Islamic terrorists are looking more and more reasonable

[RGacky3]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/18/it_s_the_occupation_stupid?page=0,0

I hate this image of the Muslim terrorist as some crazed unreasonable loonatics motivated by some religious creed to murder westerners. Its convenient to believe, because it makes an evil boogie man, but its just untrue.


More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226645606?ie=UTF8&tag=fopo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226645606) that we conducted at the University of Chicago's Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day.

OF COARSE!!!! Its a response to the occupation, infact what terrorists ALWAYS say, is the attacks will continue until the occupations end, which to me sounds way more reasonable than the American line, which is the attacks and occupations will continue until ... ... oh look over there gay people getting married.

The whole mission statement of Al Quida was always "the US military out of the holy lands" which to me sounds very reasonable, how happy do you think the US would be if Saudi Arabia build military bases in NY? Or if Saudi Arabia faked and lied about a threat in isreal and then invaded it killing millions of civilians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/juan-williams-is-right-po_b_772766.html

What I love about this is how the media missquoted the terrorist to make him sound more scary, Michael Moore Makes a great point though.


We can't let another day go by letting the PC brigade stop us from telling the truth: Terrorists aren't trying to kill us because they hate our freedom. They're killing us because we're in their countries killing them.

[ComradeMan]

"I hate this image of the Muslim terrorist as some crazed unreasonable loonatics motivated by some religious creed to murder westerners. Its convenient to believe, because it makes an evil boogie man" :lol:

They're really nice guys most of them once you get to know them and they would never harm puppies and are usually vegans too.:D

Look- whatever their causes or justifications terrorist groups cause terror- this does not negate state-sanctioned terrorism either but....

The indiscriminate killing of civilians, i.e. workers, can never be justified. Maybe I'm old fashioned- if it's soldier versus soldier it's bad, but that's what happens- but no one has the right to bomb or maim civilians- the old, the sick, women, children, conscientious objectors etc- be they government, freedom fighter/terrorist or whatever.

The other problem is a lot of these so-called groups are/were covertly sanctioned by governments anyway. It's all smoke and mirrors with this stuff.

[RGacky3]

Look- whatever their causes or justifications terrorist groups cause terror- this does not negate state-sanctioned terrorism either but....


Yeah, but I'm talking about the reasons, the causes, the atomic bomb was the biggest act of terrorism ever, yet many people are ok with it because of the justification, I'm against all terror, but writing them off as just unreasonable religious nuts its rediculous.


The indiscriminate killing of civilians, i.e. workers, can never be justified. Maybe I'm old fashioned- if it's soldier versus soldier it's bad, but that's what happens- but no one has the right to bomb or maim civilians- the old, the sick, women, children, conscientious objectors etc- be they government, freedom fighter/terrorist or whatever.



I agree, but the issue should be apprached truthfully, not just demonozing one side as unreasonable or evil.

[RGacky3]

They're really nice guys most of them once you get to know them

Some probably are, just like some people that drop bombs in Iraq probably are too.

[ComradeMan]

Some probably are, just like some people that drop bombs in Iraq probably are too.

:laugh:

I know you're sincere and all that and I know what you mean- it's just the way you put it. I can imagine all of these nice guys on their days off selling iced-cakes at their local community centre fair and serving tea and coffee to elderly ladies.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

:laugh:

I know you're sincere and all that and I know what you mean- it's just the way you put it. I can imagine all of these nice guys on their days off selling iced-cakes at their local community centre fair and serving tea and coffee to elderly ladies.
You don't need to sell iced-cakes and serve tea to old ladies to be nice!

A lot of these suicide bombers probably think they are doing the right thing.

Terrible occupation, murder, violence, bombs, death + religion = desperate measures. I don't support terrorism at all but I understand why it happens.

[ComradeMan]

You don't need to sell iced-cakes and serve tea to old ladies to be nice!

A lot of these suicide bombers probably think they are doing the right thing.

Terrible occupation, murder, violence, bombs, death + religion = desperate measures. I don't support terrorism at all but I understand why it happens.

I agree- but we still shouldn't have illusions about them either.

Cream cake?:D

[RGacky3]

I can imagine all of these nice guys on their days off selling iced-cakes at their local community centre fair and serving tea and coffee to elderly ladies.

Actually most of Hamas and Hezbolla is that exactly.

[ComradeMan]

Actually most of Hamas and Hezbolla is that exactly.

LOL! Baklava and mint tea no doubt. On a more serious note, a lot of these groups have very shadowy credentials when you look into them. Groups are also expert at picking up genuine struggles and then hijacking them to suit their own political objectives and that's what I am wary of.

[Fabrizio]

It's true that Hamas and Hezbollah do carry out the role of "welfare" in their own clientilist way, just like political parties do in most countries without welfare states.

As for being solely a response to foreign occupation - that is part of it, and I think the West has no right to be in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

However, things like murdering gays, throwing acid at women who dare not to cover themselves, is not exactly "reasonable" or "resisting occupation" is it? Not to mention indiscriminately killing civilians. And what is the ideology they are fighting for? "National liberation", or a clerical dictatorship? And how about the attempts to tear apart India, Pakistan, so many other states which are not occupied? Clearly it goes beyodn that. These people want to impose their hateful ideology, and it will be ordinary Muslims who are forced to live under them. And don't forget that the west funded Islamists to do this in the past.

So no I don't think they are reasonable. I think it's reasonable to expect that if you occupy a foreign country, they will fight you. Doesn't mean the ones doing it have reasonable aims once they get in power though.

[khad]

Comrades, let me reintroduce ComradeMan, a hardcore zionist who was restricted for supporting the occupation of Afghanistan.

[#FF0000]

I think it's worth pointing out that people in these countries generally hate the Islamists as well as the United States, so.

It's also worth saying that More than 95% of suicide bombings are a response to foreign occupation (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/18/it_s_the_occupation_stupid?page=full)

[#FF0000]

words

I think you missed the point, by the way. Gacky's not saying that they're great human beings and that their actions are morally just or whatever. He's criticizing the image of terrorists as insane super-villain sorts of figures instead of people with sometimes very legitimate political concerns who feel they have no other recourse.

Gacky's not talking about the uber-rich 9/11 bombers or Osama Bin Laden clique. He's talking about the rank-n-file guy who took up a suicide vest after American bombs leveled his home and killed his family.

[ComradeMan]

Comrades, let me reintroduce ComradeMan, a hardcore zionist who was restricted for supporting the occupation of Afghanistan.

Let me introduce Khad a troll. BTW I was restricted for supporting the UN's role as a matter of fact and a couple of the people who were instrumental in that were banned subsequently- your intelligence files are getting a bit dustry... Apart from that I think you are guilty of trolling as you made no attempt to deal with the question and merely attacked a poster based on stuff that happened months and months ago. But this is someone whose username is derived from Khadamat-e Etela'at-e Dawlati- well known for a lack of respect for human rights and a fondness for show trials.

I have since revised most of my positions on the original subjects of contention and informed the relevant persona here at RevLeft.

:laugh:

So what is your position viz the OP anyway?

[Robert]

Oops.

[ComradeMan]

I think you missed the point, by the way. Gacky's not saying that they're great human beings and that their actions are morally just or whatever. He's criticizing the image of terrorists as insane super-villain sorts of figures instead of people with sometimes very legitimate political concerns who feel they have no other recourse.

Gacky's not talking about the uber-rich 9/11 bombers or Osama Bin Laden clique. He's talking about the rank-n-file guy who took up a suicide vest after American bombs leveled his home and killed his family.

I know what Gacky is talking about- it just struck me as funny the way he put it.

[Ele'ill]

Oops.

Robert-

[Ele'ill]

OF COARSE!!!! Its a response to the occupation, infact what terrorists ALWAYS say, is the attacks will continue until the occupations end, which to me sounds way more reasonable than the American line, which is the attacks and occupations will continue until ... ... oh look over there gay people getting married.

Maybe if we're lucky or unlucky rather- social justice will become part of corporate monoculture.




The whole mission statement of Al Quida was always "the US military out of the holy lands" which to me sounds very reasonable, how happy do you think the US would be if Saudi Arabia build military bases in NY? Or if Saudi Arabia faked and lied about a threat in isreal and then invaded it killing millions of civilians.

The issue that I have is with the various tactics being used by groups (not just in the middleeast) that engage civilian targets.

I don't want to be killed in a train bombing- I'm doing my best to fight against imperialism too!

I think a very up front discussion with militant leaders would be interesting.

"What are your thoughts on the opposition to the wars? In the US?

"Would you willingly bomb anti war activists who are opposed to U.S. Imperialism?"

[L.A.P.]

Yeah, but I'm talking about the reasons, the causes, the atomic bomb was the biggest act of terrorism ever, yet many people are ok with it because of the justification, I'm against all terror, but writing them off as just unreasonable religious nuts its rediculous.



I agree, but the issue should be apprached truthfully, not just demonozing one side as unreasonable or evil.

Well they are unreasonable religious nuts but the point I think you're trying to make is that there is a reason to why they have become such apeshit crazy nuts because we sent our apeshit crazy nuts. That still doesn't justify the actions of these groups though.

[RGacky3]

Well they are unreasonable religious nuts but the point I think you're trying to make is that there is a reason to why they have become such apeshit crazy nuts because we sent our apeshit crazy nuts. That still doesn't justify the actions of these groups though.

THey are very reasonable, they've reached out many times to try and get compromoses, religious nuts? Probably yeah, but no more than George Bush.


I agree- but we still shouldn't have illusions about them either.



Yeah of coarse, but again thats the same with ANY group.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Terrible occupation, murder, violence, bombs, death + religion = desperate measures. I don't support terrorism at all but I understand why it happens.

Whilst this is true, many members of the Taliban, for instance are pretty damn reactionary and backwards in their political beliefs. A lot of terrorists have fairly old-fashioned ideas about women covering themselves up from head to toe and getting stoned to death for having an affair, etc.

I reckon that the moment the US/UK pulls out of Iraw and Afgahnistan, the Taliban will seize the state, destroy many of the western foreign aid measures (destroying some of them quite rightly, may I add) and kill many of those citizens who were politically outspoken and 'westernised' during their absence. It's going to be hell. That said, I don't think this is any justification for us to stay there. We might as well just pull out tommorow (well, within reason), its not going to make any odds and the situation isn't going to get better.

[ComradeMan]

Whilst this is true, many members of the Taliban, for instance are pretty damn reactionary and backwards in their political beliefs. A lot of terrorists have fairly old-fashioned ideas about women covering themselves up from head to toe and getting stoned to death for having an affair, etc.

I reckon that the moment the US/UK pulls out of Iraw and Afgahnistan, the Taliban will seize the state, destroy many of the western foreign aid measures (destroying some of them quite rightly, may I add) and kill many of those citizens who were politically outspoken and 'westernised' during their absence. It's going to be hell. That said, I don't think this is any justification for us to stay there. We might as well just pull out tommorow (well, within reason), its not going to make any odds and the situation isn't going to get better.


Why does this sound familiar? It reminds me of how I ended up in OI. ;)

It's a mess from top to bottom.... that's the problem.

I think the whole idea of the US & Allies fighting their former lackeys is like a bizarre twisted and evil comedy- as usual the normal people on the ground suffer. :crying:

[PoliticalNightmare]

Why does this sound familiar? It reminds me of how I ended up in OI. ;)

Really? Why? Have I said something that is not 'inkeeping' with the revolutionary left? Lol. I don't care if I get restricted anyhow. This is probably the best section in Revleft.

[ComradeMan]

Really? Why? Have I said something that is not 'inkeeping' with the revolutionary left? Lol. I don't care if I get restricted anyhow. This is probably the best section in Revleft.

Don't worry- it wasn't directed at you in any way. The problem in my opinion with some world issues that they are reactionary from top-bottom, left-right, backwards-forwards!!!!!!! There's no win for socialists in these issues in supporting sides. I take my line of non-support for anyone as I don't buy into the whole "my enemy's enemy is my friend" tactic.

[Crimson Commissar]

Don't worry- it wasn't directed at you in any way. The problem in my opinion with some world issues that they are reactionary from top-bottom, left-right, backwards-forwards!!!!!!! There's no win for socialists in these issues in supporting sides. I take my line of non-support for anyone as I don't buy into the whole "my enemy's enemy is my friend" tactic.
I completely agree. Of course, Islamic terrorists oppose the USA like we leftists do. But we also oppose Islamic terrorists, and who else opposes them? The USA. So by the whole enemy of my enemy is my friend logic that most people here seem to support, that also means we should support the US for trying to deal with religious extremism. Both sides in this situation are fucked up and reactionary. Instead of supporting one of them, we should just tell them both to go fuck themselves and try to get the people to support something that would actually help them, like socialism.

