Monday, 20 September 2010

Why Blowing oneself up?

 From Asia Sentinel
Why Do Terrorists Blow Themselves Up?
Digg

Written by Riaz Hassan   
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
ImageAn exhaustive study by an Australian professor finds a complex set of factors

Nine years ago, 19 young Muslims commandeered passenger jets and killed themselves, taking with them 2973 people to the inferno of fire. Since the 9/11 attacks, suicide bombings have become a staple of daily news, although the practice dates back at least two decades. A commonly accepted narrative frames such acts of self-destruction as the action of psychologically impaired, morally deficient, uneducated, impoverished individuals and, most of all, religious fanatics.

But the analysis of information based on 1597 suicide attacks between 1981 and 2008, which killed more than 21,000 in 34 countries, suggests a more complex set of reasons, an understanding of which is essential if the world is to see an end of such slaughter.

My book, "Life as a Weapon," analyzes suicide bombings as a method of choice among terrorist groups around the world and the motivations.

Surprisingly, altruism emerges as a major factor in the complex set of causes behind the suicide attacks.

In its most fundamental character, following the seminal studies of economist Ernest Fehr and colleagues, altruism can be defined as the costly actions that confer benefits on other individuals. Altruism is a fundamental condition accounting for human cooperation for organization of society and its cohesiveness.

In the conceptual map of French sociologist Emile Durkheim, suicide bombings would fall in the category of altruistic suicidal actions – distinct from other types of suicidal actions caused by personal catastrophes, hopelessness and psychopathologies that lead people to believe life is not worth living. Altruistic suicides, on the other hand, involve valuing one's life as less worthy than the group's honor, religion or other collective interests.

The genesis of suicide bombings is rooted in intractable asymmetrical conflicts pitching the state against non-state actors over political entitlements, territorial occupation and dispossession. Invariably such conflicts instigate state-sanctioned violence and repressive policies against weaker non-state parties causing widespread outrage and large-scale dislocation of people, many of whom become refugees in makeshift camps, in or outside so called war zones.

Carolyn Nordstrom captures the mood in Sri Lanka during the recently ended civil war: "In the war zones, violence and war permeated all aspect of daily life. It was not certain a person going for work would return in the evening. A home could be suddenly searched, someone brutally killed, a mother raped or father taken away. A shell could land anywhere destroying everything around.…This kind of pervasive atmosphere of violence, rather than breaking down the resistance and spirit of population, in times creates resistance and defiance, particularly in the youth." Other contributing factors include incarceration and dehumanizing treatments of insurgents in state custody and mutual dehumanization of the "other."

Suicide bombing, rarely the strategy of first choice, is selected by terrorist organizations after collective assessments, based on observations and experience, of strategies' relative effectiveness to achieve political goals.

The decision to participate is facilitated by suicide bombers' internalized social identities, their exposure to asymmetric conflict and its costs, their exposure to organizations that sponsor such attacks as well as membership in a larger community where sacrifice and martyrdom carry high symbolic significance.

In Sri Lanka, the Black Tigers attached importance to how the community would view their actions: They were glorified in their burial rituals, and an eternal lamp adorned the tombstone of every Black Tiger grave to commemorate the sacrifice.

From sociological and economic perspectives, suicide bombings can be linked to altruism as a form of intergenerational investment or an extreme form of saving in which the agent gives up current consumption for the sake of enhancing probability of descendants enjoying benefit of some future public good.

Analysis of Hezbollah suicide bombers in Lebanon shows that incidents of suicide bombing attacks increase with current income and the degree of altruism towards the next generation. Hezbollah suicide bombers come from above-average wealthy families and have above-average levels of education. The willingness of more educated people to engage in suicide missions suggests that education affects one's view of the world, enhancing sensitivity to the future.

Altruism is not antithetical to aggression. In war soldiers perform altruistic actions by risking lives for comrades and country and also killing the enemy. Actions of Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II are examples of military sacrifice.

Altruism can also be socially constructed in communities that have endured massive social and economic dislocations as a result of long, violent and painful conflict with a more powerful enemy. Under such conditions people react to perceived inferiority and the failure of other efforts by valuing and supporting ideals of self-sacrifice such as suicide bombing. Religiously and nationalistically coded attitudes towards acceptance of death stemming from long periods of collective suffering, humiliation and powerlessness enable political organizations to give people suicide bombing as an outlet for feelings of desperation, deprivation, hostility and injustice.

