What's wrong with terrorism? [Archive]

Mahatma Gandhi

2nd July 2010, 06:39

Hello Comrades!

Sorry for the dramatic title, but I don't know how else to explain this. I see people, even leftists, condemning terrorism all the time. Frankly, I don't understand the logic behind this, nor the need for such self-righteous attitude.

Terrorists are simply doing what society expects them to do: to be strong and assert themselves. This world doesn't respect you if you're weak and helpless; in fact, they pick on you if you're weak, they bully you knowing full well you can't retaliate. There is not even one culture on the planet that respects the weak. All of them fear - and follow - strength and power.

In this context, isn't terrorism just a natural order of things? It is supposed to exist, not something which is anomalous. So why this self-righteous attitude? Nor do I fully appreciate Trotsky's view on the matter, simply because it expects too much from the average human mind: you don't consider all the ramifications when you're in pain and when you're constantly harassed either as an individual or as a member of a certain community. Nor do you value ideology over practicality.

The other common accusation: innocent people die in terrorism. Well, as an autistic person, I don't see why I should care. Nor do I see how any member of the minority community is going care, for these 'innocent' people weren't so innocent when it came to abusing me or other minorities day in and day out. So the word 'innocent' here doesn't make sense.

Mahatma

khad

2nd July 2010, 07:30

Gandhi and terrorism. More beautiful words have not been spoken. :thumbup1:

Blackscare

2nd July 2010, 17:46

Well I just see it as an ineffective strategy. I'm not a humanist and I don't much care about a cracked egg here and there on the long march of history, but I mostly just see it as an act of desperation that is only used because more effective methods are not available.

Anarchists and some other leftists flirted with it before, "propaganda by the deed", and it was ineffective at turning people's minds.

Bud Struggle

2nd July 2010, 18:19

Mostly it just pisses people off--both your firends as well as your enemies.

And it's almost never the people doing the oppressing that get hurt, it's the poor innocent schlubs that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anarchists and some other leftists flirted with it before, "propaganda by the deed", and it was ineffective at turning people's minds. And those Anarchists are now all but forgotten except to scholars (and RevLefter's of course. ;) :p )

Nolan

2nd July 2010, 18:27

"Terrorism" is a meaningless buzzword the U.S. and its stooges use to demonize groups that don't peacefully march down the state-determined protest route.

Skooma Addict

2nd July 2010, 19:23

Sorry for the dramatic title, but I don't know how else to explain this. I see people, even leftists, condemning terrorism all the time. Frankly, I don't understand the logic behind this, nor the need for such self-righteous attitude.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Wolf Larson

2nd July 2010, 20:34

Ele'ill

2nd July 2010, 21:02

Hello Comrades!

Sorry for the dramatic title, but I don't know how else to explain this. I see people, even leftists, condemning terrorism all the time. Frankly, I don't understand the logic behind this, nor the need for such self-righteous attitude.

This depends on the definition of terrorism. I would think the key aspect of the definition would have to include something along the lines of 'killing innocent people (or animals)'

Terrorists are simply doing what society expects them to do: to be strong and assert themselves.

Terrorism more often than not seeks to end some type of social injustice. Those that carry out violent and personally harmful acts believe that attrocities can fix attrocities.

In this context, isn't terrorism just a natural order of things? It is supposed to exist, not something which is anomalous.

Terrorism would be an example of an action used to attain power and not the natural order of things itself. It's also important to note that 'the natural order of things' is most often the way it is because it's been made that way by someone or a group so they can keep power. The natural order of things is what we make it- we're intelligent enough of a species to create a natural order that doesn't involve killing for capital or power.

So why this self-righteous attitude? Nor do I fully appreciate Trotsky's view on the matter, simply because it expects too much from the average human mind: you don't consider all the ramifications when you're in pain and when you're constantly harassed either as an individual or as a member of a certain community. Nor do you value ideology over practicality.

I absolutely abhor the taking of innocent lives. When the means contradict the end goal in such an extreme way in regards to leftist politics I don't think that violent and personally harmful acts of terrorism are valid in any way shape or form.

The other common accusation: innocent people die in terrorism. Well, as an autistic person, I don't see why I should care. Nor do I see how any member of the minority community is going care, for these 'innocent' people weren't so innocent when it came to abusing me or other minorities day in and day out. So the word 'innocent' here doesn't make sense.

Mahatma

When a car bomb goes off in an Iraqi voting station or market place the people that die very likely had nothing to do with the conflict. What terrorism does is take the will of people away through fear of death or bodily harm.

The Red Next Door

2nd July 2010, 22:05

Well, as an autistic person,

Mahatma

:rolleyes: :mad: :cursing: OH SFTU. REALLY. STFU, YOU ARE BEING OFFENSIVE. BY SAYING THIS SHIT AND YOU SAY PEOPLE ARE ABUSING ME, WHINY WHINY BOO HOO HOO. I AM SURE THERE HAVE BEEN AUTISTIC THAT BEEN VICTIMS OF TERRORISM !!!!!!!!!!

Dimentio

2nd July 2010, 22:12

Os Cangaceiros

2nd July 2010, 22:28

"Terrorism" is a meaningless buzzword the U.S. and its stooges use to demonize groups that don't peacefully march down the state-determined protest route.

Pretty much, yeah. "Terrorist" is just a word used by states to label whoever a state doesn't like.