[Skooma Addict]

It's not like blowing yourself up is a reasonable reaction to foreign occupation. Terrorists aren't looking more reasonable at all. They are just as stupid as they have always been. While foreign occupation is the main problem, there are also terrorists who take religion way too seriously, and anyone who seriously believes that stuff and takes it that seriously is being extremely illogical even if they don't end up becoming terrorists.

[#FF0000]

It's not like blowing yourself up is a reasonable reaction to foreign occupation. Terrorists aren't looking more reasonable at all. They are just as stupid as they have always been. While foreign occupation is the main problem, there are also terrorists who take religion way too seriously, and anyone who seriously believes that stuff and takes it that seriously is being extremely illogical even if they don't end up becoming terrorists.

yeah actually i am pretty sure there is a huge difference in mindset between a suicide bomber and a regular old insurgent.

[ComradeMan]

yeah actually i am pretty sure there is a huge difference in mindset between a suicide bomber and a regular old insurgent.

Good comment. Perhaps this would be better continued on the guerilla warfare and insurgency thread but it does raise the question about the lines between insurgents and terrorists.

I don't think there is much of a case for the kamekaze attackers, they also indoctrinate children into that stuff too.

[Black Sheep]

I wish people would stop supporting religious batshit wackos (and generally, batshit wackos), because they are branded by capitalism as "the enemy".
Derp dah derp, capitalism attacks this group let's go defend it you guys, and rationalize their batshit-ness.

Religion is bullshit, religion-driven acts and activism is bullshit.End of story.

[ComradeMan]

I wish people would stop supporting religious batshit wackos (and generally, batshit wackos), because they are branded by capitalism as "the enemy".
Derp dah derp, capitalism attacks this group let's go defend it you guys, and rationalize their batshit-ness.

Religion is bullshit, religion-driven acts and activism is bullshit.End of story.

Not so long ago I was being branded as reactionary because I would not support the Taliban. In fact someone told me straight out "we (leftists) must support the Taliban", basically for exactly the same reasons you stated above. :confused:

[RGacky3]

Many leftist groups in latin America are Catholic do they not get our support either? Or is it only atheist groups that get your support?

[ComradeMan]

Many leftist groups in latin America are Catholic do they not get our support either? Or is it only atheist groups that get your support?

I say don't mix religion and politics personally. But do those leftist groups in Latin America have a history of suicide bombing? They are also leftist and I doubt they would go along with rightwing Catholic ideas either. Could you please tell us more? :)

The trouble is that when it comes to other groups the left has seemed to take this position that anyone against America is on our side. The Taliban for one example are probably the most reactionary group you could imagine and they also do a lot of harm to fellow muslims.

[RGacky3]

The "terrorists" don't attack the United States because of religoius grievences, its political, religion is obviously involved because their political actions need to be cleared religiously (i.e. they need to find justification), but its political, they want the US out of their buisiness.


They are also leftist and I doubt they would go along with rightwing Catholic ideas either. Could you please tell us more? :)



Many of the central American revolutionary leaders were liberation theologists, the Zapatistas were strongly supported by many priests in the area, its pretty widespread (Catholocism is'nt one line).


The trouble is that when it comes to other groups the left has seemed to take this position that anyone against America is on our side. The Taliban for one example are probably the most reactionary group you could imagine and they also do a lot of harm to fellow muslims.

The Taliban are not international terrorists, or really terrorists at all.


It's not like blowing yourself up is a reasonable reaction to foreign occupation.

But dropping a nuclear bomb is a reasonable reaction to .... not even an occupation? IS an occupation reasonable? What is the reasonable reaction to an occupation?


While foreign occupation is the main problem, there are also terrorists who take religion way too seriously, and anyone who seriously believes that stuff and takes it that seriously is being extremely illogical even if they don't end up becoming terrorists.

Most suicide bombers do so for politcal reasons, not relgious ones.

btw, THE TALIBAN ARE NOT TERRORISTS, they are a political group within pakistan and afhanistan.

[ComradeMan]

I'm sorry RGacky, I understand your points- but to be a suicide bomber? You need to have some serious religious stuff going on in your head to do that.

[Crimson Commissar]

Many leftist groups in latin America are Catholic do they not get our support either? Or is it only atheist groups that get your support?
By catholic do you mean most members are catholic, or are they openly religious and want to build a society around catholicism?

[synthesis]

I'm sorry RGacky, I understand your points- but to be a suicide bomber? You need to have some serious religious stuff going on in your head to do that.

Totally untrue. For one thing, the modern political use of suicide bombings was in part pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, a secular nationalist organization.


Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims. Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism... Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands.

[ComradeMan]

Totally untrue. For one thing, the modern political use of suicide bombings was in part pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, a secular nationalist organization.

I don't think that's really right. The history of suicide attacks goes back at least to colonial times. There was also the Narodnaya Vola in Russia. Isolated attacks of such time have been known throughout history. What about the kamikaze attacks in the Second World War? They were out-and-out suicide attacks based on a fundamentalist, almost-religious, worship of the state and dedication to the Emperor of Japan combined with Shinto. Remember before and during WWII the Emperor of Japan was "Divine"- officially.

Originally Posted by Robert Pape
Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims. Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism... Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands.

I agree in part but remember there is also the line that the presence of the infidels in Islamic lands is considered by these groups to be a form of blasphemy or at least they have found a justification through Islam. Although I have no doubt there are cynical and secular aims to these groups, in order to convince someone to do such an extreme act I think that you need some kind of religious indoctrination, as with Japan, as with "islamic" terrorism.

In the case of the Tamil Tigers it may well be more a political fundamentalism but then each area needs to be evaluated and analysed separately. I don't know enough about the Tamils to go in-depth. Nevertheless because the Tamil groups were not driven by an extreme form of religious doctrine does not mean that so-called Islamic groups are not.

[hatzel]

Oh, c'mon, I'm the only one who would consider all that Japanese kind of stuff religion! I've been told that apparently it's not...because if you open to door to that being a religion, then you open the door to those other religions, such as Marxism and Fascism, being branded as such...

In summary: yeah, there have been plenty of non-religious (in the traditional sense) suicide attackers. It is noble to die for your country and all that stuff, don't have to be (traditionally) religious to take that one a little bit too far...

[ComradeMan]

Oh, c'mon, I'm the only one who would consider all that Japanese kind of stuff religion! I've been told that apparently it's not...because if you open to door to that being a religion, then you open the door to those other religions, such as Marxism and Fascism, being branded as such...

In summary: yeah, there have been plenty of non-religious (in the traditional sense) suicide attackers. It is noble to die for your country and all that stuff, don't have to be (traditionally) religious to take that one a little bit too far...

The Japanese military regime used shintoism and dedication to the divine emperor as part of its indoctrination. I don't think it's unhistorical to say that. State Shinto was abolished in 1946.

朕ト爾等國民トノ間ノ紐帯ハ、終始相互ノ信頼ト敬愛トニ依リテ結バレ、單ナル神話ト傳説トニ依リテ生ゼルモ ノニ非ズ。天皇ヲ以テ現御神トシ、且日本國民ヲ以テ他ノ民族ニ優越セル民族ニシテ、延テ世界ヲ支配スベキ運 命ヲ有ストノ架空ナル觀念ニ基クモノニモ非ズ。 The ties between Us and Our people have always stood upon mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends and myths. They are not predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine, and that the Japanese people are superior to other races and fated to rule the world.

[RGacky3]

I'm sorry RGacky, I understand your points- but to be a suicide bomber? You need to have some serious religious stuff going on in your head to do that.


Most people that go to war do so with a belief in an after life which is why they are willing to seriously risk and many times give their life, sure those people are religious, but thats not the motivation, the same with religious Amricans that join the special forces, its a coping mechanism.


What about the kamikaze attacks in the Second World War? They were out-and-out suicide attacks based on a fundamentalist, almost-religious, worship of the state and dedication to the Emperor of Japan combined with Shinto. Remember before and during WWII the Emperor of Japan was "Divine"- officially.


Almost religious worship of the state? You can say ANY dedication is almost-religious worship, also you compleatly ignored the Tamil Tigers.

BTW, "devine" in eastern coltures has a different connotation to jedeo-christian cultures (which includes Islam).

But again, blaiming it on religion is gonna get you no where, and really its just a way to take any responsibility away from imperialist nations, to make it seam like these guys are just crazy and unreasonable.

[ComradeMan]

@RGacky3

Most people that go to war do so with a belief in an after life which is why they are willing to seriously risk and many times give their life, sure those people are religious, but thats not the motivation, the same with religious Amricans that join the special forces, its a coping mechanism.

Do they? Where are the stats? This seems to be contradicted by many other examples, including the Tamil one.

Almost religious worship of the state? You can say ANY dedication is almost-religious worship, also you compleatly ignored the Tamil Tigers.

State Shinto- come on- it was the complete militarisation of the national indigenous religion of Japan in the name of the Divine Emperor. I think that it falls into the realm of religious fanaticism. I did not ignore the Tamil Tigers- I said I don't know enough about the situation to comment. If you do then please comment. :thumbup1:

BTW, "devine" in eastern coltures has a different connotation to jedeo-christian cultures (which includes Islam).

What is that? The emperor of Japan was forced to declare after the war that he was not an incarnation of God- Arahitogami 現人神 a kami (deity) who is a human being. State Shinto applied the word to the then emperor Hirohito and obligated Japanese people to obey absolutely and have loyalty to the Emperor as a kami.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arahitogami

But again, blaiming it on religion is gonna get you no where, and really its just a way to take any responsibility away from imperialist nations, to make it seam like these guys are just crazy and unreasonable.

So you are denying that religion does not play a role in all of this? On the basis many of the accusations made against Christianity fall to the ground too- the Crusades and so on.

Someone who turns themselves into a human bomb and hurls themselves into a crowd of people indiscriminately is not exactly high on the list of rational thinkers- whatever their motivation.

From a guerilla perspective it's a sheer terror tactic and nothing else. You lose (a) figher(s) this way, you turn "public" or "civilian" opinion against you, you give your enemies a mountain of gold in rhetorical propaganda, you waste money and resources and you seldom achieve a military "victory" or objective. The only thing left then is the fact that you instill terror.

[RGacky3]

Do they? Where are the stats? This seems to be contradicted by many other examples, including the Tamil one.


THe whole point of the thread was the article filled with those states, read it.


I did not ignore the Tamil Tigers- I said I don't know enough about the situation to comment. If you do then please comment.

The Tamil Tigers are a nationalist reovlutionary group and extremely secular and they were the ones that made suicide bombing a popular insurgent tactic, before the Islamic insurgants got a hold of it.


So you are denying that religion does not play a role in all of this? On the basis many of the accusations made against Christianity fall to the ground too- the Crusades and so on.


Religion plays a roll in the same way spreading democracy plays a roll in American wars, justification, the Crusades were actually more religiously motivated, but the evidence toward modern day islamic terrorists shows that they are politically motivated.


Someone who turns themselves into a human bomb and hurls themselves into a crowd of people indiscriminately is not exactly high on the list of rational thinkers- whatever their motivation.


Why not? You could say the same thing about Soldier "heros" that take a bullet for the president or to save a military target.


From a guerilla perspective it's a sheer terror tactic and nothing else. You lose (a) figher(s) this way, you turn "public" or "civilian" opinion against you, you give your enemies a mountain of gold in rhetorical propaganda, you waste money and resources and you seldom achieve a military "victory" or objective. The only thing left then is the fact that you instill terror.

Fine, but what would you say the "shock and awe" campain was?

[ComradeMan]

@RGacky3

THe whole point of the thread was the article filled with those states, read it.

Is there a statistic on how many people go to war believing in an afterlife? I think that's an assumption- it may be true or false but we have no way of establishing this as a fact.

The Tamil Tigers are a nationalist reovlutionary group and extremely secular and they were the ones that made suicide bombing a popular insurgent tactic, before the Islamic insurgants got a hold of it.

