is simple. To ensure security for the West, it should do what it has always done to achieve this. Genocide. If they won’t join us, then by God, we’ll destroy them. This, my friend, is the only solution when warfare is seen as the means to resolve problems. Fine by me, but let’s be clear on what we’re embarking on before we sign up.

7. Permalink # Eyal said

   Maybe I understood you wrongly in saying: “Again, I understand, maybe even sympathise with people willing to defend their nation against outside aggressors”.

   In any case, I disagree with the notion that the Iraqi situation and terrorism there should be looked upon in isloation from history, culture, religion and social conditions. The cases are just too numerous to disregard those bigger issues.

   The bottom line again is that it doesn’t matter who are the victims, what is their nationality, where / when they are executed and under what kind of localized current context when the overall drivers to these acts are common: resistance by a large part of this planet’s population to move forward together with the rest of the world while at the same time extending legitimacy to barbaric behaviour in the name of natioalism and religious zeal.

   While you might deride the American nation for having a superiority mentality, it is their Big Mac that allows us all to have lunch. So by smoking Marlboro lights a person becomes an accomplice to the events in Fallujah? Sounds to me like stretching it a little bit too much. And just a small difference, at the moment there’s no alternative to oil, while you can always eat in Delifrance and wear Adidas if you desire to avoid helping finance the 100 Billion dollars that go into the war effort in Iraq.

   Genocide, mass transfer, and other such large scale measures are impossible in today’s world. What is more likely is to start with changing the regimes and then education systems and then the people.

   Btw, those nations are not following the UK and Blair into this war blindly, it’s not out of the love for the Union Jack and British imperialism, it is a calculated, real-politik act that those governments take while considering the overall bottom line benefits to their nation. No one operates in a vacum in this world and no one makes decisions based on just what would be ideal to do.

8. Permalink # Eshin said

   Errr…okay. Classic Big Mac argument. I’m actually partial to my Big Mac’s. Apparently, I shouldn’t be because McD’s indirectly funds the IRA. I know one British serviceman who refuses to eat from the Golden Arches.

   What I am saying is that these gulf nations you state are supporting terrorism are getting their money from oil. There are plenty of alternatives to oil. It’s just not convenient to do so. There are alternatives for fuel. Cutting out plastics from your life is do-able, just not practical.

   We depend too much on oil. But it’s a dependency that can be cut. It ain’t practical, but hell, then these gulf nations won’t be getting any money, and these terrorist groups won’t get the funding to commit these acts. This was a point you raised.

   Acts of barbarism are occuring on both sides of the fence. So don’t give me this crap about America being holier than though and the fucking guiding light to civilization into the 21st century. I don’t dispute any of the tactics that the US have used on the basis of any tactic will help them win the war. I do dispute them when they claimed the moral high ground for going into Iraq.

   Are you so naive to believe that genocide and mass murder are impossible even today? You must be so enamoured with the civility of today’s world and the gold that paves the streets of the USA to believe that. Genocide happened not ten years ago in Europe. We’re still uncovering the graves. Wholescale mass murder is happening even now in places like Africa. Wonder if we’ll expend the same resources to bring the cradle of humanity kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

   Yes, we should, of course, change all the regimes around the world to our liking. Countries that don’t like that, we’ll just invade. Who shall we choose to do that? By all means, let’s invite the US to do that for all of us.

   The strange thing is that people like to get attached to their cultures, their heritage and their identity. They also like their own form of independence. I know you subscribe to the view that what does it matter that the US is dictating policy and extending its cultural imperialism.

   If that is so, then it doesn’t matter where we all live since we’ll be under the yoke of US policy. Perhaps Israel should be dissolved and just renamed Palestine? Hell, by your opinion, it won’t make much of a difference. Uncle Sam knows best after all and to hell with our individual freedoms.

9. Permalink # Eshin said

   No, I believe that each nation and it’s people have the right to govern themselves. They have the right to decide what is in their interests and what is not. Culture is not something that is there just to be bandied around for the tourists. I support Israel’s right to exist. It’s right to recognise it’s heritage, its beliefs and it’s culture.

   And nope, I don’t think I made the assertion that any nation was following the UK into this war. I think it was they were following the US. While I stand by Britain, I am not under the illusion that we are still a world power or driver.

   I’m sure that these decisions to follow the US were all well thought out. But an increasing number of the nation’s citizens are angry at their governments to apparent willingness to follow the US. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the democractic will of the people should decide the fate of a nation’s involvement with the US. Not the bottom line. People apparently have that right to choose, even if it is stupid.