Often it's quite ridiculous, like ELF members being branded terrorists (even though their actions only resulted in property damage), while an action like the US military bombing a wedding is not considered to be terroristic in the least. Iran is considered a state sponsor of terrorism for arming Hezbollah, while the US isn't, even though the US state has been responsible for propping up governments which are culpable in horrific crimes against humanity. And the list goes on.

Bud Struggle

2nd July 2010, 22:34

:rolleyes: :mad: :cursing: OH SFTU. REALLY. STFU, YOU ARE BEING OFFENSIVE. BY SAYING THIS SHIT AND YOU SAY PEOPLE ARE ABUSING ME, WHINY WHINY BOO HOO HOO. I AM SURE THERE HAVE BEEN AUTISTIC THAT BEEN VICTIMS OF TERRORISM !!!!!!!!!!

Meh. They guy has a problem--he can identify with that problem. He mentions it a bit, but he's not a bad buy. No need to be abusive or a bully.

Read the substantive things the OP has to say, comment or not and move on. If your post is similar to how "Comrades" are going to behave toward each other after the Revolution--we needn't bother.

Os Cangaceiros

2nd July 2010, 22:44

And those Anarchists are now all but forgotten except to scholars (and RevLefter's of course. ;) :p )

They weren't doing it to become famous.

The Red Next Door

2nd July 2010, 22:46

Meh. They guy has a problem--he can identify with that problem. He mentions it a bit, but he's not a bad buy. No need to be abusive or a bully.

Read the substantive things the OP has to say, comment or not and move on. If your post is similar to how "Comrades" are going to behave toward each other after the Revolution--we needn't bother.
me and others have autism and i dislike very much when they use learning disorders as an excuse to be rude, mean, dicks, or stupid on issues.

we don't equal stupidity.

Glenn Beck

2nd July 2010, 23:30

Then why are you a christian socialist if you are a nihilist?

He believes in nothing, Dimentio.

Say what you will about the tenets of Christianity, at least it's an ethos.

Revy

3rd July 2010, 03:49

He has to be a troll. A Christian socialist named Mahatma Gandhi who is pro-terrorism. what the fucking fuck. And the thing about being autistic and not caring about the death of innocent people because of that, that has to be offensive against autistics.

Mahatma Gandhi

3rd July 2010, 05:11

People here need to calm down.:) This is a discussion board, nothing more. In polemics, you argue in favor of A, but only because someone else can then argue in favor of B and thus find out which idea prevails in the end. My 'support' for terrorism must be seen in this context only.

If that is clear, let us move on to something more interesting, the trap into which all of you have fallen: if a few paragraphs of mine on a message board could offend people, so much so that they resort to abusive language, is it really that hard to imagine victims in the real world resorting to terrorism out of sheer desperation?

See, this is what I am talking about. Most of you can't even maintain a fair degree of control on a message board where nobody is a threat to anybody, yet you expect victims in the real world to maintain an even greater degree of control when they're being oppressed by powerful groups. You wax eloquent about how terrorism is counterproductive (when the victims in the real world have neither the time nor the energy to consider such deeper implications, especially when they're being bombed and butchered), yet you can't even stop yourself from overreacting to something as silly as a post on a message board.:rolleyes: Don't you all see how hypocritical you are?

Finally, I mentioned my autistic condition as another trap. Not surprisingly, someone has fallen into it and proven my point (yet again) that ideology isn't half as important as identity politics; and therefore nobody in the real world is going to weigh the ideological pros and cons before resorting to violence. They see their community under attack and react to it, caring little for rights and wrongs. It is a self-preservative instinct, the 'us vs them' attitude that people seem to have.

So . . . better luck next time, guys.;)

Ele'ill

3rd July 2010, 05:25

Hi, give me a second to tear you to pieces. (:rolleyes:)

People here need to calm down.:) This is a discussion board, nothing more. In polemics, you argue in favor of A, but only because someone else can then argue in favor of B and thus find out which idea prevails in the end. My 'support' for terrorism must be seen in this context only.

I would advise you as well as some others on this board and in fact the admins also that using certain words and openly suggesting shit deemed threatening by the state can get you investigated pretty quickly. Admins need to crack down on it a bit- not so much in this thread but in the couple threads relating to the g20 in Toronto some people are saying things they probably should not.

If that is clear, let us move on to something more interesting,

Oh please I can't wait, your guided tour is so enthralling.

the trap into which all of you have fallen: if a few paragraphs of mine on a message board could offend people, so much so that they resort to abusive language, is it really that hard to imagine victims in the real world resorting to terrorism out of sheer desperation?

This analogy is like a slice of swiss cheese. People reacting to a post- YOUR post- on an internet forum is in no way related to someone killing innocent people to get back at someone else.

Please don't try again.

See, this is what I am talking about. Most of you can't even maintain a fair degree of control on a message board where nobody is a threat to anybody,

I think most of the people maintained control of their internet emotions and simply disagreed with your post. Your ideas can be threatening to someone that has lived through certain events.

yet you expect victims in the real world to maintain an even greater degree of control when they're being oppressed by powerful groups.

We're talking about terrorism- NOT war.

You wax eloquent about how terrorism is counterproductive (when the victims in the real world have neither the time nor the energy to consider such deeper implications, especially when they're being bombed and butchered), yet you can't even stop yourself from overreacting to something as silly as a post on a message board.:rolleyes: Don't you all see how hypocritical you are?

I think you're insane. Terrorism targets people that have nothing to do with the conflict. Acts of war are different as it's waged between two combative sides.