Note you use the word Islamic insurgants- the religious adjective is in there. But I would argue that they did not invent the tactic and I am not sure what you mean by making it popular- seeing as the probably the most famous example from the 20th century would be that of the kamikaze. In Italian they use the phrase "attacco kamikaze" more often and not "attacco suicidio".

Religion plays a roll in the same way spreading democracy plays a roll in American wars, justification, the Crusades were actually more religiously motivated, but the evidence toward modern day islamic terrorists shows that they are politically motivated.

The Crusades were not then also about the power struggle between Western European feudal states and the Byzantine Empire against the Islamic states for the control of a key area of the highly lucrative silk road and the gateway into the Eastern Mediterranean? Even the anti-semitic acts committed in the Middle-Ages were often motivated by economics underneath.

Why not? You could say the same thing about Soldier "heros" that take a bullet for the president or to save a military target.

No there is a fundamental difference. The "hero" that dies to save comrades or another life does not define himself or herself as a suicide soldier- it happened and on the spur of the moment and they did it. On the other hand, suicide bombers' whole raison d'etre is that of suicide attacks.

Fine, but what would you say the "shock and awe" campain was?

Well no one said terror campaigns were the sole preserve of "Islamist" insurgants did they? However from a military perspective you might say that the "shock and awe" campaign was a failure too.

[synthesis]

ComradeMan, your claim was:


You need to have some serious religious stuff going on in your head to do that [suicide bombing]

And I demonstrated that was untrue. Any idea is worth dying for when you believe in it enough.

[ComradeMan]

ComradeMan, your claim was:



And I demonstrated that was untrue. Any idea is worth dying for when you believe in it enough.

Okay fair point and I see what you're saying.

But the normal military rhetoric of all groups usually has some "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" credo.

In this specific example however: are we saying that radical islamist suicide bombers are not in part indoctrinated with some extreme and twisted religious motivation?

[RGacky3]

Is there a statistic on how many people go to war believing in an afterlife? I think that's an assumption- it may be true or false but we have no way of establishing this as a fact.


The vast majority of Americans believe in an afterlife and God, so I'm guesssing so does most of the armed forces, its a logical conclusion, however, if you REALLY want to argue that most of American soldiers do not believe in god or an after life, make the statement and stand by it, see how many people take you seriously.


Note you use the word Islamic insurgants- the religious adjective is in there.

Would you rather I used Arab? Does it matter? Thats what they are commonly known as.


But I would argue that they did not invent the tactic and I am not sure what you mean by making it popular- seeing as the probably the most famous example from the 20th century would be that of the kamikaze. In Italian they use the phrase "attacco kamikaze" more often and not "attacco suicidio".



What i mean by suicide attack is strapping a bomb to your person and blowing yourself up, that tactic was innovated by the tamil tigers.


The Crusades were not then also about the power struggle between Western European feudal states and the Byzantine Empire against the Islamic states for the control of a key area of the highly lucrative silk road and the gateway into the Eastern Mediterranean? Even the anti-semitic acts committed in the Middle-Ages were often motivated by economics underneath.



Again my point was there was MORE of a religious motivation during the cursades than there are with the "terrorists," I did'nt say it was all religious.

[ComradeMan]

@RGacky3

The vast majority of Americans believe in an afterlife and God, so I'm guesssing so does most of the armed forces, its a logical conclusion, however, if you REALLY want to argue that most of American soldiers do not believe in god or an after life, make the statement and stand by it, see how many people take you seriously.

So because it's true (maybe) for a America it's true for everyone... What about the Red Army what about the Chinese Army, what about the Cuban Army? You weren't talking about the American army as such were you?

Would you rather I used Arab? Does it matter? Thats what they are commonly known as.

Well, no I wouldn't rather you use Arab because that would be factually inaccurate. The fact is these groups in question use (themselves) an islamist etiquette and attach themselves to extreme forms of Islamic belief- so it's hardly unfair to attack people for associating them with extremist religion.

What i mean by suicide attack is strapping a bomb to your person and blowing yourself up, that tactic was innovated by the tamil tigers.

Okay- so we are talking about the tactic now. Even though I see little difference between the "modern" tactic and the Japanese kamikaze- human bomb or human plane bomb.

Again my point was there was MORE of a religious motivation during the cursades than there are with the "terrorists," I did'nt say it was all religious.

I thought your original point was that it was propaganda to make out that suicide bombers were dangerous fanatics.

[RGacky3]

So because it's true (maybe) for a America it's true for everyone... What about the Red Army what about the Chinese Army, what about the Cuban Army? You weren't talking about the American army as such were you?


Ok, in those countries there are more atheist soldiers, look whats your point?


The fact is these groups in question use (themselves) an islamist etiquette and attach themselves to extreme forms of Islamic belief- so it's hardly unfair to attack people for associating them with extremist religion.



WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION!!????? Thats what we are talking about, and their motivation is NOT religious.


I thought your original point was that it was propaganda to make out that suicide bombers were dangerous fanatics.

THat was my point, I'm not saying religion is'nt used, its used as a justification and coping mechanism, but thats not the motivation, and it never has been.

[ComradeMan]

THat was my point, I'm not saying religion is'nt used, its used as a justification and coping mechanism, but thats not the motivation, and it never has been.

But I think we know that. At the same time I don't think it's unreasonable to say that religious indoctrination is used. Isn't easier to convince someone to perpetrate such an extreme act of violence if you can also convince them that they will be guaranteed a place in paradise for doing so?

[RGacky3]

of coarse, but its used all over the place, my point is that they are not unreasonable crazed terrorists that will attack no matter what, its a very specific goal.

[Crimson Commissar]

of coarse, but its used all over the place, my point is that they are not unreasonable crazed terrorists that will attack no matter what, its a very specific goal.
Their goal is to preserve the brutal Islamic theocracies of the middle-east. Not saying that the brutal capitalist state that the US wants to impose on them is any better of course.

[ComradeMan]

of coarse, but its used all over the place, my point is that they are not unreasonable crazed terrorists that will attack no matter what, its a very specific goal.

What are they then if they are not fanatical groups who use terror tactics against (mostly) civilian targets?

[RGacky3]

Their goal is to preserve the brutal Islamic theocracies of the middle-east.

Really? Al Quaida? Hezbolla? Hamas? Is that their goal? Al Quaida's affiliates?

Al Quaida has a mission statement, read it.


What are they then if they are not fanatical groups who use terror tactics against (mostly) civilian targets?

Those terror tactics are not the majority of the tactics, what are they? A group trying to fight imperialism in their country, What is the United States military???

You want terrorism to stop? PULL out of the middle east, thats whats gonna stop it, thats what draws people to those groups, and thats their motivation.

[Crimson Commissar]

Really? Al Quaida? Hezbolla? Hamas? Is that their goal? Al Quaida's affiliates?

Al Quaida has a mission statement, read it.
From what I could find, it seems Al Qaeda wants to uphold the "supreme teachings of god". Therefore it's likely they have no problem with defending the Islamic theocracies that dominate the middle east.


Those terror tactics are not the majority of the tactics, what are they? A group trying to fight imperialism in their country, What is the United States military???

You want terrorism to stop? PULL out of the middle east, thats whats gonna stop it, thats what draws people to those groups, and thats their motivation.
Did we ever say that we DIDN'T want to pull out of the middle east? I fully support such an action, simply because the situation in the middle east is going to be shitty no matter which side wins, at least until the people of Afghanistan and Iraq turn to socialism. You'd have to be a pretty shitty leftist to not recognise how much suffering that the wars in the middle-east are causing.

[RGacky3]

From what I could find, it seems Al Qaeda wants to uphold the "supreme teachings of god".

Every christian wants to "uphold the supreme teachings of god" so does every muslim and jew and so on. The reason Al Qaeda exists is to get the United States out of the holy lands.

[#FF0000]

It's amazing it's almost like nobody read the OP at all and just want to jump in and carry on about those craaaaaaaaaaazy muslims.

I wonder why they would want to do that.

[Crimson Commissar]

Every christian wants to "uphold the supreme teachings of god" so does every muslim and jew and so on. The reason Al Qaeda exists is to get the United States out of the holy lands.
And you support that? No land is holy. Nothing is holy. The teachings of a non-existant God are fucking NOT the sort of thing we should be basing our society on.

[ComradeMan]

It's amazing it's almost like nobody read the OP at all and just want to jump in and carry on about those craaaaaaaaaaazy muslims.

I wonder why they would want to do that.

No one is talking about those crazy muslims to start with. I wouldn't offend decent muslims who are also workers by associating them automatically with islamist terror groups- hence using the word islamist terror group and not muslim.

I'm sorry but having a major part of your campaign based on suicide bomb attacks indiscriminately against civilian targets is not reasonable and not the right way to go about things by anyone's standards. Stop trying to turn this into a muslim thing which it is not. It's like saying Jewish= Zionist- it's not the same thing.

[synthesis]

Okay fair point and I see what you're saying.

But the normal military rhetoric of all groups usually has some "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" credo.

In this specific example however: are we saying that radical islamist suicide bombers are not in part indoctrinated with some extreme and twisted religious motivation?

It is fundamentally an issue of nationalism. There is no other way to understand it.

[RGacky3]

And you support that? No land is holy. Nothing is holy. The teachings of a non-existant God are fucking NOT the sort of thing we should be basing our society on.

Sure, now back on topic.

THE "terrorists" are motivated by political reasons, not religious, and their aims are generally reasonable anti-imperialist ones.



It's amazing it's almost like nobody read the OP at all and just want to jump in and carry on about those craaaaaaaaaaazy muslims.

I wonder why they would want to do that.


Because they are islamophobes, i.e. bigots., but yeah, read my goddamn origional post.

[ComradeMan]

Sure, now back on topic.

THE "terrorists" are motivated by political reasons, not religious, and their aims are generally reasonable anti-imperialist ones.



Because they are islamophobes, i.e. bigots., but yeah, read my goddamn origional post.


Sorry but criticising terror groups that use, and I would say besmirch, the name of Islam is no more islamophobic than criticising Israeli policies is anti-Semitic- it depends on the words used and the approach. But to write people off as islamophobes because they aren't too keen on terror groups who profess at least to carry out their acts in the name of their interpretation of Islam is unfair.

Your original post seemed to question the validity of depicting fundamentalist terror groups as... well fundamentalist terror groups.

[empiredestoryer]

terrorism is freedom fighting a very good word

[RGacky3]

Sorry but criticising terror groups that use, and I would say besmirch, the name of Islam is no more islamophobic than criticising Israeli policies is anti-Semitic- it depends on the words used and the approach. But to write people off as islamophobes because they aren't too keen on terror groups who profess at least to carry out their acts in the name of their interpretation of Islam is unfair.


Look the point of this thread was to show their fight is political not religious, I'd like to discuss that.

[Decolonize The Left]

Who, or what, is a "terrorist?" Someone who uses violence to induce terror within a citizenry of a given place?

If this is the case, and I believe it is, then governments are the biggest terrorists of all. The military terrorizes cultures, nations, peoples, etc... continuously. If we want to use the term we need to use it properly.

- August

[ComradeMan]

Who, or what, is a "terrorist?" Someone who uses violence to induce terror within a citizenry of a given place?

If this is the case, and I believe it is, then governments are the biggest terrorists of all. The military terrorizes cultures, nations, peoples, etc... continuously. If we want to use the term we need to use it properly.

- August

I agree but that does not justify the "other camps" either. I am not going to be ideologically coerced into supporting groups who use terror tactics against civilians whoever they are, government, freedom fighter, rebel or whatever they call themselves.

It's wrong and achieves nothing.

[RGacky3]

Who, or what, is a "terrorist?" Someone who uses violence to induce terror within a citizenry of a given place?

If this is the case, and I believe it is, then governments are the biggest terrorists of all. The military terrorizes cultures, nations, peoples, etc... continuously. If we want to use the term we need to use it properly.

- August


I agree, I call them that, because thats what they are commonly known as, I say islamic insurgents and they say "ahh ahh ahh, you said islam, that means they are religious fanatics motivated by religious zeal."


I am not going to be ideologically coerced into supporting groups who use terror tactics against civilians whoever they are, government, freedom fighter, rebel or whatever they call themselves.



I'm not saying support them, I'm saying understand what they are doing, I'm saying understand what their goals are and what their mentality is rather than juts making them some sort of devilish boogyman that is extra-unreasonable and just pure evil. Shit I don't even call myself a materialist, but we have to look at their actionas from a materialistic standpoint, why do they do what they do.