The evidence, however, also shows that such personal and collective sufferings motivating suicide bombers coexist with their inner feelings of altruism and sense of fairness. An Iraqi suicide bomber Marwan prayed that "no innocent people were killed in his mission." Shafiqa, an incarcerated failed Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel, did not detonate her device after seeing "a woman with a little baby in her carriage. And I thought, why do I have to do this to that woman and her child?... I won't be doing something good for Allah. I thought about the people who loved me and about the innocent people in the street…It was a very difficult moment for me."

French filmmaker Pierre Rehov interviewed many Palestinians in Israeli jails, arrested following failed suicide-bombing missions or for aiding and abetting such missions, for his film "Suicide Killers." Every one of them tried to convince him that that the action was the right thing to do for moralistic reasons. According to Rehove, "these aren't kids who want to do evil. These are kids who want to do good…." The result – young people who had previously conducted their lives as good people believe that a suicide bombing represented doing something great.

Everyday degradations of Israeli occupation had created collective hatred, making them susceptible to indoctrination to become martyrs. As Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo puts it, "It is neither mindless nor senseless, only a very different mind-set and with different sensibilities than we have been used to witnessing among young adults in most countries."

Suicide bombings invariably provoke a brutal response from authorities. By injecting fear and mayhem into ordinary rhythms of daily life, such bombings undermine the state's authority in providing security and maintaining social order. Under such conditions the state can legitimately impose altruistic punishments to deter future violation threatening security and social order. These include punishments meted out to perpetrators and their supporters. The state-sanctioned military actions against the Palestinians, Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan are examples of these punishments.

But altruistic punishments are only effective when they do not violate the norms of fairness. Punishments and sanctions seen as unfair, hostile, selfish and vindictive by targeted groups tend to have detrimental effects. Instead of promoting compliance, they reinforce recipients' resolve to non-compliance. Counter-insurgency operations are aimed at increasing the cost of insurgency to the insurgents, and invariably involve eliminating leaders and supporters who plan suicide bombings, destroying insurgents' capabilities for mounting future attacks, and restrictions on mobility and other violations of civil liberties.

But there is mounting evidence that such harsh measures reinforce radical opposition and even intensify it. This is now happening in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories and has also been the case in Sri Lanka and Iraq and other conflict sites.

Riaz Hassan is emeritus professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and global professor of social research and public policy at New York University Abu Dhabi. His book, Life as a Weapon: The Global Rise of Suicide Bombings, was published last month by Routledge.This is published with the permission of YaleGlobal, the publication of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.
 

Azmin's man strikes at Zaid

Nik Nazmi: 'Loyal deputy' is Zaid's latest gimmick
Sep 20, 10 5:45pm
PKR communications director Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad has dismissed Zaid Ibrahim's pledge to become a loyal deputy to the party president as a mere gimmick.

“Now, the latest gimmick is to return (the) president's power. Hopefully he will also have more organisational discipline and collective responsibility,” said Nik Nazmi on his Twitter page.

Nik Nazmi's retort comes just hours after Zaid Ibrahim pledged to become party president Dr Wan Azizah Ismail's deputy and help her exercise her legitimate authority, in a posting on his blog.

Zaid had argued that some party leaders had regarded Wan Azizah as a mere figurehead while the president's powers were assumed by de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim.

He argued that the party president's powers as defined by the party constitution should be upheld rather than to entrust those powers to Anwar, whom Zaid explains is really just an ordinary member.

Nik Nazmi said that Zaid's statement was misguided and that he failed to understand the background as to why Anwar was made de facto leader in the first place.

'Do your homework first'

“If only he checked with the members who were at the 2007 PKR congress who understood why the exceptional position was created (for Anwar).

“I forgot - he (Zaid) was still in Umno at the time... Now (he criticises) Umno culture! Well done,” wrote Nik Nazmi sarcastically.

In 2007, Anwar was in a three-corner fight for the party presidency against Wan Azizah and Abdul Rahman Othman. Anwar and Abdul Rahman withdrew from the contest at the last minute, paving way for Wan Azizah to win uncontested.

Anwar had explained at the time that he had to withdraw from the contest because he may be in violation of the Societies Act 1966.