Finally, I mentioned my autistic condition as another trap. Not surprisingly, someone has fallen into it and proven my point (yet again)

Well aren't you the level 80 Ranger Elementist. I'm being sarcastic.

that ideology isn't half as important as identity politics; and therefore nobody in the real world is going to weigh the ideological pros and cons before resorting to violence. They see their community under attack and react to it, caring little for rights and wrongs. It is a self-preservative instinct, the 'us vs them' attitude that people seem to have.

So . . . better luck next time, guys.;)

They see their community under attack and react to it- correct. How they react is important- do they resort to terrorism and bomb a market or do they bomb the individuals that are attacking the neighborhood-

I don't think you're very good at trolling and I don't think you're autistic. ;)

(get it? :laugh:)

Mahatma Gandhi

3rd July 2010, 05:31

Then why are you a christian socialist if you are a nihilist?

I believe that Jesus alone saves ... that would make me a Christian. I believe that workers alone should own MoP. Guess that would make me a socialist. So there you go ... Christian Socialist. Or, do you also expect me to wave The Capital and shout hallelujah?

Mahatma Gandhi

3rd July 2010, 05:33

Hi, give me a second to tear you to pieces. (:rolleyes:)

Now you're starting to explain why you fell into the trap in the first place. Interesting ... and desperate on your part! Do post more and prove my point over and over.:thumbup1:

Ele'ill

3rd July 2010, 05:34

If jesus saves why do we have to die in order to save other people?

Ele'ill

3rd July 2010, 05:36

Now you're starting to explain why you fell into the trap in the first place. Interesting ... and desperate on your part! Do post more and prove my point over and over.:thumbup1:

I think you forgot to quote and respond to the other 99% of my post that explained why your 'traps' (:rolleyes:) are flawed.

I also know that in your mind I wasn't one of the people that fell into your 'traps'.

Mahatma Gandhi

3rd July 2010, 05:37

If jesus saves why do we have to die in order to save other people?

Romans 6:23 should explain that.:)

Ele'ill

3rd July 2010, 05:39

Romans 6:23 should explain that.:)

I'm sorry the last bible I came into contact with spontaneously combusted six years ago could you quote it for me.

Mahatma Gandhi

3rd July 2010, 05:40

I think you forgot to quote and respond to the other 99% of my post that explained why your 'traps' (:rolleyes:) are flawed

Yup, people fall into the trap first and then explain why the 'trap' is flawed. Anyway, there is no need to get worked up over this (I rather like you). Peace!

Ele'ill

3rd July 2010, 05:44

Yup, people fall into the trap first and then explain why the 'trap' is flawed. Anyway, there is no need to get worked up over this (I rather like you). Peace!

Guess what? You just fell into my trap that not only traps you but disproves everything you've said- including your traps.

I don't have a problem with you and I don't usually have too big a problem with religious people who are also social justice activists.

Telemakus

3rd July 2010, 07:38

I don't think terrorism is necessarily bad, but it must be well thought and justified out and have strongly ethical goals. I don't think most acts of terrorism are, if what the media tells me is true (e.g. Muslim-extremists doing it so they can rewarded in the afterlife, or brainwashing others to gain personal power. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong).

I think it may be utilized effectively, perhaps as a wake-up call to society a la Unabomber, but even then it is probably counter-productive, and effectively placed 'propaganda' would do the job better.

Or maybe I've got a completely warped view on this.

TheSamsquatch

3rd July 2010, 07:44

PoliticalNightmare

3rd July 2010, 14:39

What's wrong with terrorism? Everything is wrong with terrorism. It targets innocent people who have nothing to do with the conflict. It get's bad publicity (the media will publicise the deaths caused and the political/religious views of the group involved, and result; their views get bad publicity and the general public will not care about the viewpoints of a bunch of thugs). Look at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by terrorism. Sure the west should never have invaded them, but the Taliban aren't even helping their own situation or standing in good grounds with the 'public. Terrorists don't necessarily have a good cause anyway.

Also, as far as 'weakness' and 'strength' is concerned... well that isn't very christian or very socialist of you. Think about it. Socialism is all about a system in which everyone has collective responsibility as society. People in positions of strength are supposed to help those in positions of weakness. Then in return those people can aid those in other means. For instance a non-academic athlete can help an academic couch potato become fit, whilst the latter helps the former with his studies...to name a rather corny example.

Anyway if your going to self-destruct yourself to blow up a bunch of innocent civilians for 'good' publicity then what is the point of being in a position of strength? You will be dead! And no-one (inluding myself) will view a bunch of brain washed youths as being in a position of strength anyway. In fact it is often the terrorists who become exploited.

Similarly I can't see the point in violence at demonstrations, firebombing banks, or other bullshit. We must promote our causes through our intellect, strength of mind and use of resources. A person who remotes to lesser means downgrades himself.

I'm sorry but this is kind of a stupid thread but then again I don't think you believe any of this. You're probably just another intellect.

(By the way, I'm pretty sure Gandhi was definitely not a pro-terrorist).

PoliticalNightmare

3rd July 2010, 14:48

Frankly, I don't understand the ... self-righteous attitude.

Well considering I've never killed innocent civilians, I believe I have the right to place myself into a moral high chair on this particular matter.

This world doesn't respect you if you're weak and helpless; in fact, they pick on you if you're weak, they bully you knowing full well you can't retaliate. There is not even one culture on the planet that respects the weak. All of them fear - and follow - strength and power.

And it is precisely this kind of world that we are fighting against. And a world of terrorism is a world of strength, power, and domination over society.