[Crimson Commissar]

I'm not saying support them, I'm saying understand what they are doing, I'm saying understand what their goals are and what their mentality is rather than juts making them some sort of devilish boogyman that is extra-unreasonable and just pure evil. Shit I don't even call myself a materialist, but we have to look at their actionas from a materialistic standpoint, why do they do what they do.
Yeah. But we are. No one's saying they're mindless muslim zealots. We understand WHY they do it, we just don't like what they're doing.

[Ele'ill]

We would perhaps be able to sympathize (and I use that word a bit too recklessly here) with such movements if their tactics didn't kill more civilians than enemy combatants.

It is also important to understand that when you hear the news say 'civilians killed' those 'civilians' may have been armed settlers or enemy combatants that are not being identified

[RGacky3]

Yeah. But we are. No one's saying they're mindless muslim zealots. We understand WHY they do it, we just don't like what they're doing.

Ok, I'm glad you get that they are not mindless muslim zealots, that was my point.


It is also important to understand that when you hear the news say 'civilians killed' those 'civilians' may have been armed settlers or enemy combatants that are not being identified

Its also important that when they say 10 Islamic militants were killed, 2 of them could have been armed, 4 might be people that happened to support hamas, and the other 4 ... We'll guilt by associacion (association meaning being in their way).

[ComradeMan]

Islamist is not the same as Muslim- this is ignorance but to deny that certain groups are in fact Islamists is going a bit far. By their deeds shall they be judged.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who, or what, is a "terrorist?" Someone who uses violence to induce terror within a citizenry of a given place?

If this is the case, and I believe it is, then governments are the biggest terrorists of all. The military terrorizes cultures, nations, peoples, etc... continuously. If we want to use the term we need to use it properly.

- August

My understanding is that while military actions by nation-states do induce terror, this is more of a side-effect since statist militaries generally have the resources to achieve their goals directly, as opposed to attempting to influence opinion with terrorist attacks (which is unlike, say, a squadron of planes bombing a radar outpost).

Case in point; the 9/11 attacks, while they destroyed a major landmark and caused millions in damage, had worldwide political reverberations that are still occurring to this day.

Saying "militaries are terrorists too lol" expands the definition of terrorist into uselessness and gives a false sense of equivalence; Al Qaeda and the US military are different beasts.

[RGacky3]

Islamist is not the same as Muslim- this is ignorance but to deny that certain groups are in fact Islamists is going a bit far. By their deeds shall they be judged.


Your right, Muslim is the name of people who follow islam, Islamist is a made up word by American comentators to try and make Islam sound like a political movement.


My understanding is that while military actions by nation-states do induce terror, this is more of a side-effect since statist militaries generally have the resources to achieve their goals directly

Not really, look at hiroshema, was that a military strategy? No it was a terrorist attack to force surrender, the same goes with the shock and awe campain, it was'nt really a military goal, it was a terrorist tactic to make the Iraqi military terrified.

The same goes with American operations in latin America, almost all of it is terroristic, i.e. to make people afraid of joining leftist groups.

[Sosa]

While some might have an argument when saying that these terrorists are primarily driven by political reasons, you cannot ignore the radical religious elements that are also a major part of their ideology. These are reactionary forces that want to establish their version of theocracy and suppression. No, I don't think they are looking more and more reasonable. Whether its political or religious ideology that's the main driving force behind their terrorism it's sill as wrong

[Ele'ill]

Its also important that when they say 10 Islamic militants were killed, 2 of them could have been armed, 4 might be people that happened to support hamas, and the other 4 ... We'll guilt by associacion (association meaning being in their way).

This goes along with what I was saying- such as when Israel reports on one of their attacks- or when they report on an attack against them. "Five civilians were killed etc..." when those five civilians were militant settlers that not 10 minutes before their death were shooting at Palestinians- but when the truth in these types of circumstances surfaces it's blurred by major media as 'well it's an area of conflict and the conflict continues...' - Suddenly the specifics don't matter.

[Manifesto]

Why is this an argument? Letter written by Osama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver) "
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."
Nowhere does it say God told them to do it.

[Sosa]

Why is this an argument? Letter written by Osama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver) "
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."
Nowhere does it say God told them to do it.

He might not say explicitly "God told me to" but he uses many verses in the Quran to justify and suggest that Allah endorses his cause.


(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

The Nation of honour and respect:
"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]



"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]


The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life:
"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers." [Quran 3:169-171]



The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]



"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]

[Manifesto]

He might not say explicitly "God told me to" but he uses many verses in the Quran to justify and suggest that Allah endorses his cause.


(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

The Nation of honour and respect:
"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]



"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]


The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life:
"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers." [Quran 3:169-171]



The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]



"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]
....Um ok but that still has nothing to do with WHY he did it.

[Sosa]

....Um ok but that still has nothing to do with WHY he did it.

I'll direct you to my previous quote:


While some might have an argument when saying that these terrorists are primarily driven by political reasons, you cannot ignore the radical religious elements that are also a major part of their ideology. These are reactionary forces that want to establish their version of theocracy and suppression. No, I don't think they are looking more and more reasonable. Whether its political or religious ideology that's the main driving force behind their terrorism it's sill as wrong

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not really, look at hiroshema, was that a military strategy? No it was a terrorist attack to force surrender, the same goes with the shock and awe campain, it was'nt really a military goal, it was a terrorist tactic to make the Iraqi military terrified.

The same goes with American operations in latin America, almost all of it is terroristic, i.e. to make people afraid of joining leftist groups.

I did not say that militaries never use terrorist tactics, only that most of the time they do not need to. You don't need to threaten anyone into giving you anything when you can just take what you want by force.

[RGacky3]

While some might have an argument when saying that these terrorists are primarily driven by political reasons, you cannot ignore the radical religious elements that are also a major part of their ideology. These are reactionary forces that want to establish their version of theocracy and suppression. No, I don't think they are looking more and more reasonable. Whether its political or religious ideology that's the main driving force behind their terrorism it's sill as wrong

The Goal of Al Qeada is not to establish theocracy, the same with most affiliated "terrorist" groups, you just saw their freaking mission statement.

As for Isreal, most of their support comes from nutty evangelicals that think that Gods Kingdom will come along with the State of Isreal, THOSE people are dangerous, much more dangerous and unreasonable than the Islamic terrorists.


You don't need to threaten anyone into giving you anything when you can just take what you want by force.

You do when you need to keep the Status quo and keep a system in place.

BTW, thank you Manifesto for posting that.

[Sosa]

The Goal of Al Qeada is not to establish theocracy, the same with most affiliated "terrorist" groups, you just saw their freaking mission statement.

Of course not, they prefer a secular government :rolleyes:

their ultimate aim is to reestablish the Caliphate—the empire of Islam’s early golden age—and thereby empower a formidable array of truly Islamic states.

[RGacky3]

Of course not, they prefer a secular government :rolleyes:


Thats not what I said, what I said is thats not their goal, thats not the reason they attack the west or engage in violent struggle and terrorism.


their ultimate aim is to reestablish the Caliphate—the empire of Islam’s early golden age—and thereby empower a formidable array of truly Islamic states.

I guess Bin Laden told this to you, while giving a fake mission statement to everyone else.

[Sosa]

Thats not what I said, what I said is thats not their goal, thats not the reason they attack the west or engage in violent struggle and terrorism.



I guess Bin Laden told this to you, while giving a fake mission statement to everyone else.

Let's go back for a second, shall we? While their PRIMARY goal is politically driven (as I have conceded in an earlier post) their ultimate goal is to reestablish a caliphate. This is no secret. This mission statement gives the reason why they are attacking the West, I'm not denying that. They employ Islamic faith to legitimize their philosophy and actions.

I'm not saying their attacking the West simply to establish a theocracy here. Their feelings about overthrowing secular and pro-western regimes, like the Saudi's and Egypt to establish their brand of theocracy...this is clearly identifiable in al Qaeda ideology as another of the organization’s main objectives.

You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the primary sources, go to their website, check out their statements, check out their videos

[Sosa]

On the fatwa, or edict, that he has issued calling on Muslims to kill Americans where they can, regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians:



"Allah ordered us in this religion to purify Muslim land of all non-believers"

Let's not be naive about their intentions. Political motivation is not the ONLY reason they are fighting against the West.

[ComradeMan]

With these radical groups of Islamists you cannot separate religion and politics. Al Quaeda does not and would not respect secularism.

[RGacky3]

With these radical groups of Islamists you cannot separate religion and politics. Al Quaeda does not and would not respect secularism.


Ok, but we are talking about why they attack the west and why people join those groups, people join those groups FOR political reasons.

[ComradeMan]

Ok, but we are talking about why they attack the west and why people join those groups, people join those groups FOR political reasons.

... and with these particular groups there is no separation between religion and politics- religion, or their version of religion, decides much of their politics.

[RGacky3]

... and with these particular groups there is no separation between religion and politics- religion, or their version of religion, decides much of their politics.

Really have you asked them? Because other people have and its in the article if you fancy a read.

[ComradeMan]

Really have you asked them? Because other people have and its in the article if you fancy a read.

Look I have no doubt that they have valid arguments but at the same time what's with the apologetics for terror groups- whoever they are? In "pure" Islam it is theocracy- there is no separation of religion and state, i.e. the politics are controlled by the dogma.

[RGacky3]

In "pure" Islam it is theocracy- there is no separation of religion and state, i.e. the politics are controlled by the dogma.

There is no "pure" Islam, just as there is not "pure" christianity, every muslim and every christian thinks their version is "pure."


Look I have no doubt that they have valid arguments but at the same time what's with the apologetics for terror groups- whoever they are?

Saying they have reaonsable conserns and their motivations are not religious but political, and that they CAN be negotiated with reasonably is not being apologist.

[ComradeMan]

There is no "pure" Islam, just as there is not "pure" christianity, every muslim and every christian thinks their version is "pure."


Saying they have reaonsable conserns and their motivations are not religious but political, and that they CAN be negotiated with reasonably is not being apologist.

- Okay- perhaps "pure" was the wrong word- fundamentalist, to the letter, exacti 100% adherence to the scriptures in their literal form. You cannot overlook the qualitative differences between various doctrines and their ideologies either.

-Second- you keep saying their motives are not religious but political and people keep pointing out that their motives are both as in their theocratic worldview you cannot separate them. As for negotations- what negotations? In the short-term maybe but in the longterm what- a restoration of the Caliphate? The establishment of Islamic theocracies?

[RGacky3]

fundamentalist, to the letter, exacti 100% adherence to the scriptures in their literal form.

I also think thats a bit rediculous, fundamentalist christians don't adhere to the new testiment in literal form, most of them don't even know what it says, fundamentalist is just a word for people that interprate it their scriptures in a loonyway, if fundemtentalist christians were ACTUALLY "fundementalists" (they followed the fundementals of the scriptures) they would look a lot lot different, they would be the ones in prison in the 60s for being draft dogers as the origional christians were. As far as Islam I'm gessing the same is true, inerpritation makes the difference.


. As for negotations- what negotations? In the short-term maybe but in the longterm what- a restoration of the Caliphate? The establishment of Islamic theocracies?

Who on earth would support Al Qaeda without a US military occupation? Did Al Qaeda exist before that? DId ANYONE really care about creating a theocratic Caliphate before that.

Am I saying that some in Al Qaeda would still hold on to trying to make the world into a islamitc theocracy? Perhaps, but most of them, most of their support would die off.

Al Qaeda is influenced and justified by their theocratic world view but its not their motivation and that is VERY important, because their theocratic world view is just a support for their motivation, take that away they'll find something else, The US uses religion and democracy, other powers use other things, but what we need to deal with is their motivations to turn to violence, those motivations are political.

[ComradeMan]

@RGacky3

I also think thats a bit rediculous, fundamentalist christians don't adhere to the new testiment in literal form, most of them don't even know what it says, fundamentalist is just a word for people that interprate it their scriptures in a loonyway, if fundemtentalist christians were ACTUALLY "fundementalists" (they followed the fundementals of the scriptures) they would look a lot lot different, they would be the ones in prison in the 60s for being draft dogers as the origional christians were. As far as Islam I'm gessing the same is true, inerpritation makes the difference.

Well I hate to say it but I think you are wrong here on many counts. Fundamentalists today do exactly that- they base their principles on rigid literal readings of scripture and use those scriptures- literally to defend their positions, like Creationists with the controversy over evolution (even though the Vatican doesn't!!!) etc. But don't forget the saying "the devil can use scripture for his own ends"- you can twist around anything to say just about anything you want.