   And it might not be so stupid afterall. Maybe, and it’s not inconceivable, we could all learn to live without dependency on the US. The power, money and responsibility would be shared.

   And for the record, I stand by my earlier statement. I stated I maybe, as in might, sympathise. I never stated I did. I understand it. If it would make you feel better for me to be clearer on this, then I don’t approve of these people at all. The sympathy comes in knowing that if anyone invaded my country, God help them.

10. Permalink # Eyal said

    People do have a right to choose their own government etc. etc. as long as they don’t infringe on others rights of existence and as long as they ball with the entire community of nations. If they don’t, then they need to be changed, full stop. There is no tolerance towards those who are themselves intolerant of others.

    Barbaric acts – of course during war bad stuff happens, in the US there are mass rallies against those things, there is severe criticism, there is self introspection, there are measures taken to reduce those occurrences. While on the other side the situation is opposite, those acts of barbarism are cheered and hailed throughout entire populations, they receive religious and patriotic honour, fame and respect. And this is a critical difference between the cultures and it is also why the problem of Islamic terrorism is almost all over the world and has been around for decades as it is ingrained in this 7th century mindset. I’ve never heard of a Western group getting organized in some part of the world to go and bomb an embassy or school in solidarity with Christian causes. I’ve not heard of any individuals even who decided to go and avenge the bombing of the US embassy or WTC by kidnapping some Muslim and demanding that all Muslim people leave the USA. This kind of difference is fundemental to understanding the mentality of those people, the difference between barbaric acts of the UK in Iraq and the root of the terrorist problem.

    There’s no need to beat around the Bush (pun intended), without British support this war would not have happened. The UK bears just as much, if not more, responsibility for the situation there. Singling out the US as the cause of all evil while ignoring all the facts around it makes it difficult to consider the validity of the criticism against them.

    I don’t subscribe to any cultural imperialism, I subscribe to free choice – within the rules of the game. There has always been periods of time in history in which some country exerted more influence than others. It is the choice of the people in France, Israel, Denmark, Jordan etc. etc. to choose to subscribe to buying coke or not. Opposing cultural influence doesn’t have to take a form of bombing and beheading people.

11. Permalink # Eyal said

    All that I said above does not mean I support the war in Iraq, what it means is that: 1. The problem lies deeper. 2. Sympathy to terrorism in any form will serve to enhance it, and lastly that any serious criticism of this war and the events there is just as equally valid towards the UK, as much as to the US, but which you consistently choose to ignore. It makes the entire argument look prejudiced and therefore flawed rather than balances and valid.

12. Permalink # Eshin said

    So maybe I do ignore the UK’s involvement in these troubles? I ignore Israel’s role in this too. I’m not a objective reporter. I’m giving my opinion on this situation. If all this writing and being contrary was to expose my prejudices against the US, well, congratulations, you’ve outed me.

    Okay. Now to the rational stuff.

    You’ve never heard of a Western group doing violence to further Christian causes? I have. Let’s try the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan. They rooted in good ol’ Christian values in their eyes. Hmmm… that also brings to mind the various number of militias that are armed to the teeth in the US who advocate the purity of the white race in line with Christian values. I’m sure it’s primarily racial but it’s also driven by a believe that they are divinely entitled to their attitudes. Hell, they would consider themselves good Christians.

    Let’s phase a little while back. Nazi Germany? Although the Catholic Church opposed them, many senior ranking Nazi were devout Christians. Aryan supremacy was founded as much in mythology, occultism as it was in Christianity. Himmler was a devout Catholic in his eyes.

    The Nazis only continued a tradition of anti-semiticism and religious intolerance that both Protestant and Catholic churches had fostered over the last millenia. Witch-hunts, torture, and what could be considered terrorism were hallmarks of this period. Christianity’s hands are not clean all of a sudden.

    Sure, we might have left them behind as we move into the 21st century but the West, of which I am a part of, is not as clean as you make it out to be. I see no difference from listening to an ayatollah extol the sins of the US and Morris Cerullo whipping his congregation into a similar frenzy against homosexuals, and the usual suspects.

    No reprisals against Muslims post-911? I seem to recall a Sikh Indian was shot and killed because they thought he was a Arab muslim. But maybe you are right, the US or it’s people don’t go and kidnap people and tell them to leave their country.