In this context, isn't terrorism just a natural order of things? It is supposed to exist, not something which is anomalous. So why this self-righteous attitude? Nor do I fully appreciate Trotsky's view on the matter, simply because it expects too much from the average human mind: you don't consider all the ramifications when you're in pain and when you're constantly harassed either as an individual or as a member of a certain community. Nor do you value ideology over practicality.

Self-defence against an authority is one thing, terrorism is another.

The other common accusation: innocent people die in terrorism. Well, as an autistic person, I don't see why I should care. Nor do I see how any member of the minority community is going care, for these 'innocent' people weren't so innocent when it came to abusing me or other minorities day in and day out. So the word 'innocent' here doesn't make sense.

Because not all people targeted by terrorists are like that. You really want to be a terrorist, go and bomb a bus full of American soldiers, not a bus full of your own people. It depends on the context, I will give you that at least.

As well as the means completely opposing the ends that it seeks, terrorism is something which can have evil causes as well. For instance racist, nazi bombers, homophobic bombers, etc., etc., to name a few.

Sturzo

4th July 2010, 04:31

Terrorism is wrong. To justify terrorism, one must adopt an attitude that terrorism's victims are all guilty of a crime punishable by death, whether man, woman, or child. The only way to indiscriminately accuse such a wide range of innocent people of a crime is by making some perverted and grossly twisted reason that can only work in the logic of an extremist ideology.

4th July 2010, 05:17

Mahatma Gandhi

4th July 2010, 07:18

What's wrong with terrorism (in it's actual sense) is that it does not do very much at all for class struggle. Oh sure, you could have a group of communists bombing houses of parliament and whatnot, but in the end, what does it actually do? Nothing. It alienates the fighters from those who they seek to help. Revolution must be a class action - that does not mean getting a band of armed dissidents and thrusting them into the chaos; it means having the working class emancipate itself and being totally active in the revolution by occupying workplaces, engaging with and repelling the state's forces and resisting the authority of the ruling class by supporting and participating in a new revolutionary government to replace the old.

It is easy for you to intellectualize because you're under no immediate threat from anyone. Do you think a Palestinian (or an autistic man such as myself) would think about ideology when his home is being destroyed? His top priority is survival, not theories like whether the working class can emancipate itself or whether violence may antagonize people, and so on. He simply has no time to think along those lines, especially when his life is at stake.

4th July 2010, 07:31

It is easy for you to intellectualize because you're under no immediate threat from anyone. Do you think a Palestinian (or an autistic man such as myself) would think about ideology when his home is being destroyed? His top priority is survival, not theories like whether the working class can emancipate itself or whether violence may antagonize people, and so on. He simply has no time to think along those lines, especially when his life is at stake.
We're talking about the usefulness of the tactic, not whether or not an oppressed guy would resort to it out of desperation or not.

Terrorism (in it's actual sense, and not the latest buzzword) is a tactic used by people ranging from resistance fighters to professional soldiers or conscripts and police. Revolution is the overthrow of one class by another. They are different things. Get used to it.

Nolan

4th July 2010, 07:59

What strikes me is the fact that even on a leftist forum so many are quick to associate "terrorism" with subversive or resistance groups when instead it should first evoke images of (especially imperialist) state militaries.

It's like those people who hear exploiter and go "drug dealer!" instead of "Wall Street!"

Ele'ill

4th July 2010, 17:27

It's mind boggling how many people in this thread including the original poster are defining a 'terrorist' as someone who essentially uses guerrilla tactics to defend theirself. That is not what a terrorist is.

An example of terrorism: House gets bulldozed- man and woman who lived there retaliate by walking into a cafe of the class or nationality that bulldozed their home and open fire with rifles.

An example of combative retaliation, guerrilla tactics or war: House gets bulldozed- man and woman who lived there retaliate by setting off a car bomb at a military check point (assuming it was the military of the bulldozers)

Mahatma Gandhi

4th July 2010, 17:44

Ele'ill

4th July 2010, 19:35

Terrorism is anything you want it to be: it is a rather flexible concept.

It's not that ambiguous.

Are school bullies terrorists? When someone that's picked on verbally fights back because they've had enough are they then the terrorists?

Could inanimate objects become terrorists in light of a phobia?

The Fighting_Crusnik

4th July 2010, 19:40

To me, all terrorism does is result in the death of a lot of innocent people and it leads to the creation of a state of fear. Also, with terrorism, to me it seems like the change of a dictator rising up increases greatly. And as mentioned before, when people see innocent people dying in these attacks, they begin to resent the ideology of the terrorists simply because they see it as being dangerous and uncontrollable.

Obs

5th July 2010, 01:43

The other common accusation: innocent people die in terrorism. Well, as an autistic person, I don't see why I should care. Nor do I see how any member of the minority community is going care, for these 'innocent' people weren't so innocent when it came to abusing me or other minorities day in and day out. So the word 'innocent' here doesn't make sense.
As an autistic person, I would like to call you out on your shit here. Hint: using a mental handicap as a basis for your philosophy is a bad idea, and just because you have some kind of massive hate boner for everyone in the world who doesn't spend all their time on Internet forums sperging over worthless topics and writing stupid shit doesn't mean this is a symptom of autism. It might just be that you're an asshole. People don't dislike you because you're autistic, people dislike you because you're just a generally unlikeable person.

Fucking idiot.

Mahatma Gandhi

5th July 2010, 05:28

It's not that ambiguous.

Perhaps not, but there are as many opinions as there are individuals. So everybody may have a different view on the same subject.