Who on earth would support Al Qaeda without a US military occupation? Did Al Qaeda exist before that? DId ANYONE really care about creating a theocratic Caliphate before that.

Probably the US military should Al Qaeda decide to choose a different enemy. Wahhabism goes back to the 18th century. You cannot brush all of this under the carpet and blame the US. Certainly US foreign policies have exacerbated the situation and brought it to a head but to blame Islamist fundamentalism on the US is naive. It is open to debate what the connection is between Wahhabism and the "modern" phenomenon of Al Qaeda- many connect Bin Ladin's ideology more to Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) who was a complete reactionary from leftist points of view- look at the latter's Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq:

Much of the Muslim world approaches the Qur'an as a means to simply acquire culture and information, to participate in academic discussions and enjoyment. This evades the real purpose, for rather, it should be approached as a means to change society, to removed man from the enslavement of other men to the servitude of God
Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq. Ch. 1, p. 7

Am I saying that some in Al Qaeda would still hold on to trying to make the world into a islamitc theocracy? Perhaps, but most of them, most of their support would die off.

But perhaps they would not either?

Al Qaeda is influenced and justified by their theocratic world view but its not their motivation and that is VERY important, because their theocratic world view is just a support for their motivation, take that away they'll find something else, The US uses religion and democracy, other powers use other things, but what we need to deal with is their motivations to turn to violence, those motivations are political.

Al Qaeda is not justified by anything nor is anyone else calling for global theocracies of any kind of religion for that matter.

[RGacky3]

Al Qaeda is not justified by anything nor is anyone else calling for global theocracies of any kind of religion for that matter.

YOu misunderstood me, I mean they justify it to themselves using religion.


But perhaps they would not either?


All evidence points to that they will, because thats their motivation.


you can twist around anything to say just about anything you want.



Exactly, which is why this is'nt and should'nt be a theological debate.

[ComradeMan]

YOu misunderstood me, I mean they justify it to themselves using religion.



All evidence points to that they will, because thats their motivation.



Exactly, which is why this is'nt and should'nt be a theological debate.

Look- it's not a theological matter to say that groups who use terror are terrorists and that groups who espouse a religious ideology are religious. It's like saying the Nazis weren't really anti-Semitic it was just politics and economics.

[RGacky3]

Look- it's not a theological matter to say that groups who use terror are terrorists and that groups who espouse a religious ideology are religious. It's like saying the Nazis weren't really anti-Semitic it was just politics and economics.

If we are discussing what islam says or does'nt thats a theological debate.

[Bud Struggle]

If we are discussing what islam says or does'nt thats a theological debate.

The problem starts when they begin translating what "God says" into how you should live your life on this earth--and furthermore enforcing their "God says" with brute force.

[ComradeMan]

The problem starts when they begin translating what "God says" into how you should live your life on this earth--and furthermore enforcing their "God says" with brute force.

... and of course you only have their word for it that God did actually say that in the first place. I reckon that God probably thinks we are all schmucks when it comes to this.

[RGacky3]

The problem starts when they begin translating what "God says" into how you should live your life on this earth--and furthermore enforcing their "God says" with brute force.

Sure, thats not what they are doing (they being people that join Al Qeada and groups like them, not the Taliban, the Taliban IS NOT AL QEADA!!!!), what they are doing is terrorism directed against the west to fight against imperialism.

You can't lump ALL Islamic groups together, the Taliban is not Al Queda, niether are the Shia mullahs in Iran. Then you have groups like hamas and Hezbolla who are are different thing.

[ComradeMan]

Sure, now back on topic.

THE "terrorists" are motivated by political reasons, not religious, and their aims are generally reasonable anti-imperialist ones.



Because they are islamophobes, i.e. bigots., but yeah, read my goddamn origional post.

Once you exclude the ones that were actually set up and sponsored by reactionary forces themselves.... err humm.... Hamas? Perhaps? Allegedly?

[Bud Struggle]

You can't lump ALL Islamic groups together, the Taliban is not Al Queda, niether are the Shia mullahs in Iran. Then you have groups like hamas and Hezbolla who are are different thing.

Just like you can't lump all Capitalist corporations like Exxon with WalMart with Microsoft or with BP. :)

[RGacky3]

Nope you can't, but they all work within the same system, comparing these groups would be like comparing the Sierra Club with Walmart, they have compleatly differnet mission statements, all corporations have the same mission statement, profit.

[ComradeMan]

Sure, thats not what they are doing (they being people that join Al Qeada and groups like them, not the Taliban, the Taliban IS NOT AL QEADA!!!!), what they are doing is terrorism directed against the west to fight against imperialism.

You can't lump ALL Islamic groups together, the Taliban is not Al Queda, niether are the Shia mullahs in Iran. Then you have groups like hamas and Hezbolla who are are different thing.

They are not fighting against Imperialism because they hate Imperialism, they are imperialists fighting rival imperialists- a lot of them were set up by the fucking "Imperialists" to start with. They are not championing anti-imperialism at all.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope you can't, but they all work within the same system, comparing these groups would be like comparing the Sierra Club with Walmart, they have compleatly differnet mission statements, all corporations have the same mission statement, profit.

You obviously don't read enough quarterly reports! :D

[balaclava]

More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation,

OF COARSE!!!! Its a response to the occupation, in fact what terrorists ALWAYS say, is the attacks will continue until the occupations end,


RUBBISH

The 9/11 attack was not because of ‘occupation’ it was quote: Osama bin; for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel AND because of America’s (alleged) support of the Saudi regime.

And, that came about after the Russians left Afghanistan leaving the mujahadeen looking for their next fight. And, when the ‘foreigners’ leave Afghanistan (and they will) the mujahadeen on the ground there will turn their guns and bombs towards Kashmir. And, if they or any of us are still alive after the Indan’s have nuked them, they will ultimately turn on each other; that is the nature of Islam.

[RGacky3]

They are not fighting against Imperialism because they hate Imperialism, they are imperialists fighting rival imperialists- a lot of them were set up by the fucking "Imperialists" to start with.

Al Queda is imeprialist? They arn't even a country.


The 9/11 attack was not because of ‘occupation’ it was quote: Osama bin; for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel AND because of America’s (alleged) support of the Saudi regime.


ok, different words.

[RGacky3]

BTW, little personal story, I actually mett a former mujahadin, a refugee in Norway that left the group in Iraq because they were making deals with Americans, i had tea with him and his wife (a friend of a friend), he knew I was from LA, and I'll be damned, a perfectly Normal guy, normal couple, his wife did'nt wear a burka or anything, they both wen't to university, his beef was with American imperialism, support of israel and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that was his beef.

Obviously this is just a personal story, but it stuck with me, left me thinking "of coarse he's a normal guy, what did I expect." Are some of those guys assholes? Sure, but so are many troops, but they are ... normal, rational people.

[Bud Struggle]

BTW, little personal story, I actually mett a former mujahadin, a refugee in Norway that left the group in Iraq because they were making deals with Americans, i had tea with him and his wife (a friend of a friend), he knew I was from LA, and I'll be damned, a perfectly Normal guy, normal couple, his wife did'nt wear a burka or anything, they both wen't to university, his beef was with American imperialism, support of israel and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that was his beef.

Obviously this is just a personal story, but it stuck with me, left me thinking "of coarse he's a normal guy, what did I expect." Are some of those guys assholes? Sure, but so are many troops, but they are ... normal, rational people.

And I'll bet you say the same whe you have lunch with a member of the Bourgeoisie. :D

Otherwise--good point.

[RGacky3]

And I'll bet you say the same whe you have lunch with a member of the Bourgeoisie. :D

Otherwise--good point.

I have had lunch with members of the Bourgeoisie (not the top top guys of coarse, but big money guys, guys with places in malibu), and yeah, I've never said that capitalists are evil, I've always said that most people would act the same way as the ruling class do if they had that power, I've got no beef with Capitalists perse as people, I've got a beef with Capitalism, i.e. the system that gives them that power and rewards their destructive actions.

But yeah, there are nice terrorists, and nice capitalists, and asshole terrorists, and asshole capitalist, and neither of them are some evil monsterous boogie man.

[Rottenfruit]

Ive talked to muslims about the taliban and what idologoy and what they seem to resperent is technophobia ( hardcore privmitaism and ) , they view technology as idol worpshiping , one muslim i know refress to the talibans as the amish version of islam , cosing with those loonies is never a good idea , the talibans in afghanistan are an example what happends if a group like westboro baptist church gets politcal power.

[RGacky3]

The Taliban are not terrorists, they are a political group.

[Rottenfruit]

The Taliban are not terrorists, they are a political group.
They are batshit crazy in a way that makes the Spanish inquisition seem rational

[ComradeMan]

http://www.rawa.org/index.php


Check this out....

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/10/26/taliban-schools-to-brainwash-us-suicide-bomber.html

Extract:-

Sixteen-year-old Mohammad Salaam, a student of Class IX, had met Tehreek-e-Taliban leader Zahir Shah at one of these schools.

"Shah said that becoming a suicide bomber was my ticket to heaven, and on the Day of Judgement I would have nothing to worry about," Salaam said.

[RGacky3]

They are batshit crazy in a way that makes the Spanish inquisition seem rational

yeah, but no ones talking about them.

[Bud Struggle]

I missed this before but:


Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamic-terrorists-looking-t143740/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamic-terrorists-looking-t143740/showthread.php?p=1903808#post1903808)
More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation,

OF COARSE!!!! Its a response to the occupation, in fact what terrorists ALWAYS say, is the attacks will continue until the occupations end,

So you are saying that Islamic terrorism toward the West is a result of a Western invasion into Islamic territory? But in a funny way isn't that the same way that neo Nazis and Racists see the Islamic invasion into France and Britain. Maybe the Islamic terrorists and the Skinheads have something in common--a defense of their homeland from what they perceive to be as invaders.

[RGacky3]

So you are saying that Islamic terrorism toward the West is a result of a Western invasion into Islamic territory? But in a funny way isn't that the same way that neo Nazis and Racists see the Islamic invasion into France and Britain. Maybe the Islamic terrorists and the Skinheads have something in common--a defense of their homeland from what they perceive to be as invaders.


Muslims are immigrants in Europe, they arn't setting up military bases, controlling governments, overthrowing governments, setting up puppet regiems, giving huge amounts of weapons to oppressive governments, controlling oil supplies and all of that.

You see the difference?

[ComradeMan]

Muslims are immigrants in Europe, they arn't setting up military bases, controlling governments, overthrowing governments, setting up puppet regiems, giving huge amounts of weapons to oppressive governments, controlling oil supplies and all of that.

You see the difference?

Gacky- the groups you have named are nothing more than lackeys for imperialism in many cases, they are the legacy of the Cold War- turned on their former masters- or so we are led to believe. There is nothing to extoll in these groups even if some of their claims may be valid.

[RGacky3]

Gacky- the groups you have named are nothing more than lackeys for imperialism in many cases, they are the legacy of the Cold War- turned on their former masters- or so we are led to believe. There is nothing to extoll in these groups even if some of their claims may be valid.


I'm just saying, understand the causes.

[Rottenfruit]

Sure, thats not what they are doing (they being people that join Al Qeada and groups like them, not the Taliban, the Taliban IS NOT AL QEADA!!!!), what they are doing is terrorism directed against the west to fight against imperialism.

You can't lump ALL Islamic groups together, the Taliban is not Al Queda, niether are the Shia mullahs in Iran. Then you have groups like hamas and Hezbolla who are are different thing.
Correct vast majority of Muslims are not a part of the extremist sects of Islam, there are diffrent versions of extremist islam but i do lump the extremist sects together such as Salafism and qutbism together and view them both dangerous (islamists is broad term for extreme sects of islam) because they are pretty much the same with minor idological differnces but still share the same fundamentalist backwards mentaltity.

There are differnces between extremist sects of christantiy , Fundamentalist moronism Southren baptism and hypercalvanism are all extremist versions of Christanity although they have minor idological differnces just like the extremist sects in Islam they share the same goal and backwards mentaltiy

[Bud Struggle]

Muslims are immigrants in Europe, they arn't setting up military bases, controlling governments, overthrowing governments, setting up puppet regiems, giving huge amounts of weapons to oppressive governments, controlling oil supplies and all of that.

You see the difference?

