 |
 |
I couldn't agree more. The NATO/US has regularly sought to use its military power to create such divisive politics, around the world, for reasons that are more in the imagination than reality. This is pure foolishness. And when such action incites the development of transnational counters (be they through the medium of religion, politics, economics or something else) --and it is a most obvious defensive strategy-- the NATO/US has seemed unable to comprehend that counter for what it is -a transnational defensive response. Instead of amending its ways and resolving the matter the NATO/US continues to apply the same strategy as before. Truly the national military is meant for defense, and it is no wonder it is an impotent tool in the face of a transnational defensive response. The use of national military only goes to fuel the transnational warfare called terrorism. I think the availability (I hesitate to use the word advancement) of more precise and distant war machines has served to give the NATO/US an ever more false sense of superiority, encouraging it to undertake 'morally good precise offensives'. How could any normally sensible person/nation believe that an unprovoked offensive would not elicit any defensive response? Too, I fail to understand how anyone could seriously believe in the superiority of machines over men. What's that proverb, 'fools rush in where angels fear to thread'? Padmanabha -----Original Message----- From: Mike Metcalfe [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Padmanabha, I agree with you but like the perspective of the human species' herd instincts or inclusion needs. It seems to be easy to get groups of humans to do stupid and violent things by appealing to their being a member of a special grouping. The classic 'Western' cases include Christianity, and the Nazi prosecution of Jews. I was re-reading the Communist manifesto over the weekend, 35 years since the last time, and it now strikes me as extremely divisive; the poor against the rich. It indirectly incites violence by distinguishing human groups. It is dangerous politics to develop a 'them and us' mentality in people. This can be particularly hard on those that do not neatly fit into the proposed dichotomy. Having a common factor to motivate is one thing, to make that a particular group of people is wrong. Also from a soldier's perspective... The US has an almost unassailable military advantage. However, their entire complex, from rifle to tank to warfare, requires a target to function. Terrorism is a means of warfare that does not provide a target thus rendering a conventional targeting military system somewhat impotent. mike --------------- Dr Mike Metcalfe, Argumentative Inquiry, School Of Management. http://business.unisa.edu.au/research/groups/irg/default.asp -----Original Message----- From: Critical Perspectives on Work, Management and Organization [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Padmanabha Rao Sent: Sunday, 24 July 2005 7:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Switching Perspective I think the suicide bomber is no different from a nation's soldier (career or otherwise). With the onset of transnational politico-economics (polemics?!) I don't understand how one can afford to remain with the nation-level notions of violence and war. I think recognition of the reality of the transnational (as opposed to, again, the multinational) is essential to dealing with and mitigating contemporary violence. The transnational seems to be driven by what is construed as religion, but it could be any other force tommorrow. I think the mistakes begin when we look to understand a religious phenomenon through politico-economic eyes, or a politico-economic phenomenon through religious eyes, and etc. Religion is the most ancient of all organisational forces and managements. I think the idea of a secular community was and is a result of wrong analyses and evaluation; the petty quarrels between petty kings and petty churches on the European continent shaped that entire idea, which when combined with the colonial activity served to keep it going. Superior military sustained a wrong idea and that tie-up is yet to cease today. Padmanabha ------ Padmanabha Rao India -----Original Message----- From: Hugh Willmott [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Mon 18-Jul-05 12:44 To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: Switching Perspective I think David Levy puts his finger on a key question when he says "...but we have to face the possibility that various forms of violence would persist even in the absence of occupation, and alienation, and humiliation. This has also been true of the West, of course, for long periods of history -- it's hard to attribute the violence of the Inquisition, the Holocaust, or the destruction of native Americans to humiliations and alienation suffered by the perpetrators. ...Are we so sure that violence and hatred are caused by patriarchy, capitalism, and nationalism? ... " My response to this is : 1. There is a danger of generalizing and universalizing. What helps to explain the Inquisitiion or Holocaust, for example, may be particular to the pursuit of that terror. 2. In the case of contemporary suicide bombings, I think we need to better understand martyrdom : the egoism (?) of (heroic) death as personal salvation (ticket to a better live in the world beyond). [I suspect that the mystery of death is intriguing/beguiling/seductive in most cultures - video games and films are a contemporary manifestation of fair ground rides, etc. But there is a step change to the belief that violence is a means of personal salvation. Sigificantly, mystery is replaced by certainty - a highly attractive proposition if you can embrace it]. ...