Are school bullies terrorists?

Again, there is no 'right' answer. It is subjective. To me, yes, they certainly are. Why? Because they exercise their 'will' to terrorize people (not merely to harm them, if you can see the difference). But the world will disagree.

When someone that's picked on verbally fights back because they've had enough are they then the terrorists?

In my view, no way! But the world will call them terrorists, doubtless, just as they've been calling Muslims terrorists because they attack people who abuse their religion.

Could inanimate objects become terrorists in light of a phobia?

Inanimate objects, by their very nature, cannot do anything of their own free will. They don't consciously try to harm anybody. So the concept doesn't apply in this case.

Mahatma Gandhi

5th July 2010, 05:33

As an autistic person, I would like to call you out on your shit here. Hint: using a mental handicap as a basis for your philosophy is a bad idea, and just because you have some kind of massive hate boner for everyone in the world who doesn't spend all their time on Internet forums sperging over worthless topics and writing stupid shit doesn't mean this is a symptom of autism. It might just be that you're an asshole. People don't dislike you because you're autistic, people dislike you because you're just a generally unlikeable person.

Fucking idiot.

I'll forgive you for this hateful message.:)

All I am saying is, Your identity will always define your struggle. If you identify yourself as a gay person, you're more inclined to fight for gay people than for any other group or ideology. In fact, even your ideology is going to be shaped by your identity. So denying it is silly.

Pretty Flaco

5th July 2010, 06:36

5th July 2010, 09:17

"ter·ror·ism
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

Dictionary definition of terrorism. I think it's easy to conclude that terrorism isn't only used by the oppressed, but by authoritarians as well. Terrorism and freedom fighting are far different. Terrorism is a "bully" method.

Some of you are confusing terrorists with freedom fighters/resistance/etc. A terrorist is a coward and an abuser.
Al Qaeda is a resistance organisation - but it sometimes uses the disgusting tactic of terrorism (like the soldiers do themselves). Why we don't support Al Qaeda is because of it's theocratic and nationalist ideology and that it is not class-based, nor does it seek to end class society.

PoliticalNightmare

5th July 2010, 17:20

Why we don't support Al Qaeda is because of it's theocratic and nationalist ideology and that it is not class-based, nor does it seek to end class society.

...and all of the disgusting atrocities they have commited.

Mahatma Gandhi

5th July 2010, 17:35

...and all of the disgusting atrocities they have commited.

Huh? Are you serious? They are anti-imperialists and fight for the abolishment of class structure. How is that disgusting? Their leader gave up his wealth to fight for the poor in Afghanistan ... doesn't that point to his hatred for the bourgeois? What's wrong with people here? Seems like most of you are living sheltered lives and cannot appreciate the plight of the oppressed - and hence your pious distaste for violence.

PoliticalNightmare

5th July 2010, 17:48

Huh? Are you serious? They are anti-imperialists and fight for the abolishment of class structure. How is that disgusting? Their leader gave up his wealth to fight for the poor in Afghanistan ... doesn't that point to his hatred for the bourgeois? What's wrong with people here? Seems like most of you are living sheltered lives and cannot appreciate the plight of the oppressed - and hence your pious distaste for violence.

It seems to me that you are the one living a sheltered life if you can't see what an abomination terrorism is.

Al qaeda have carried out lots of attacks which have injured and killed many innocent citizens (not just US troops). Furthermore, they are just making the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq even worse by giving the generals and the politicians endless excuses not to withdraw. Terrorism = failure.

Mahatma Gandhi

5th July 2010, 17:58

It seems to me that you are the one living a sheltered life if you can't see what an abomination terrorism is.

Al qaeda have carried out lots of attacks which have injured and killed many innocent citizens (not just US troops). Furthermore, they are just making the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq even worse by giving the generals and the politicians endless excuses not to withdraw. Terrorism = failure.

In war, there are always casualties. As for excuses, imperialists need no excuse for anything: they do what they do. Besides, you're living a sheltered life, typing away on your keyboard, whereas 'terrorists' are in the battlefield putting their lives at stake. At least, they fight against what they perceive to be injustice. Surely, that counts for something?

PoliticalNightmare

5th July 2010, 18:08

In war, there are always casualties. As for excuses, imperialists need no excuse for anything: they do what they do. Besides, you're living a sheltered life, typing away on your keyboard, whereas 'terrorists' are in the battlefield putting their lives at stake. At least, they fight against what they perceive to be injustice. Surely, that counts for something?

If an imperialist has no excuse, then the media cannot present the case that the reason they in Iraq or Afghanistan is for 'security'. Then they cannot climb their way out of the hole they've dug themself. The public will force them into a corner and they will have no alternative but to retreat. But this won't happen while terrorists are still waging their bombs. And the generals or the politicians don't care if a couple of their troops or a bunch of innocent civilians get blown up in their aftermath. All they care about is oil and making money.

Counts for something? See my previous post; we must fight this war through the use of our intellect and knowledge, not through power and domination. A society built on terrorism is a society built on power, domination and terror. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid with capitalism and imperialism.

Besides, you're living a sheltered life, typing away on your keyboard

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black lol.

Mahatma Gandhi

5th July 2010, 18:19

If an imperialist has no excuse, then the media cannot present the case that the reason they in Iraq or Afghanistan is for 'security'. Then they cannot climb their way out of the hole they've dug themself. The public will force them into a corner and they will have no alternative but to retreat. But this won't happen while terrorists are still waging their bombs. And the generals or the politicians don't care if a couple of their troops or a bunch of innocent civilians get blown up in their aftermath. All they care about is oil and making money.