I see the difference, but I wonder if the average British or French person does when he see his area of town changed. If he/she sees more strangers and higher crime rates (in some cases.) He sees Moslems trying to implement Shrea law. I'm not saying it is sxactly the same--but the root cause of Moslem terrorism and Skinheads--mught be similar.

And Western intrusion into Moslem states is mor acute than Moslems moving into western countries--so maybe that's why Moslem terrorism is more forceful. But I think there is a real similarity in the root causes of the voilence.

[Revolution starts with U]

Want of ownership is the thing they share, and is the cause of their fighting.

[RGacky3]

but I wonder if the average British or French person does when he see his area of town changed. If he/she sees more strangers and higher crime rates (in some cases.) He sees Moslems trying to implement Shrea law. I'm not saying it is sxactly the same--but the root cause of Moslem terrorism and Skinheads--mught be similar.


Most British and French are not racists, most Muslims are not trying to impliment sharia law.

immigrants comming to try and make a living or trying to escape violence and keeping their culture is not at all the same as what America/England does in the middle east.

One is based on racial predjudice, the other is anti-imperialism.


And Western intrusion into Moslem states is mor acute than Moslems moving into western countries--so maybe that's why Moslem terrorism is more forceful. But I think there is a real similarity in the root causes of the voilence.

Its not Europeans or Westerners moving into the middle east, its political control, violence against arabs, economic imperialism and the such, the root cuases are completely different, Muslims in europe arn't over throwing governments, draining resources and supporting and arming apartied regeims.

[Bud Struggle]

Most British and French are not racists, most Muslims are not trying to impliment sharia law. Of course and most Moslems aren't terrorists either.


immigrants comming to try and make a living or trying to escape violence and keeping their culture is not at all the same as what America/England does in the middle east. Not at the top level but on the ground the average people see the people moving in as invaders. Well some do--and thoswe are the Terrorists in the Middle East and the Neo Nazis in France and Britain. Both sides hust want the others to leave.


One is based on racial predjudice, the other is anti-imperialism. Both want tho other sides to leave. In the days of global economy--that's not going to happen on either side.


Its not Europeans or Westerners moving into the middle east, its political control, violence against arabs, economic imperialism and the such, the root cuases are completely different, Muslims in europe arn't over throwing governments, draining resources and supporting and arming apartied regeims. The operation is different--but both local peoples feel that they are being invaded. And they take a similar response based in frustration.

[RGacky3]

Not at the top level but on the ground the average people see the people moving in as invaders. Well some do--and thoswe are the Terrorists in the Middle East and the Neo Nazis in France and Britain. Both sides hust want the others to leave.

MOST in the middle east don't want continual US support of Isreal, and don't want the US changing governments and taking their oil (very few resort to terrorism). A couple in europe have a problem with immigrants. The reasons are extremely different. One is the result of material and top down oppression, the other is just zenophobia.


Both want tho other sides to leave. In the days of global economy--that's not going to happen on either side.


But there is a HUGE difference.


The operation is different--but both local peoples feel that they are being invaded. And they take a similar response based in frustration.

In the middle east you don't see AMericans moving in in large numbers taking their culture with them, living in slums and perhaps changing the demographics of a neighborhood, it has nothing to do with that.

People in the middle east arn't worried about actual people moving in, its political and economic control of the area they live. There as huge difference, you can make glennbeck like comparisons about everything, but if you take out the context the HUGE context difference, then your gonna miss the whole thing.

[ComradeMan]

MOST in the middle east don't want continual US support of Isreal, and don't want the US changing governments and taking their oil (very few resort to terrorism). A couple in europe have a problem with immigrants. The reasons are extremely different. One is the result of material and top down oppression, the other is just zenophobia.

But they all want a cadillac though don't they? Cadillac sales grew by 56% in Lebanon in 2009.
http://www.carmiddleeast.com/getPrintDetails-1-1818

Who buys who sells?

That's capitalism for you...

[RGacky3]

But they all want a cadillac though don't they? Cadillac sales grew by 56% in Lebanon in 2009.


Thats has nothing to do with anything.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1920362#post1920362)
MOST in the middle east don't want continual US support of Isreal, and don't want the US changing governments and taking their oil (very few resort to terrorism). A couple in europe have a problem with immigrants. The reasons are extremely different. One is the result of material and top down oppression, the other is just zenophobia.

Bollox. So it's okay to fight foreign invasions in the middle-east - that's Imperialism. But to argue against foreign immigration in Europe is bad - zenophobia.

[Bud Struggle]

Bollox. So it's okay to fight foreign invasions in the middle-east - that's Imperialism. But to argue against foreign immigration in Europe is bad - zenophobia.

And to the man in the street--all invasions are identical.

[RGacky3]

And to the man in the street--all invasions are identical.

Do you really believe that? that the average man in the street does'nt understand the difference between immigrants and having your government and economy being subservient to imperialistic power? Your claiming that people are painfully stupid, "invasion" is just a word, you have to see whats actually happening.


Bollox. So it's okay to fight foreign invasions in the middle-east - that's Imperialism. But to argue against foreign immigration in Europe is bad - zenophobia.

Are you saying they are on the same level? Are you claiming that overthrowing a democratically elected government, contorlling your countries resources, funding a aparteid regeim, is THE SAME THING as people that act different moving next door.

[Bud Struggle]

Do you really believe that? that the average man in the street does'nt understand the difference between immigrants and having your government and economy being subservient to imperialistic power? Your claiming that people are painfully stupid, "invasion" is just a word, you have to see whats actually happening. No I'm saying that the average man in the street doesn't have Communist sensibilities for seeing things the way that you do.


Are you saying they are on the same level? Are you claiming that overthrowing a democratically elected government, contorlling your countries resources, funding a aparteid regeim, is THE SAME THING as people that act different moving next door. (Not my question, I know.) The question isn't just someone moving next door it is all about immigrants changing neighborhoods and towns into something alien to the people who have lived in them for a long time. Racism in France is just the excuse. The real problem is that people don;t like change.

Listen--I'm not saying I agree with any of this, but people get comfortable in their lives and often react violently-through racism or terrorism when that comfort is challenged.

[ComradeMan]

Do you really believe that? that the average man in the street does'nt understand the difference between immigrants and having your government and economy being subservient to imperialistic power? Your claiming that people are painfully stupid, "invasion" is just a word, you have to see whats actually happening.

Are you saying they are on the same level? Are you claiming that overthrowing a democratically elected government, contorlling your countries resources, funding a aparteid regeim, is THE SAME THING as people that act different moving next door.

1) He isn't claiming that people are stupid- ignorance of the facts and truth are not stupidity. A hell of a lot of people are downright ignorant of the facts or apathetic. They learn what they know from what they see on TV or what they glimpse at in the paper.

2) He isn't saying that either. But a hell of a lot of people, as above, just don't know. Take that Indonesia Indigenous Peoples post- how many people on the street know about that? How many people are involved? No offence to US members intended but a lot of Americans seem very insular when it comes to global knowledge, but not just Americans, Europeans too.

Here's an example- a lot of radical chic commies in Italy go on about how great the fucking Red Brigades were and buy the fucking t-shirt so to speak, despite the fact that they killed the Italian prime minister Aldo Moro who was actually doing a deal with the Italian Communist Party... so, wait a second, ah and then when the truth slowly begins to filter out it seems like they were covert counter-revolutionaries set up during the Cold War to sabotage the left... by guess who? Get it?

Knowledge is power, gaining knowledge is empowerment.

[RGacky3]

1) He isn't claiming that people are stupid- ignorance of the facts and truth are not stupidity. A hell of a lot of people are downright ignorant of the facts or apathetic. They learn what they know from what they see on TV or what they glimpse at in the paper.


I'm glaiming that most people are smart enough to understand the difference between impeiralism and immigration.


Take that Indonesia Indigenous Peoples post- how many people on the street know about that? How many people are involved. No offence to US members intended but a lot of Americans seem very insular when it comes to global knowledge, but not just Americans, Europeans too.


But if they did know about whats happening in indonesia I'm pretty sure they would'nt say "well I guess thats the same because theres a salvadorian family down the street."

[Bud Struggle]

I'm glaiming that most people are smart enough to understand the difference between impeiralism and immigration.

Explain that to the Amerindians. It was all one in the same to them.

[ComradeMan]

I'm glaiming that most people are smart enough to understand the difference between impeiralism and immigration.



But if they did know about whats happening in indonesia I'm pretty sure they would'nt say "well I guess thats the same because theres a salvadorian family down the street."

Stop equating this argument with intelligence it's not about that. The great mass of people are very isolated in their own worlds and don't have much knowledge of what goes on. If you asked a lot of people what was meant by "imperialism" I bet you'd have a lot of different answers.

Your second point doesn't make much sense.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by RGacky3 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1920422#post1920422)
Are you saying they are on the same level? Are you claiming that overthrowing a democratically elected government, contorlling your countries resources, funding a aparteid regeim, is THE SAME THING as people that act different moving next door.

What I'm saying is try explaining that to people struggling to survive while they watch the jobs go to immigrants. Tell them as they try to make ends meet that it's much worse in Palestine. Who knows they might believe you.
And before anyone starts to throw accusations of racist or facsist around. Think about it, ask yourself why the Left is losing touch with the working-class in Britain?

[RGacky3]

Explain that to the Amerindians. It was all one in the same to them.

As far as I know immigrants are not murdering tribes of europeans, stealing their land, and forcing them on to reservations.

There IS a difference between the powerfull and the powerless.


If you asked a lot of people what was meant by "imperialism" I bet you'd have a lot of different answers.


I bet most of them would have a common thread of a powerful nation enforcing its will on a less powerful nation, and most of them would not include immigration in the definition.


What I'm saying is try explaining that to people struggling to survive while they watch the jobs go to immigrants. Tell them as they try to make ends meet that it's much worse in Palestine. Who knows they might believe you.


Really? (http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/illegal_immigrants_arent_taking_our_jobs) Are They? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/they-are-not-taking-our-j_b_733560.html) Really? (http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/they_are_not_taking_our_jobs) Taking your jobs?

No, btw, competition between workers is NOT the same as imperialism, not even close. Immigrants are generally not the POWERFUL oppressing the POWERLESS, thats what imperialism is.

Trying to say that anti-imperialists fight for the same reasons as racist skinheads is insane.


And before anyone starts to throw accusations of racist or facsist around. Think about it, ask yourself why the Left is losing touch with the working-class in Britain?

Is it because they arn't dividing the working class against itself? I think the right wing does a good job of that themself.

[ComradeMan]

Capitalists have (historically) brought in cheap immigrant labour to benefit their own profits creating unemployment amongst the previous workers and feelings of resentment towards the new workers who in turn feel angry, discriminated against and oppressed. Divide and rule.

I think what some are saying is that the people on the ground are not aware of these mechanisms and although they are not justifying their sentiments they are understanding where they come from. Not everone understands micro- and macro-economics.

[RGacky3]

BTW, I just think its interesting, that me as a Californian, got a long perfectly well with a member of the mujahadin in Iraq, and he could clearly make the distinction between me and the US power-interests, yet many in the US don't even bother to try and make a distinction between Muslims and Terrorists.

But hey, if you guys are saying the anti-immigrant bigots in europe have legitimate concerns against the immigrants then go right ahead, I'm saying they don't and that the anti-imperialists in the middle east do have legitimate concerns with what the US is doing in the middle east.

[ComradeMan]

BTW, I just think its interesting, that me as a Californian, got a long perfectly well with a member of the mujahadin in Iraq, and he could clearly make the distinction between me and the US power-interests, yet many in the US don't even bother to try and make a distinction between Muslims and Terrorists.

But hey, if you guys are saying the anti-immigrant bigots in europe have legitimate concerns against the immigrants then go right ahead, I'm saying they don't and that the anti-imperialists in the middle east do have legitimate concerns with what the US is doing in the middle east.

I thought you were from Norway?

Weasel words--- no one is saying they are legitimate concerns- they are just seeing what's happening, the micro-reasoning at grassroots level and then the consequences as opposed to analysing the macro-reasons behind.

Fundamentally the people on the ground are just pawns in the big game.

Here's an example for you. A few years ago there was big trouble in Milan. The urban police raided shops and businesses in the China town area. The Chinese population complained and there was an angry protest that could have boiled over. The police were looking for illegal immigrants. As usual all sorts of concerns were raised about racism and so on... however, there was also the factor that many of these illegal immigrants were kept in conditions of near slave labour by fellow Chinese people- perhaps criminal syndicates and had no rights and no voice either. Illegal immigrants get fucked over double sometimes.

