Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libya. Show all posts

May 25, 2017

Some thoughts on Radicalisation & Violence



Some thoughts....

Now the story is that the father of the young man (Salman Abedi), the alleged culprit in Manchester attack, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in the 1990s, a group which had links to al-Qaida.

Elder Abedi (Ramadan Abedi) evidently fled Tripoli in 1993, interestingly after Moammar Gaddafi’s security authorities issued an arrest warrant against him and he eventually sought political asylum in Britain.

The father then returns back to Libya and joins the Salafi Jihadi movement, the most extreme sect of Salafism and from which al-Qaida and the Islamic State group hail. He currently lives in Tripoli, and works as the administrative manager of the Central Security force and denies his son's affiliation with any militant group.

Now the British authorities confirm that they don't know when and if the 22 year old was 'radicalized', which takes me back to the notion of 'radicalization.'

What does it take to be 'radicalized?' And I am not trying to 'condone' it but rather trying to understand it, trying to make you think about what it is 'radicalization'? Does it always lead to violence? Can one be radicalized and not be part of any group and/or a movement? Whether Radicalism equates to Terrorism? What are underlying cause of 'radicalism'

I have to also make a disclaimer that this discussion is independent to Manchester incident and it does not mean that I've subscribed to silly and unsound official story fed to the public through MSM.

What is radicalization? The term is defined as; "the process by which individuals -- usually young people -- are introduced to an overtly ideological message and belief system that encourages movement from moderate, mainstream beliefs towards extreme views."

However, radicalization does not always lead to violence. in fact a radical is a person who wishes to effect fundamental political, economic or social change, or change from the ground up. That means the word "radical" should not necessarily be seen as a pejorative term and it can refer to a diverse range of people who are working hard for legitimate causes in their communities. Therefore, it is important NOT TO EQUATE radicalism with terrorism.

The underlying factors leading to process of 'radicalization' could be as simple as;

Transgression: The process of radicalization often starts with some form of transgression by one side, breaking rules that a person might hold as very important.

Mistreatment: which could be a common transgressing action typically taken place by the authorities or military using methods that cause either extreme physical pain or mental distress. Hence the person becomes radicalized. We saw example of that in extreme methods of interrogation of suspects in Northern Ireland in the 1970s which led to them becoming radicalized and their story leading to many others taking a strong position. The recent examples are mistreatment in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Mistreatment can be historical and reasons for radicalization can go back generations. The wars, massacres, destabilization of a country which often leads to forced displacement, persecutions, and so on can fester for hundreds of years.

In fact many of us who think we would never be radicalized are in fact radicalized when in our dialogue in social media we hold extreme views on certain political topics & show our transgression and mistreatment of others by saying extreme things and taking extreme actions.

Radicalization often manifests in 'outrage' or feel such a strong sense of betrayal to the extent that one seeks justice, typically the extreme vengeance of retributive justice that lies outside the norms of laws. This may be because the laws are seen as inadequate or because they represent governments who are the target of the outrage.

So you see it is not difficult for one to be radicalized, there is no 'security system' out there that can prevent this process.

One can't close the borders, one can't color code or verbal the danger from 'Yellow' to 'Orange' to 'Red' and from 'serious' to 'critical' and one certainly can't preempt it.

The only way to stop it is to seriously address the underlying Cause of it, try to understand it and STOP fertilizing the ground for seeds of Radicalization.

25 May 2017 - Susan Nevens

END.

May 10, 2016

Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya's Sarin To Syrian Rebels


Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya's Sarin To Syrian Rebels


This is a very important article by Seymour Hersh an investigative journalist and recipient of a Pulitzer Prize award, five George Polk Awards, two National Magazine Awards, and more than a dozen other prizes for investigative reporting, whom in 2004 exposed the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in a series, had previously revealed, in a series of interviews & books, that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the Sarin gas attack as a justification to invade Syria, but now for the first time Hersh has directly implicated Hillary Clinton.


" "In April of 2013, Britain and France informed the United Nations that there was credible evidence that Syria used chemical weapons against rebel forces. Only two months later, in June of 2013, the United States concluded that the Syrian government did, in fact, use chemical weapons in its fight against opposition forces. President Obama immediately used this chemical attack as a pretext for invasion and authorized direct U.S. military support to the rebels, according to the White House.

Since the US has been funding these ‘moderate rebels’ more than 250,000 people have been killed, over 7,600,000 have been internally displaced, and 4,000,000 other human beings have been forced from the country entirely.

All of this death and destruction carried out by a sadistic army of rebels who’ve been funded and armed by the United States government, based on, what we are now told, was a complete fabrication.

World renowned journalist Seymour Hersh has revealed, in a series of interviews and books, that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the Sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria...."

I remember when these "events" were taking place, and I was following along as carefully as I could, based on what I was able to actually access from available media. And, I don't remember it like this at all. I DO remember that the neocons, particularly in the Senate, and especially John McCain and his little subcommittee on something, formulated some meaningless statement about the need to invade Syria, and browbeating the shit out of this president for NOT doing it. In other words, in his limited vision, arming them was better than putting US troops on the ground and/or bombing them ourselves. NONE would have been better, and he caved to the neocons, ESPECIALLY HILLARY, once again.

So, he's not excused, but I disbelieve that he was looking for a pretext to Invade Syria, and I think Hersch is not a good source on this perception. I know for a fact who was gung ho to invade Syria, and it wasn't this President. Further research would have contradicted that, including interviews and books from the high level cabinet members involved. (including Gates)

Otherwise, this seems to be a pretty good piece, except that I don't think anybody will ever have the real story on all of this stuff. Too much sabotage, backstabbing and other malfeasance going on to come up with an itemized "who said/did what to whom", and the culprits usually escape clean."

Susan Nevens - 10 May 2016