I very much doubt that Friere and Fanon are responsible here. That’s not to say that the thinking is any different. It’s just to say that in point of fact it’s more likely that the thinking you describe came about independently in Islamic countries rather than as a result of two little-known Western authors. (Likewise, the fact that the Cherokee had a religious/spiritual concept of balance between opposites doesn’t mean they must have been influenced by the Taoists.)
— alkali

Uh, Fanon was an Algerian, and his writings were central to the modern understanding of colonial rebellion; the PLO and successor organizations uses rhetoric pretty much out of his playbook. I’m not suggesting that he is somehow personally culpable, or that without his book that the world would be radically different; just that there is a philosophical strain of thought which runs through him and appears to be showing up today.
New ideas are genuinely rare; we live in a world of shared ideas and some grow and others don’t. These ideas have grown.

I also think the whole, “they hate our freedoms” angle is 100% wrong. From what I have gathered from my father who was raised there and others that I know, is that most Egyptians (and my guess this is a common opinion) LOVE our democratic system. The problem they have with us is our foreign policy and the hypocrisy that it entails. When Bush goes out and says “Democracy is important to the Palestinian and Iraqi people,” while at the same time supporting the corrupt and thuggis regimes of Mubarak and the House of Saud. They don’t hate the U.S. because we vote or have women’s rights, they hate us because we use them for oil or strategic reasons.
Some of it is jealousy, I admit, but what kind of message do we send when we call Arafat a danger to his people, but the Saud family and Mubarak are dandy? We say, “We only want you to be democratic when it helps US. If disrupting the despotisms raise our oil prices during the revolution, then we want your despotisms to stand.” When you do that, you give psychopaths like OBL a chance to exploit people.
When people have no political power they turn to two things, the church and violence. And because of the poverty and low literacy and education rates the church becomes an easy place to control people.
I have an semi-unrelated question A.L. (this is my first time on you blog). Why no mention of the IRA as a terrorist orginization. Which group would they be in? I would lump them into a group similar to the Arab orgs.
— Mostafa Sabet

As noted elsewhere, I talked about the IRA in Part I, but limited to Ulster, instead of remembering (doooh!!) the long history from the early 1900’s in Eire. I don’t doubt the resentment talked about here is real (part of another discussion I’m thinking about on us and the Arab world), but my issue is “why is it manifesting itself in this way?”

You seem to discuss terrorism solely as a tactic of insurgents — those on the outside looking in. But states practice terrorism and then write histories that absolve themselves of guilt. For instance, if you believe Israeli historian Benny Morris, everything that Hamas is doing the Zionists used to do (though in keeping with the Jewish adage, only crazy people commit suicide). To some extent, insurgents learn terrorism from their oppressors. I’m not saying this justifies terrorism, but it is at least part of the explanation.
You also neglect the dimension of feasible alternatives, which goes back to the JFK cliche “If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable.” This is at least part of the explanation (again, aside from moral judgements) for the selection of tactics.
The other missing element in your posts gets to the substance a bit more. Terrorists sometimes lack a plausible notion of what sometimes is called “agency.” Namely, an idea of what is the motive force in history. You need a motive force if you expect to change history. The Weatherpeople, for instance, envisioned their deeds would spark a revolt of minorities and radical hippies. Sometimes terrorists are just loopy (i.e., the SLA), but their acts get sufficient notice as to invite analyses that make them part of something larger, when they are simply nuts.
On the whole I enjoyed the posts.
Cheers,
Max

Hmmm. A couple of things. First, the issue isn’t violence, it’s terrorism. I don’t doubt that (effectively every) modern state has some roots that were watered in blood. And I don’t doubt that much, if not most, of that blood was essentially innocent. But there is a unique quality to terrorism … particularly modern terrorism … that bears discussing.
Again, part of my issue is the relative ineffectiveness of the terror tactics on any practical basis. The acts seek image and drama more than impact, and that’s part of what I’m puzzling over.
More in a bit.