[RGacky3]

I thought you were from Norway?


I live there, I'm not from there.


Fundamentally the people on the ground are just pawns in the big game.


Are you saying that most people on the ground are anti-immigrant?

[Bud Struggle]

BTW, I just think its interesting, that me as a Californian, got a long perfectly well with a member of the mujahadin in Iraq, and he could clearly make the distinction between me and the US power-interests, yet many in the US don't even bother to try and make a distinction between Muslims and Terrorists. Gack if he's hanging out with you in some sauna in Norway sipping Chardonney and diswcussing world politics--then MAYBE he's a cut above the average Arab in the street. You, my brother, need to get in touch with the common man on the street.


But hey, if you guys are saying the anti-immigrant bigots in europe have legitimate concerns against the immigrants then go right ahead, I'm saying they don't and that the anti-imperialists in the middle east do have legitimate concerns with what the US is doing in the middle east.

I'm saying this is the look of Globalism.

[RGacky3]

Gack if he's hanging out with you in some sauna in Norway sipping Chardonney and diswcussing world politics--then MAYBE he's a cut above the average Arab in the street.

I wish.


You, my brother, need to get in touch with the common man on the street.


I take it you hang out with tons of Muslim immigrants. Get in touch with the common man in the street? I think I'm decently in touch.


I'm saying this is the look of Globalism.

So what? Do the anti-imperialists in the middle east have legitimate reasons for their aggression? Do racists have legitimate reasons for their racism?

Saying "this is the way things are right now" is redundent and pointless to whats being talked about.

[ComradeMan]

Saying "this is the way things are right now" is redundent and pointless to whats being talked about.

Not really--- it's analysis of the current situation, away from the ivory towers.

People are pretty damn reactionary at ground level, a lot of people- that's the problem.

[freepalestine]

...

People are pretty damn reactionary at ground level, a lot of people- that's the problem.hmmm.???then you should do something about it.as a leftist

Gack if he's hanging out with you in some sauna in Norway sipping Chardonnay and discussing world politics--then MAYBE he's a cut above the average Arab in the street.[; /] You, my brother, need to get in touch with the common man on the street.
what are you like.lollol

[Bud Struggle]

People are pretty damn reactionary at ground level, a lot of people- that's the problem.

And the Arab street more so than most. Most of the states in the Arab world are Feudal Monarchies of one sort or another--and the ones that aren't are dictatorships. Islam plays a good part in all of this. Women are still being stoned for adultry in that part of the world.

I'd be wary about thinking these people will get radicalized very soon. First they have to let go of their love affair with Islam before they canmove onto something more positive.

[freepalestine]

And the Arab street more so than most. Most of the states in the Arab world are Feudal Monarchies of one sort or another--and the ones that aren't are dictatorships. Islam plays a good part in all of this. Women are still being stoned for adultry in that part of the world.

I'd be wary about thinking these people will get radicalized very soon. First they have to let go of their love affair with Islam before they canmove onto something more positive.change the word arab with african

[RGacky3]

People are pretty damn reactionary at ground level, a lot of people- that's the problem.

How do you know this? Because tons of polls have been done, and generally most people are center-left. How many racists do you know?


And the Arab street more so than most. Most of the states in the Arab world are Feudal Monarchies of one sort or another--and the ones that aren't are dictatorships. Islam plays a good part in all of this. Women are still being stoned for adultry in that part of the world.


You hav'nt a damn clue what your average Arab in Europe is thinking/

I don't get what your point is here, I'm talking about the reasons that people have for joining terrorist groups, which is NOT the same reason people join skinhead groups.


change the word arab with african

Or Latin-American.


I'd be wary about thinking these people will get radicalized very soon. First they have to let go of their love affair with Islam before they canmove onto something more positive.

Islam, is no more violent than christianity and Jewdeism. I'm not talking about radicalizing them right now, I'm talking about reasons terrorist groups get support, and it has nothing to do with Islam, the reason terrorists groups get support are the same reason maoist groups get support in india and parts of Latin America.

[RGacky3]

You know what I find funny, 5 or so years ago, before the right wing media started bashing Islam, I guarantee you Bud would be defending Islam and against Bigots, all it takes is a little change of tone and some of you guys are on it right away.

[ComradeMan]

Gacky- I don't know where Bud is going with his argument- but that's not really what we were talking about- However I watched a program a few years ago with a British activist that revealed the amount of racial tension between non-white groups of immigrant populations/backgrounds in the UK- I think it revealed too that in that year there were more complaints to the British racial equality body about non-white racism on non-white than the traditional idea of white skinheads etc. The guy, who was a lifelong activist and of Caribbean origin got so angry at one point I think he had to switch off the camera....

This is what I mean when I say people are pretty damn reactionary in general on ground level and this is often exacerbated, of course, by the economics of the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4R-le_hCsc

[Bud Struggle]

You know what I find funny, 5 or so years ago, before the right wing media started bashing Islam, I guarantee you Bud would be defending Islam and against Bigots, all it takes is a little change of tone and some of you guys are on it right away.

I have nothing against Islam. I've said nothing against Islam. I said for the most part Moslems are conservative. I don't think that is a bad thing at all. I think most Christians are conservative, too. That's just the way things are--and as for your polls about people being radical--well there's on taken in the US ever two years--they are called elections and I just saw the Republicans--won big. That's the only poll that matters/

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm reminded of a quote from good old Uncle Joe;
"It doesn't matter who does the voting. What matters is who counts the votes (Diebold)."

[RGacky3]

That's just the way things are--and as for your polls about people being radical--well there's on taken in the US ever two years

Its not about people being radical, its about people being overall, centerleft.


well there's on taken in the US ever two years--they are called elections and I just saw the Republicans--won big. That's the only poll that matters/

Considering less than 30% of the population votes, and there are huge variables that have nothing to do with public opinion on policy, not its not, especially when trying to figure out what the general public thinks on issues, thats why social-scientists and people that study these things don't just follow elections.

[Bud Struggle]

Its not about people being radical, its about people being overall, centerleft. My mistake.




Considering less than 30% of the population votes, and there are huge variables that have nothing to do with public opinion on policy, not its not, especially when trying to figure out what the general public thinks on issues, thats why social-scientists and people that study these things don't just follow elections.

Well Brother--elections are all there is. If people want to be sheep then that's what they are. Social scientists don't count. Polls don't count. Study goups don't dount. Elections count. If people are so unhappy they would do something--and from the last election it looks as if the leftists are more than content with the way things are. No so much for the Right--and they are doing something.

And I agree with you the Tea Party will be gone in a while but they will move the Republican Party back to the right--and that's what they wanted to do all along.

[ComradeMan]

My mistake.

Well Brother--elections are all there is. If people want to be sheep then that's what they are. Social scientists don't count. Polls don't count. Study goups don't count. Elections count. If people are so unhappy they would do something--and from the last election it looks as if the leftists are more than content with the way things are. No so much for the Right--and they are doing something.

And I agree with you the Tea Party will be gone in a while but they will move the Republican Party back to the right--and that's what they wanted to do all along.

In a hard-assed cynical sort of way Bud makes a point here. Even though it may well be a bitter tablet to swallow.

Political poles can be very unreliable too. You can't draw universal conclusions from them and in some cases they have been completely wrong. Wasn't there a famous case back in the 60's or 70's in the US when a telephone poll "proved" something with a random sample until someone added the detail than more Republicans owned telephones that democrats?

Everyone in Italy complains about Mr. B, yet he did get some of the biggest majorities in Italian history. :confused:

[RGacky3]

Well Brother--elections are all there is. If people want to be sheep then that's what they are. Social scientists don't count. Polls don't count. Study goups don't dount. Elections count. If people are so unhappy they would do something--and from the last election it looks as if the leftists are more than content with the way things are. No so much for the Right--and they are doing something.


Elections don't really count, because guess what, we voted for public healthcare, financial reform, the end of the wars, getting rid of corporate control, gay rights, and we did'nt get any of that, because elections don't count, who pays the politicians is what counts :).

Leftists are not content, but they realized the democrats are just as much a wholey owned subsidiary of the super rich and corporate America as the republicans, thats why they did'nt turn out to vote, if you think it means they are content your fooling yourself.

Polls on their own don't count, combined they count for more than elections.

[ComradeMan]

Aren't mid-term elections always a bit like a protest against the government vote anyway? I don't know. But in Europe very often the regional elections show a swing that serves as a warning that people spell out to the elected government- but when the general/state governmental elections come they vote for "their" party anyway against the "other" one.

[Milk Sheikh]

This is the first time I am seeing immigration being equated to imperialism ... on a leftist forum at that!!!

Pathetic!:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

This is the first time I am seeing immigration being equated to imperialism ... on a leftist forum at that!!!

Pathetic!:rolleyes:

For goodness' sake- no one is doing that.

Are people incapable of looking at things on different levels?

People are talking of how people on the ground may (rightly/wrongly) see things from their own limited perspectives. A perception does not stop being a perception because it's based on an erroneous analysis, does it? :rolleyes:

Have a look at this to see what I think some are trying to get at...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4R-le_hCsc (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4R-le_hCsc)

[RGacky3]

People are talking of how people on the ground may (rightly/wrongly) see things from their own limited perspectives. A perception does not stop being a perception because it's based on an erroneous analysis, does it? :rolleyes:



BUt I'm saying that most people, the vast majority of people are smart enough to know the difference between immigration and imperialism.

[ComradeMan]

BUt I'm saying that most people, the vast majority of people are smart enough to know the difference between immigration and imperialism.

Most people probably don't analyse things on a day-to-day basis through a marxist class analysis.

[RGacky3]

The difference between imperialism and immigration has nothing to do with Marxist class analysis and the difference is as clear as the difference between shop lifters and Banksters. It does'nt take a genius to know the difference between immigration and imperialism, infact it takes great effort to try and equate the 2.

[ComradeMan]

The difference between imperialism and immigration has nothing to do with Marxist class analysis and the difference is as clear as the difference between shop lifters and Banksters. It does'nt take a genius to know the difference between immigration and imperialism, infact it takes great effort to try and equate the 2.

Ask most people on the street what imperialism is and they will probably think of empires and not much else. They would not equate it with economics nor would they (perhaps) understand what the mechanisms are.

BTW Saying smart (intelligent) enough does not have any bearing on whether they be informed or not, does it? Being badly or misinformed does not equate to intelligence levels (necessarily).

[Bud Struggle]

BUt I'm saying that most people, the vast majority of people are smart enough to know the difference between immigration and imperialism.

And I'm saying I have no problem with that.

But terrorists (who are by your definition Nationalists) and Neo Nazis (who are by their own definition Nationalsits) ARE similar in their dislike of non natives moving into their country.

[RGacky3]

But terrorists (who are by your definition Nationalists)

No, they are not by definition nationalists, AL Queda is not nationalist, there were anarchist "terrorists" are they nationalists as well.


and Neo Nazis (who are by their own definition Nationalsits) ARE similar in their dislike of non natives moving into their country.

No, it has nothing to do with people moving into their area, AL Queda are immigrants, they were Arabs living in Somalia and Pakistan, they arn't a nationalist group at all.

[Bud Struggle]

No, they are not by definition nationalists, AL Queda is not nationalist, there were anarchist "terrorists" are they nationalists as well. AlQueda opposed non Moslems setting foot in Moswlem lands. Not maybe set up for the nation states that the Euopean set up--but Moslem lands.




No, it has nothing to do with people moving into their area, AL Queda are immigrants, they were Arabs living in Somalia and Pakistan, they arn't a nationalist group at all. They are all Moslem brothers.

[RGacky3]

AlQueda opposed non Moslems setting foot in Moswlem lands. Not maybe set up for the nation states that the Euopean set up--but Moslem lands.



THeir beef is'nt people moving to saudi arabia or dubai to work, thats not their problem, its imperialism.

[Bud Struggle]

THeir beef is'nt people moving to saudi arabia or dubai to work, thats not their problem, its imperialism.

But the people that come to work in Arab countriesare second class people, right? They don't get rights as citizens. In Western countries they give immigrants equal rights--no so in Moslem countries.

See how complicated this is?

[learningaboutheleft123]

islamic terrorists reasonable ? I thought I was on revleft ? No way are islamic terrorists reasonable.

