Why terrorism?

After the end of the cold war we could have expected a thousand years of peace but tragically death, injury and fear are ever present in many communities as a result of terrorism.
What extremists are trying to achieve is not being clearly articulated by them or understood. What is happening through the West is that Moslems are being alienated and are treated either suspicion. The separation of Moslem communities from the "evil influence" of the West maybe the true purpose of Bin Laden and his nasty crew.
Those in positions of authority in terrorist groups are capable of careful planning and ruthless execution of their schemes but they do not seem to put themselves in harms way. Those who do are like they foot-soldiers in all wars- young, disconnected, Ill-educated and manipulated.
I would suggest that one of the greatest energizing factors for terrorism is the that leaders of terrorism groups have sufficient authority to direct members of the group as the leaders are seen as championing the cause of Islam.
While some form of security operations and limited military campaigns are necessary, I would propose that terrorism originating in Moslem communities relies on a combination of a desire for revenge and ignorance to stimulate the actual perpetrators of terrorist acts.
Fighting terrorism by punishing non-combatants only increases the desire for revenge. Accordingly, the military response must be limited.
In Palestine, Pakistan and Indonesia most people are fearfully ignorant of the freedoms enjoyed by Moslems in western society. It would come as a complete surprise to people in these countries that independant Islamic schools receive government funding in order to operate. The promotion of better standards of living will cut the ground from under those agitating for vengance.
Yet disaffected Moslems have reason for grievances. The policies towards Palestine, Iraq and Iran over the years have been markedly wicked.
Fair balance foreign policy reforms matched with education and infrastructure develoment are clearly the most effective ways of combating terrorism.
Mao, Ché and Ho Chi Minh are the poster boys of terrorism today. To combat terrorism the West must adopt an inclusive approach rather than a combative program.
JP

-- Post From My iPhone

Where is history going?

At one time the overwelming theme of history seemed to be that science was advancing everywhere and the main dynamic was the competition between two opposing rational economic systems. (Does anyone now remember Marxist-Leninist- Maoist theory?)
Now we seem to have a degeneration of culture across the globe. Fundamentalists are threatening to overturn social order and freedoms to exert religious, (that is, irrational beliefs) as having equal or superior value to science, democracy and freedom.
The recent choice of Sara Palin as a candidate for vice-president in the US, creationists having a say in education, and Sharia Law being accepted as a modern legal system suggests that regressive irrational belief systems are unwinding progress.
The aggressive opposition in the US to steps to establish a health care system which supports everyone is astonishing for people in Canada, the UK and Australia.
In Moslem countries and the USA large numbers of irrational people appear to be to mobilized for campaigns promoting stupid aims or even violent actions.
Where will this all lead?
Or is this a return to normalcy? Is it that most people are more comfortable following an authority figure or dominant regime and do not want to exercise the personal freedom that rational life implies?
If so, pass the Prozac!

-- Post From My iPhone

Civil Liberties

The "War on Terror" combined with the creeping anxiety which has overtaken so many has lead to greater powers being given to law enforcement authorities.

These powers are often in the form of the authority to detain people for longer periods without trail or without a lawyer or without contact with family. Also new legislation allows greater powers of search or restrictions on disclosure of the facts of a case so a defendant's capacity to defend is limited.
Generally these increased police powers are unnecessary. During the one hundred and fifty years of development of the criminal law to the year 2000 a good balance was struck between the rights of the state to protect the citizenry and the rights of the individual. This balance was developed in times of gangland wars, drug crime, the cold war and political agitation.
The core values of our Western Democratic Tradition include personal liberty free from all but the most essential interference from the state.
In Australia we have by consensus agreed not to have fiearms except in limited circumstances. This is an example of balance. We as individuals concede that to the state. We should not concede to the state the means by which we as individuals may protect ourselves against abuse by state authorities. There must not be detention without charge and everyone must be able to access a lawyer. Lawyers must not be prevented or inhibited from defending their clients so long as they act honestly.
These principles must apply always everwhere in our society or our society will be forsaking it's values.
Some will be surprised that sometimes individuals suffer at the hands of stupid or incompetent police officers or as a result of political considerations. Remember Dr. Hanif!
Those with political ambitions both parliamentry and in law enforcement play on public anxiety to demand greater powers for police or prosecutors. There is a suggestion that "evil doers" will get away with their wrong-doing if the law is not strengthened. This is an illusion.
The law and courts have been well tested by gangsters, drug-lords and wealthy businessmen over many years. Terrorists are not exceptional.
We should be proud and protective of our liberties and not blindly surrender them due to pressure created by medieval, superstitious, ignorant people who have as their aim the destructon of our traditions.

-- Post From My iPhone