    They just set up a grey area judicially and keep people detained in Guantanamo Bay without trial, violating one of their nation’s fundamental principles and rights. Surely, if they were right, then they can list all the reasons why exactly they are there for public scrutiny. But, of course, if a government does it then it can’t be considered extremist, bad or so on, can it?

13. Permalink # Eshin said

    Yes, you are right. We should eliminate governments who are intolerance. What of governments who never quite paid the price for intolerance. We in the West can now sit back and dictate this having carved out our own happy Christian nations out of inferior, heathen nation states. I’m sure native American Indians in both North and South America are glad we managed to find our moral centre after nearly eliminating them in the last millenia. Aboriginals in Australia must be finding it warming that there’s a national apology day for taking their land, killing them off and forcing them into civilised Christian schools. Thankfully the Inuu in Japan went quietly into the night, not giving the Japanese anything to worry about today.

    Now, I’m going to say this once again. I do not support these acts of barbarity or terrorism. It disgusts me to my core and goes against my values. But it’s in the same lines of my opinion of the US interrogation tactics and alleged abuses. I might not agree with the US, but I understand where they are coming from. It does not mean that I condone it. Understanding is our right to know as human beings. Choosing to condone or not condone, after knowing, is our humanity. I understand, yet I do not condone. This was my point from the start with the beheading of the Korean prisoner.

14. Permalink # Eyal said

    Yes, in Europe had a 7th century mindset as well. By and large it moved on since then and the same can’t be said about the Muslim countries. They may reach this stage eventually but at what price? And does it have to be paid by Western countries? Does the world have to resort to something a kin to a third world war or can it be prevented in some way by taking early measures – even if they seem harsh. The last time someone waved a piece of paper with some treaty on it to the applause of all the “sane, peace loving, moderate” crowds millions perished. And I can’t resist mentioning the contribution of a certain country who saved the butts of those peace loving cheering crowds and maybe the entire world.

    Now, past wrongs have been done by many countries, it doesn’t mean that those countries can’t aspire to higher morals now. The problem is with those that have not moved on, do not aspire to higher morals and consider terrorism a legitimate way rather than condemn it. The mass social, religious and financial backbone of Islamic terrorism is an integral part of the problem.

    Yes you are ignoring the UK roles in this, and yes one of my points is that it can’t be ignored if we are to make intelligent comments and a real analysis about the situation rather than mere bashing of a single country. I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly so, that you were trying to create analysis and deductions about the impact of this situation on nation states and our lives beyond just saying “I don’t like America”. There’s no need to write so many words just to express that idea.

    I have no problem if you wish to bring Israel or any other factor into this discussion, although based on what you said above it will be difficult to discuss it in any meaningful way given the admitted prejudices you hold. Furthermore consciously ignoring factors does not contribute to better understanding of the situation nor to the hope of finding a resolution either.

    I am not defending the US, and therefore have no disagreement on the Guantanamo point for example. The main point of my argument is that there are other ways to look at the situation in Iraq and that the real problem in my opinion lies elsewhere.

15. Permalink # Eshin said

    I know you like to drive home your point, but you don’t need to post it twice, eh?

    You had trouble recalling examples of Western groups using violent means to further Christian causes. I was merely helping to jog your memory. Sure, I’d love us all to start with a clean slate and all. I’ll dust off my copy of cum bae yah.

    Of course, me admitting my prejudices negates any validity of what I say. What crap. In fact, serious publications have their own agenda and choose to ignore or take into account facts that they believe project their point of view. Political science isn’t as clinical as other fields of science since it deals with people. Objectivity is only a sliding scale in this field and cannot be absolute.

    I would rather people know my prejudices when they read the crap that spew forth rather and be able to make their own minds up as to the validity of my comments. This is far better than having the validity of my comments being dictated to by objectivity.

    Are you being honest about your own prejudices, I wonder?

    So far, you haven’t given me any further understanding of the situation apart from stating that condoning terrorism is bad. Apart from that being obvious, I have made myself clear on this point, and that is that I don’t.

    What solution have you offered in all of this?

    Okay, so if I include Britain’s culpability in all of this, then so what? Perhaps, you could grace me with your solution?

    My solution, which might not have been clear, is that violence was the means of resolution from both sides – Islamic militants and US military actions. The only natural conclusion from this is the complete destruction of one side or another. This is what violence breeds.

    This is my objection to the Iraq war and my objection to the militants. My objection is that we should never have gotten involved in it if we aren’t prepared to go the whole way. If you aren’t prepared to wipe out the opposition, completely, utterly and totally, then don’t embark on a war. Violence is the communications language of choice, it would seem, so there is my solution. I’m not happy with it, but there you go.