Three problems with your approach. If there is no pressure on the imperialists to withdraw, they won't withdraw. Second, what can the public do? Most Americans were against the war, yet the war was fought. Third, even if there is no terrorism, all the imperialists have to do is point to honor killing (or something of the sort) in the country they're going invade, and that'll be all the excuse they'll ever need.

Counts for something? See my previous post; we must fight this war through the use of our intellect and knowledge, not through power and domination.

Says the man who lives in his luxury home and who's never seen a bomb or bullet in his life.:rolleyes: The victims of war aren't so lucky, so they cannot fight with their intellects; they're fighting for survival.

A society built on terrorism is a society built on power, domination and terror. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid with capitalism and imperialism.

And how are you going to do that? By advising the afghan people to drop their rifles and pick up Das Kapital from the local bookstore?

PoliticalNightmare

5th July 2010, 18:35

Three problems with your approach. If there is no pressure on the imperialists to withdraw, they won't withdraw.

Which is what I said.

Second, what can the public do? Most Americans were against the war, yet the war was fought.

The media need to hit the crooked bastards where it hurts. The public need to be out on the streets protesting. They need to barricade Wall St. if necessary. Every leftist needs to promote our cause through the media. We need to start prosecuting the generals and the politicians for their war crimes; show them that they can't do whatever they feel like and get away with it. George Bush needs to be prosecuted for starting an illegal war so that no future president will ever do the same. Obama is facing more pressure over the oil spill at the moment than the war in the east or the fact that their have been worse disasters than the oil spill in the Gulf such as the Nigerian oil spills which have been going on for a decade. Or the Bhopal disaster by the American firm.

Third, even if there is no terrorism, all the imperialists have to do is point to honor killing (or something of the sort) in the country they're going invade, and that'll be all the excuse they'll ever need.

Again, media coverage. Western media is full of capitalist propaganda bullshit.

Says the man who lives in his luxury home and who's never seen a bomb or bullet in his life.:rolleyes:

How do you know any of this?

The victims of war aren't so lucky, so they cannot fight with their intellects; they're fighting for survival.

No but Al Qaeda, who are in a stronger position than the ordinary citizens should be leading them in the right course of action, e.g. revolution, demonstrations, etc. Not brainwashing them into blowing themselves up.

And how are you going to do that? By advising the afghan people to drop their rifles and pick up Das Kapital from the local bookstore?

Not Das Kapital, no, its not populist enough. A good public speaker will mobilise the masses into action.

Can I ask you something, when did Gandhi ever encourage the people of India to free themselves of imperialism through violence?

Havet

5th July 2010, 18:58

Not Das Kapital, no, its not populist enough.

You really think populism is helpful? History, anyone?

Mahatma Gandhi

5th July 2010, 19:02

The media need to hit the crooked bastards where it hurts.

The media is part of the capitalist system too. Why would they bother about right and wrong in this or any other matter? Their job is to make profits.

The public need to be out on the streets protesting

Again, why would they? Why would people care about people living in a distant country, so much so that they'll take to the streets and start protesting? What's in it for them? Besides, must the afghans wait till the world becomes enlightened enough to see the evils of imperialism?

Not Das Kapital, no, its not populist enough. A good public speaker will mobilise the masses into action.

Hmm...

Can I ask you something, when did Gandhi ever encourage the people of India to free themselves of imperialism through violence?

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people. Had he been in Afghanistan, his approach would have been different in that Afghans have always had a heroic/militaristic past. Gandhi's was hence a tactical move and not a naive, principled stance.

PoliticalNightmare

5th July 2010, 19:07

You really think populism is helpful? History, anyone?

When I say populism, I mean that slogans and political ideologies, etc. need to be made understandable. Not complicated, abstract Marx ideologies. Hence my endorsement of good public speakers - oral tradition and all of that. Pamphlets, slogans, etc. all good strategies.

PoliticalNightmare

5th July 2010, 19:13

The media is part of the capitalist system too. Why would they bother about right and wrong in this or any other matter? Their job is to make profits.

Pressure on the media and freedom from government influence. The media's job is to present the truth, not political bias. Besides its about time we started seeing more socialist newspapers.

Again, why would they? Why would people care about people living in a distant country, so much so that they'll take to the streets and start protesting? What's in it for them? Besides, must the afghans wait till the world becomes enlightened enough to see the evils of imperialism?

Because, and if you lived in the UK (like I do) or the US, then you would know how flipping patriotic we are. The public here don't care about the Afghan civilians, no, but they do care about their soldiers.

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people. Had he been in Afghanistan, his approach would have been different in that Afghans have always had a heroic/militaristic past. Gandhi's was hence a tactical move and not a naive, principled stance.

So because Hindus were peaceful people who did not believe in violence, they were cowards and slippery? Marching unarmed infront of guns is cowardice? How do you know Gandhi would have taken a different stance in a different context?

Obs

5th July 2010, 22:10

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people.
That's very "Christian socialist" of you.

Nolan

6th July 2010, 00:24

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people.

I think we've got another one for the RevLeft firing squad.

6th July 2010, 01:23

...and all of the disgusting atrocities they have commited.
That too.

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people.
That was stupid of you to say, now you're fucked.

RGacky3

6th July 2010, 01:30

Generally people have a problem with terrorism when its done against them, and justify it when its done against other people.

