RE: The terrorism meme

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue 05 Nov 2002 - 05:19:11 GMT

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: electric meme bombs"

    >From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >Subject: RE: The terrorism meme
    >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 20:48:01 -0800
    >
    >>Subject: RE: The terrorism meme
    >>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 22:51:36 -0500
    >>
    >>I can't disagree with you, Grant. The question, then is, What
    >>tactics/strategies should each group now try? Scott has suggested for the
    >>Palestinians non-violence. (Personally, I think this has much to recommend
    >>it; might a reciprocal Israeli new tactic be? I do note that the Druse
    >>tried
    >>non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation, and did have some modest
    >>success, though ultimately it failed.)
    >>
    >>Would the new tactics of one group have to be met with new tactics by the
    >>other? Is there a way of starting both groups on the first steps toward
    >>new
    >>(and less destructive) tactics?
    >>
    >>What are your own thoughts?
    >>
    >>Lawry
    >>
    >I think the people who want violence are one group and they hold most of
    >the weapons and the people who want peace are a separate group and they are
    >the ones who would use non-violence. The non-violent group might win in a
    >police state where there were only two sides, but where there are three
    >sides or four sides, I don't think the method would work. While one group
    >of palestinians was being non-violent, Hamas would be committing
    >atrocities. While one group of Israelies was being non-violent, Arial
    >Sharon would be sending tanks into Gaza. All you would get would be
    >conflicting messages that included both violence and non-violence from both
    >sides.
    >
    >Someone has to spread the message that the only solution is one in which
    >both sides win. They have to see that by cooperating with each other they
    >can build a garden of Eden. By fighting, all they will end up doing is
    >destroying each other. War is a zero-sum game. Only it uses up so many
    >people and resources the winner ends up winning in name only. How you get
    >to people to realize that non-zero is the only game that makes sense, I
    >don't know. Right now the people in power only know how to play the
    >zero-sum game. They are all ex-generals and guerillas. They think they
    >can win the game they are playing and they are willing to expend as many
    >lives as it takes to achieve that goal.
    >
    >When they run out of people willing to sacrifice themselves and others to
    >"win" the war, the war will stop. I don't really see any short cut to
    >accomplish that. Maybe a second coming of Christ would do the job. His
    >was the only philosophy that holds out any hope. But even if he came back,
    >Sharon would find a way to become Pope and Arafat would become a second
    >Mohamad and the wars to control the Holy Land would start all over again.
    >
    >You've got to remember, this war has been going on for about 2,000 years.
    >First it was the Romans, then it was the Muslims, and then the crusades
    >sent the Christians. These same groups are still at it. Christians are
    >just Romans in clerical garb. The same groups are still fighting over the
    >same spit of land and they all still think they can control it with
    >violence. In 2.000 years, they've learned nothing. I don't see them
    >changing their spots anytime soon.
    >
    >
    It's too easy to simplify. For instance when you bring up Christians, who are you talking about? There's Christians in America who (especially the fundies) have an affinity for Israel and her Judaic underpinnings.

    Many Christians in former Palestine are just as Arab as their Muslim cohorts and thus have leanings toward the Arab side in the dispute. Remember George Habash, one of the major terrorists who gave rise to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is Christian as is Hanan Ashrawi a moderate Palestinian leader.

    When you look at Lebanese politics things get even messier since they had the confessional system which was designed to split power between Maronites, Sunni and Shia. After the fragmentation of the Lebanese civil war some of the Lebanese Arab Christians were more partial to Israel. The Gemayel family comes to mind. IIRC Saad Haddad of the SLA was another Israeli ally who may have been Christian. But I'm not sure Lebanese Christians have been of like mind on Israeli relationships.

    _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 05 Nov 2002 - 05:23:00 GMT