According to the Act, Anwar who was released from jail in 2004 was prohibited from holding any party post for five years; in other words, up until April 2008.

Despite calls by supporters at the time to challenge the ban on the grounds that it was unjust, Anwar decided to accept the prohibition.

The 2007 party congress as a result agreed to crown Anwar de facto leader, a post that the Registrar of Societies does not recognise.
Malaysiakini 

Angry Rich

Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich.
These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.
Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.
The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.
Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.
For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.” When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.
At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.
Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.
These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.
And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.
The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.
You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.
And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.
But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.
NYT

Infighting in Malacanang Palace

Infighting tagged worst under Aquino

By Gil C. Cabacungan Jr.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 08:22:00 09/20/2010

MANILA, Philippines—Infighting is not a strange thing in MalacaƱang but the alleged factionalism between the “Samar” and “Balay” groups in the Aquino administration is the worst, according to two senators who said they “have seen it all” after the Edsa revolution.
“There is always [discord in any administration]. You can’t take that away except that in this administration, the factionalism is deeper and [worse] than previous ones,” said Sen. Edgardo Angara, who was executive secretary during pardoned plunder convict Joseph Estrada’s short-lived tenure as president.
“From Aquino to Ramos to Erap to Gloria—I have seen [these administrations] close hand and I know how different factions fight each other. But this is the only administration where there are too many factions and competition is very fierce,” Angara said.
Even before he stepped into power last June 30, President Benigno Aquino III’s core team of supporters—assembled hastily for his surprise candidacy in the May 2010 elections—has always been filled with tension and conflict.
On one end are groups and individuals who frequent his campaign headquarters on Samar Avenue in Quezon City and on the other end are supporters and kibitzers who make the Balay headquarters of the Liberal Party at the Araneta Center in Cubao, Quezon City, their meeting place.
Angara said these groups have competed for Cabinet seats, government posts and budget allocations.
“Competition is good because it will inspire and motivate others to be at their best, but it can also be destructive because they can destroy each other. If the goal is to destroy each other, they will destroy their own boss and their own administration,” he said.
This factionalism has also led to what critics describe as the amateurish way the Aquino administration has been running government in its first three months, as the President has been forced not only to choose the best people to run the government but to maintain the balance of power between his warring allies.
Sen. Joker Arroyo, who was executive secretary in the administration of President Aquino’s late mother Corazon, described the current Aquino administration as no better than a “student council or student government” with a list of blunders and bloopers piling up as the days pass.
Arroyo said MalacaƱang has become a “hit or miss” administration where the President has been forced to use his political capital and own up to his people’s mistakes.
“His people think the President should cover for them because he’s like Teflon—no amount of criticism can stick to him. But this is totally wrong, the officials around the President are supposed to protect him, not the other way around,” Arroyo said.

Lady Lawyer's Wrath

Sep 20, 2010

Probe into mother's bloodbath

People hug each other front of the Elisabethen-Krankenhaus hospital in the southern German town of Loerrach. Four people were killed and at least one person seriously injured when a woman armed with a gun opened fire in and around a hospital in the southern German town of Loerrach. -- PHOTO: REUTERS


BERLIN - GERMAN investigators said on Monday they believe a domestic row drove a woman to murder and torch her estranged husband and small son and kill a hospital employee before being shot dead by police.
Investigators suspect that the 41-year-old lawyer shot dead her husband and their five-year-old son when they were visiting her flat in Loerrach in southwest Germany late on Sunday.
The mother, who has not been named, had recently separated from her husband, and the son lived most of the time at his father's home, police said.
The woman then set the apartment, which doubled as her law practice, ablaze with the dead bodies inside, police believe. Their charred remains were later recovered from the smoking wreckage, reportedly along with empty petrol cans.
But just as emergency services arrived to put out the fire, the woman ran across the road to the Saint Elizabeth hospital, armed with a handgun, shooting two bystanders on her way and leaving them seriously injured.
Media reports said that panic broke out inside the hospital, with patients screaming for help and seeking refuge in rooms, the cellar and even on the roof.
Authorities said that the hospital employee, who according to press reports worked in the hospital's gynaecological department, died from gunshot and stab wounds to the head. They were at a loss to say whether the woman bore any particular grudge against the hospital or any of its employees. -- AFP