Take the United States for example, somehow the atomic bomb was nessesary, but suicide bombers in palestine are just heartless terrorists. The Unted States government is the number one terrorist in the world since WW2, its history.

I'm against terrorism, whether its done by the US or by a Hamas suicide bomber, but I'll tell you this much, the Hamas suicide bomber's is much more justified by his situation. (most people will agree that something done out of desperation is more morally justifiable than someone just trying to advance and hold on to their already large power.

RGacky3

6th July 2010, 01:37

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people. Had he been in Afghanistan, his approach would have been different in that Afghans have always had a heroic/militaristic past. Gandhi's was hence a tactical move and not a naive, principled stance.

Really? Ask THe greatest military man in history Alexander the great, I don't know what to say, your a moron, your just make stuff up.

Blackscare

6th July 2010, 01:38

That's because Gandhi was stuck with hindus, a notoriously cowardly/slippery people. Had he been in Afghanistan, his approach would have been different in that Afghans have always had a heroic/militaristic past. Gandhi's was hence a tactical move and not a naive, principled stance.

I don't usually call for banning, but someone please ban this clown.

Mahatma Gandhi

6th July 2010, 05:35

That too.

That was stupid of you to say, now you're fucked.

I was simply trying to stress that Gandhi, like any other leader, acted according to the situation and that his pacifism was not some ideology set in stone; it was rather fluid. Depending on time, place, and circumstances, your decision too will be different.

That's all I was saying, and if that warrants a ban, fine. It seems like most of you here are more interested in getting me banned than discussing things rationally. Is this because I am autistic?

Nolan

6th July 2010, 05:53

Is this because I am autistic?

Oh fucking hell.

Blackscare

6th July 2010, 05:54

Is this because I am autistic?

No, it's because you're racist. And a walking (typing) contradiction.

Blackscare

6th July 2010, 05:55

Oh fucking hell.

You fucking ninja, you.

Ele'ill

6th July 2010, 07:00

I was simply trying to stress that Gandhi, like any other leader, acted according to the situation and that his pacifism was not some ideology set in stone; it was rather fluid. Depending on time, place, and circumstances, your decision too will be different.

That's all I was saying, and if that warrants a ban, fine. It seems like most of you here are more interested in getting me banned than discussing things rationally. Is this because I am autistic?

I'm going to give an example of your posts in the threads you create:

Reptiles? Bad? What are your thoughts on them and the coming insurrectionn?

"Reptiles can sometimes be bad because of- you know- that reason that's ambiguous and doesn't have a word for it."

"I also tend to think that dinosaurs lived once or twice."

"Yeah but that doesn't refute the fact that cats are abused sometimes."

All I'm saying is that Gen from the Dark Crystal could be both male or female and isn't human there fore it could be a dinosaur.

"ah, you all fell into my elaborate trap."

Ele'ill

6th July 2010, 07:06

Mahatma Gandhi

6th July 2010, 07:20

Also, just so you're aware, war doesn't specifically target civilians- terrorism does.

That's not true. Many civilians are raped and tortured during war; it is done to demoralize the enemy. Terrorists, no matter what their flaws, don't stoop to that level. As to terrorism specifically targeting civilians, well, they're angry that these 'nice, wonderful' civilians keep voting for leaders who invade their countries.

By the way, I am not justifying anything but just trying to see these things through the eyes of a terrorist. It is easy to pass judgment sitting in the comfort of your home....

Ele'ill

6th July 2010, 07:44

That's not true.

I want to thank you for listing your ridiculousness right up front so I have the option to ignore the rest of your post.:rolleyes:

Many civilians are raped and tortured during war; it is done to demoralize the enemy.

rape, tortured, executed etc.. if they were innocent then the squad responsible and likely even the rest of the military can be deemed terrorists as they were using terrorism.

Terrorists, no matter what their flaws, don't stoop to that level.

Shooting family's live stock? Torturing innocent men and women? Bombing Cafes filled with innocent people?

As to terrorism specifically targeting civilians, well, they're angry that these 'nice, wonderful' civilians keep voting for leaders who invade their countries.

Wrong, love. How can the own population vote for another country's leaders to come and invade- on top of this- I didn't realize candidates openly bragged about taking another country to war in order to get more votes- at least not in that fashion.

In the unlikely event that you were talking about terrorism on foreign soil (becaues your posts are continuously becoming more asinine), the last time I checked- terrorism perpetuates terrorism/war.

If I wanted you to vote a certain way I'd start with a talk or maybe some legit organizing work- the whole bombing and killing people to change their mind sort of doesn't work because for one- they're dead- or they're really really angry at you.

By the way, I am not justifying anything but just trying to see these things through the eyes of a terrorist. It is easy to pass judgment sitting in the comfort of your home....

You're not justifying anything because you're failing- not because you aren't trying.

Mahatma Gandhi

6th July 2010, 08:01

This is going in circles, so let me finish it off once and for all. When a person is fighting for survival, he doesn't care about ideology; he doesn't care about educating people on the virtues of equality, justice, cooperation, and all that; he has neither the time nor the energy nor the means to organize peacefully and convince everyone that he is a victim in need of help.

When faced with such a desperate situation, even a civilized man is going to do 'evil' things. And this evil thing is conveniently brushed aside as terrorism by those living in the comfort of their home.

I don't know what else I can say to make people sympathize with the victims; it seems like this world lacks compassion. People are too quick to judge victims and rationalize the actions of the ruling class....