    Can we have your solution? Or will you be entertaining me with your counter-arguments and the rather obvious argument that terrorism is bad?

16. Permalink # Eyal said

    Although obvious that terrorism is bad it didn’t look like it from your comments that included the words “I understand, maybe even sympathise..”. Since then you clarified this point and said that you don’t condone it so that is it. There were many other suggestion in the posts, one has to read carefully or maybe even twice

    Yes, serious publications, such as the Economist and others do have an agenda, and this agenda sometimes interferes with their analysis and predictions, see for example Mahatir and the Ringgit peg. True enough, one has to be aware of those prejudices hence I brought them up as a factor to be considered when examining the arguments. In some cases prejudices CAN invalidate an argument if the latter is clearly based on the former rather than facts. Otherwise what is the meaning and implications of being prejudiced? It becomes an empty word without examining its influence on arguments made.

    Secondly, I’ve no trouble recalling barbaric acts of Christians at all. But I wonder if the world problem we’re facing now is Christian in its origin? Are people living in fear around the world because of the KKK? Comparing the KKK to the current situation and scale of world terrorism doesn’t sit well with the facts and has nothing to do with a resolution of the current problem.

    The main argument as I mentioned earlier is that the root cause of the Islamic problem has to be resolved and it can be done through changes of regime followed by education. It is the religious, social and political infrastructure that needs to be changed. Barbaric acts by Islamic terrorists did not start with the war in Iraq. It is all written above.

    My prejudice – I challenge you to detect that in my arguments and the facts presented in the posts above rather than based on my demographics or nationality or “love” for the bubbly coke drink.

17. Permalink # Eyal said

    Wiping out the enemy is one option, increasingly it is becoming less needed. See Soviet Union, Egypt, Lybia etc. they were brought to their knees militarily or economically, the governments underwent transformation, sometimes imposed, but they were not wiped out. In order to resolve issues with Jordan Israel did not need to wipe them out what was needed were rulers that abandoned the road of violent confrontation. The suggestion that arises from your last argument is that this is the only way and I think there are other options. The world we live in is not black and white, absolute good against absolute bad, unlike the movie of the LOR it has many shades of grey.

    P.S. Let me know when you get tired of this

18. Permalink # Eshin said

    Me tired of this? Never. But I’m curious, are you not getting your dose of stimulating conversation down in SG?

    And there is no reason why you should be ashamed of your love of the “bubbly coke drink”. I won’t hold that against you unless you prefer the P variety of that cola drink.

    Of course terrorism is bad. The main gist of the original post was blaming the terrorists for the lack of foresight and stupidity. I’m applauding Seoul for standing up to these terrorists since Spain and it’s people caved in, it set a dangerous precedent that terrorism might actually work. Governments need to actually strengthen their resolve against these threats and it’s unfortunate that more people may die before the terrorists learn that threatening civilians will not be profitable. While tragic it should be considered an acceptable cost.

    No, they weren’t wiped out. Victory was achieved in many conflicts without a complete annihilation or defeat occuring, only to have diplomacy take over again and the game to begin again. And so speaks the history of the world.

19. Permalink # Eyal said

    You could say I’m somewhat more free these days

    So speaks the history of the world indeed because if we went the annihilation way there won’t be any history anymore to speak of in a relatively short period of time.

    Btw, quite a lot of jobs here these days, more than in HK that’s for sure. Just need patience, the right attitude, perseverance and hard work. Back in HK I never had a case of talking to 4 recruiters/companies at the same time. Still it doesn’t mean it’s easy or I will get something tomorrow, but the chances are better. Just run a search in Monster for advertising/PR/Marketing in SG+HK and most of the jobs listed are for SG. If you’re not too keen on going back to London you should seriously consider giving SG a try for a couple of months of serious job search. Won’t cost you anything anyway..

20. Permalink # Eshin said

    I’m working on something at the moment. End of July is decision time on whether to stay in HK or high tail it out of here.

    So I might just grace your doorstep on the way out and take advantage of your pool. And we’ll no doubt have endless discussion on this and you can indoctrinate…sorry, win me over to this whole new world order thing with a pint.

    History speaks also of the Cathars and the Carthiginians. Wonder what they would have said if they had been around today.

21. Permalink # Eyal said

    Sure thing.. yes, those people had a very short history indeed.

22. Permalink # Giles said

    Check out:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt

    and look at what they don’t want you to see..hmmm