6th July 2010, 09:31

So would you say that an Iraqi, sitting outside their burnt out home and weeping at the bodies of several of their family members, calling the Coalition soldiers that did it "terrorists" is wrong in saying it? Because that's the vibe I'm getting here.

And I'm not sure about your stance on this issue. You claim that a civilised man will do uncivilised things in times of distress but then you take the victims' side?

6th July 2010, 09:37

Is this because I am autistic?
For the last time. Your condition is irrelevant. Many on this board have it, and I'm sure some of them were engaging in debate with you in this thread. Do they ask if you are making arguments because they are autistic? No.

6th July 2010, 09:44

Huh? Are you serious? They are anti-imperialists and fight for the abolishment of class structure. How is that disgusting? Their leader gave up his wealth to fight for the poor in Afghanistan ... doesn't that point to his hatred for the bourgeois? What's wrong with people here? Seems like most of you are living sheltered lives and cannot appreciate the plight of the oppressed - and hence your pious distaste for violence.
Al Qaeda are closest communists? You're just a nutcase.

And are you, Mahatma Gandhi, with your upholding of a well-known pacifist, actually attacking others for supposedly anti-violent positions?

brawler5k2

6th July 2010, 18:03

Hello Comrades!

Sorry for the dramatic title, but I don't know how else to explain this. I see people, even leftists, condemning terrorism all the time. Frankly, I don't understand the logic behind this, nor the need for such self-righteous attitude.

See the other replies.

Terrorists are simply doing what society expects them to do: to be strong and assert themselves. This world doesn't respect you if you're weak and helpless; in fact, they pick on you if you're weak, they bully you knowing full well you can't retaliate. There is not even one culture on the planet that respects the weak. All of them fear - and follow - strength and power.

I honestly can't refute this, however...

In this context, isn't terrorism just a natural order of things? It is supposed to exist, not something which is anomalous. So why this self-righteous attitude? Nor do I fully appreciate Trotsky's view on the matter, simply because it expects too much from the average human mind: you don't consider all the ramifications when you're in pain and when you're constantly harassed either as an individual or as a member of a certain community. Nor do you value ideology over practicality.

The natural order is continually changing throughout history. After all, humanity once simply lived off the land before they developed methods to utilize the land and developed numerous tools to hunt. Perhaps terrorism is just a portion of the current "natural order" and not a perpetual part of it, similar to the older methods of life (e.g., the life of normads) that became extrinsic in modern civilization. I'm unable to honestly answer the other portions of this quote, as I'm relatively new to leftist ideologies, and thus am unfamiliar to Trotsky's viewpoint on terrorism.

The other common accusation: innocent people die in terrorism. Well, as an autistic person, I don't see why I should care. Nor do I see how any member of the minority community is going care, for these 'innocent' people weren't so innocent when it came to abusing me or other minorities day in and day out. So the word 'innocent' here doesn't make sense.

Mahatma

To abjure any more painful paragraphs, I'll simply say two things:
1.) Don't use autism as an excuse for anything
and 2.) That sort of attitude of generalization hurts the innocent just as much as terrorism does.

I hope that this longcat post wasn't too painful to read :blushing:.

Obs

6th July 2010, 18:28

Al Qaeda are closest communists? You're just a nutcase.

And are you, Mahatma Gandhi, with your upholding of a well-known pacifist, actually attacking others for supposedly anti-violent positions?
No no, Gandhi was only a pacifist because he was stuck with those slimy, cowardly snakes, the Hindus.

PoliticalNightmare

6th July 2010, 19:19

See the other replies...

Final fantasy! Sorry, I'm obsessed with that gem.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

6th July 2010, 19:32

No no, Gandhi was only a pacifist because he was stuck with those slimy, cowardly snakes, the Hindus.

Slippery, too!

It's possible he was arguing based on a culture during a time period. I believe Hindu is a culture/religious groups, isn't it? If people got banned for making generalizations about all the members of a religious group, we'd lose half our members, including me.

That said, I still think this is a troll. Also, terrorism might be defined in a variety of ways. It doesn't seem to require the "intent" to be to spread fear. That opens things up. That, and almost every form of violence is going to or intended to spread fear. Terrorism is just a very precise term intended primarily as a means of othering those who oppose state policy.

Ele'ill

7th July 2010, 01:04

This is going in circles,

You are the only one going in circles.

so let me finish it off once and for all.

Does this mean you'll stop posting? :thumbup1:

When a person is fighting for survival, he doesn't care about ideology;

No, again you're incorrect. What a surprise.

Ideologies serve the purpose of structure and through this give a voice to people about issues they may be having across a full spectrum of topics- from politics to social interactions at work. Ideologies are the combined recorded understandings and approaches both positive and negative for any given issue.

he doesn't care about educating people on the virtues of equality, justice, cooperation, and all that;

Strength in numbers. See above paragraph of mine for reference.

he has neither the time nor the energy nor the means to organize peacefully and convince everyone that he is a victim in need of help.

So what about the time, energy and means to construct terrorist attacks? Likely, more time is spent doing that with greater challenges than the other route.

When faced with such a desperate situation, even a civilized man is going to do 'evil' things.

This is extremely vague. Start over.

And this evil thing is conveniently brushed aside as terrorism by those living in the comfort of their home.

It's also outright rejected by those 'uncomfortable people' living in slums who get killed in the terrorist's market bombing.

I don't know what else I can say

I think we all agree with this because your stupid doesn't seem to have a cap.

Also, your posts reek of patriarchal bullshit.

Your posts are contradictory because you can't have the strong opinions that you have in conjunction with the admitted naivety.