[learningaboutheleft123]

Radical islam is FASCISM ! we hate fascism...REMEMBER !

[Rainsborough]

So AlQueda decides who and who will not enter the countries of the middle-east. Skinhead racists decide who will and will not enter Europe.
And the difference is?

[Bud Struggle]

Radical islam is FASCISM ! we hate fascism...REMEMBER !

You Comrade, have a GREAT FUTURE at RevLeft! :)

[learningaboutheleft123]

This is why I dont get organisations like the SWP. When they oppose organisations like the EDL, who oppose radical islam, eventhough they target all muslims, they should also be opposing groups such as the muslims against crusades, a radical group under Anjem Choudary.

[learningaboutheleft123]

You Comrade, have a GREAT FUTURE at RevLeft! :)
Thanks man :)

[WeAreReborn]

Radical islam is FASCISM ! we hate fascism...REMEMBER !
They aren't fascist. They in no way wish to have corporatism. At least to me they are an enemy. They are reactionary and not progressive but you shouldn't throw around Fascism like that. But I do understand where a lot of the terrorists come from, they are just trying to defend their homeland. Just remember there are always two sides. Favoring the terrorists because imperialism is somewhat wrong due to their fundamental beliefs, but writing them off despite the fact that they are just defending themselves is wrong as well.

[learningaboutheleft123]

They aren't fascist. They in no way wish to have corporatism. At least to me they are an enemy. They are reactionary and not progressive but you shouldn't throw around Fascism like that. But I do understand where a lot of the terrorists come from, they are just trying to defend their homeland. Just remember there are always two sides. Favoring the terrorists because imperialism is somewhat wrong due to their fundamental beliefs, but writing them off despite the fact that they are just defending themselves is wrong as well.
Which is why many admire Hitler for what he did to the jews. Organisations like Al Qaeda want to take over the whole world, the Nazis wanted to take over Europe. Al qaeda hardly want to make peace.

[learningaboutheleft123]

Al Qaeda want to kill a particular type of people, just like Hitler did. That is what I define as Facism.

[WeAreReborn]

Which is why many admire Hitler for what he did to the jews. Organisations like Al Qaeda want to take over the whole world, the Nazis wanted to take over Europe. Al qaeda hardly want to make peace.
Doesn't mean they are Fascists regardless. But I was strictly talking about the individual terrorists not the group as a whole. Obviously I am opposed to them but I was just saying look from the civilian terrorists perspective and why they might decide to kill themselves so they can kill others.

[WeAreReborn]

Al Qaeda want to kill a particular type of people, just like Hitler did. That is what I define as Facism.
That is genocide not Fascism. Fascism is a political ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[learningaboutheleft123]

im sorry, but there is no justification for them trying to kill others. Many of us didn't want to go to war in the first place. If we pull our troops out now, this will stop the resistance of the terrorists.

[learningaboutheleft123]

That is genocide not Fascism. Fascism is a political ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

However, genocide towards a particular group is in comparison to Fascism.

[ComradeMan]

Favoring the terrorists because imperialism is somewhat wrong due to their fundamental beliefs, but writing them off despite the fact that they are just defending themselves is wrong as well.

The "terrorists" in this case are complete reactionary fuckwits, former CIA lackeys who don't give a shit about workers, human rights or anyone else for that matter. They have cleverly jumped unto the bandwagon of fighting "imperialism" because it serves their propaganda needs and the day they get the chance people like you or I or a lot of other people here would be beheaded- probably all our female members for daring to know how to read and write, God forbid what they would do to the LGBT people, the atheists and so on. Fuck 'em.

"A smiling tiger is still a tiger".

PS Radical Islamism is not "fascist" in the strict sense, but let's say it's still pretty damn reactionary, authoritarian and shitty.

[WeAreReborn]

im sorry, but there is no justification for them trying to kill others. Many of us didn't want to go to war in the first place. If we pull our troops out now, this will stop the resistance of the terrorists.
I agree completely.


However, genocide towards a particular group is in comparison to Fascism.
Well Fascism and genocide go hand in hand but genocide and Fascism don't. Capitalists are just a likely to genocide as Fascists and you calling it Fascists to genocide takes away from the reactionary nature of Capitalism. So in short, use Fascism as the word strictly means. Otherwise it just confuses or helps to justify Capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

I agree completely.


Well Fascism and genocide go hand in hand but genocide and Fascism don't. Capitalists are just a likely to genocide as Fascists and you calling it Fascists to genocide takes away from the reactionary nature of Capitalism. So in short, use Fascism as the word strictly means. Otherwise it just confuses or helps to justify Capitalism.

Hmm.... are you sure about that?????


"The fascist intent was to exterminate all life in Ethiopia."
Emperor Haile Selassie I
June 30, 1936


Emperor Haile Selassie I, the King of Kings of Ethiopia, provided the following eyewitness account to the League of Nations on June 30, 1936; but sadly, His Majesty’s plea “fell upon deaf ears”:

“A mechanism spraying yperite liquid was installed in the aircraft and it was arranged that a fine rain bringing death should descend over vast tracts of country. At one time, nine, fifteen or eighteen Italian aeroplanes were going to and fro bringing down an unceasing rain of yperite. From the end of January 1936 onwards, this death-dealing rain descended uninterruptedly upon our soldiers, upon women, children, cattle, streams, stagnant waters as well as pastures. The Italian army commander made the aeroplanes repeat this work of theirs, in order to extinguish completely all living creatures and to turn into poison the waters and grazing grounds. He made this the principal means of warfare. This work of cruelty, carried out with some finesse, annihilated people in places far removed from the battlefield and made their country into a desert. The plan was to spread terror and death over the greater part of Ethiopia. This most deplorable scheme was eventually accomplished. Man and beast perished completely. The deadly downpour that descended from the aircraft made anyone who touched it fly with torment. Those who drank the water upon which this poisonous rain had settled or ate the food which the poison had touched died in dreadful agony. The people who died as a result of the Italian yperite must be reckoned in many thousands (the reader is reminded that this observation was made at the onset of the aerial gassing campaign, in January 1936). It was to make known to the civilized world the torment inflicted upon the Ethiopian people that I decided to come to Geneva.”

On May 5, 1941, the Ethiopian government reported that, “...provisional estimates of the slaughter of Ethiopians, from the evidence thus far investigated, is 760,000;” however, the report concluded that “these figures are not final," however, based on interviews with surviving Ethiopian Patriots, in Addis Ababa and America between 2000 and 2004, a more conservative estimate of Ethiopian causalities would be “no less than one million.”
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/vatican-apology-for-ethiopian-holocaust.html

[RGacky3]

But the people that come to work in Arab countriesare second class people, right? They don't get rights as citizens. In Western countries they give immigrants equal rights--no so in Moslem countries.

See how complicated this is?

WHat information are you getting about western vrs middle eastern immigration laws? As far as I know islam has nothing to do with that.

Also I don't understand waht that has ANYTHING to do with what we are discussing which is the motivations of terrorist groups like Al queda, except for the ever apparent fact that you want to demonize Muslims by whatever means.



Organisations like Al Qaeda want to take over the whole world

Never heard that, mainly because its made up fear mongering bullshit.

[Bud Struggle]

WHat information are you getting about western vrs middle eastern immigration laws? As far as I know islam has nothing to do with that.

Also I don't understand waht that has ANYTHING to do with what we are discussing which is the motivations of terrorist groups like Al queda, except for the ever apparent fact that you want to demonize Muslims by whatever means. Saying Moslems are conservative in general isn't quite demonizing them.

Too much Chardonney in the sauna.

[RGacky3]

Ok, whats your point? Are you still saying that people don't know the difference between immigration and imperialism?

Or that Al Qaeda and Nazis have the same motivations?

[Bud Struggle]

Ok, whats your point? Are you still saying that people don't know the difference between immigration and imperialism? I'm saying that people don't always like strangers in their neighborhoods and sometimes they react badly.


Or that Al Qaeda and Nazis have the same motivations? I'm saying if you distill that acting badly and you organize it and you give it uniforms and codes of conduct and you train them to fight and teach them how to makes bombs and to kill innocent people in the name of their cause.

Then yea.

[Ele'ill]

I'm saying that people don't always like strangers in their neighborhoods and sometimes they react badly.

It wouldn't be an issue if they wanted to get to know their neighbors but they're only interested in getting to know 'white' neighbors while everyone else becomes an 'unapproachable stranger' in their eyes because they're racist.

[Lt. Ferret]

mariel iv lived in black neighborhoods they sure didn't like strangers in their neighborhood either, and im white and my wifes an arab. its not just some white suburban Anywhere USA thing going on with people that usually arent inclined to come into your area.


on a separate note i wouldnt use haile salassie quotes very much, he was a murderous tyrant as well and forced his country into total war which helped spread the devestation that ethiopia encountered while being captured by Italy. italy obviously wasnt in the right but threatening to kill anyone who didnt fight to the death with spears and rakes against tanks and airplanes is just as genocidal. salassie wanted to keep his personal empire, not defend his countrymen.

[Ele'ill]

mariel iv lived in black neighborhoods they sure didn't like strangers in their neighborhood either, and im white and my wifes an arab. its not just some white suburban Anywhere USA thing going on with people that usually arent inclined to come into your area.

Within the context of this conversation I think what I said still stands.

[RGacky3]

I'm saying that people don't always like strangers in their neighborhoods and sometimes they react badly.


Strangers are not living in AL Qeadas' nieghborhood ... there is no Al Qeada "neighborhood."


I'm saying if you distill that acting badly and you organize it and you give it uniforms and codes of conduct and you train them to fight and teach them how to makes bombs and to kill innocent people in the name of their cause.

Then yea.

You talking about the US military there?

Are you trying to make a connection between skinheads, Islamic terrorists, the US military AND Isreals military? Because with your logic we're connecting all of them.

[Property Is Robbery]

Yay, I always knew terrorists would be redeemed.

[RGacky3]

Yay, I always knew terrorists would be redeemed.


If people say Maoists literally eat babies, and I say that it is factually untrue, am I redeeming Maoists???

[ComradeMan]

mariel iv lived in black neighborhoods they sure didn't like strangers in their neighborhood either, and im white and my wifes an arab. its not just some white suburban Anywhere USA thing going on with people that usually arent inclined to come into your area.


on a separate note i wouldnt use haile salassie quotes very much, he was a murderous tyrant as well and forced his country into total war which helped spread the devestation that ethiopia encountered while being captured by Italy. italy obviously wasnt in the right but threatening to kill anyone who didnt fight to the death with spears and rakes against tanks and airplanes is just as genocidal. salassie wanted to keep his personal empire, not defend his countrymen.

Heile Selassie was a feudal monarch and like most feudal monarchs was far from being anything other than an autocrat with all the reactionary stuff that comes with it.

This does not invalidate what he said in the face of the fascist onslaught against his country because of Mussolini's dreams of empire.

[WeAreReborn]

Hmm.... are you sure about that?????


"The fascist intent was to exterminate all life in Ethiopia."
Emperor Haile Selassie I
June 30, 1936


Emperor Haile Selassie I, the King of Kings of Ethiopia, provided the following eyewitness account to the League of Nations on June 30, 1936; but sadly, His Majesty’s plea “fell upon deaf ears”:

“A mechanism spraying yperite liquid was installed in the aircraft and it was arranged that a fine rain bringing death should descend over vast tracts of country. At one time, nine, fifteen or eighteen Italian aeroplanes were going to and fro bringing down an unceasing rain of yperite. From the end of January 1936 onwards, this death-dealing rain descended uninterruptedly upon our soldiers, upon women, children, cattle, streams, stagnant waters as well as pastures. The Italian army commander made the aeroplanes repeat this work of theirs, in order to extinguish completely all living creatures and to turn into poison the waters and grazing grounds. He made this the principal means of warfare. This work of cruelty, carried out with some finesse, annihilated people in places far removed from the battlefield and made their country into a desert. The plan was to spread terror and death over the greater part of Ethiopia. This most deplorable scheme was eventually accomplished. Man and beast perished completely. The deadly downpour that descended from the aircraft made anyone who touched it fly with torment. Those who drank the water upon which this poisonous rain had settled or ate the food which the poison had touched died in dreadful agony. The people who died as a result of the Italian yperite must be reckoned in many thousands (the reader is reminded that this observation was made at the onset of the aerial gassing campaign, in January 1936). It was to make known to the civilized world the torment inflicted upon the Ethiopian people that I decided to come to Geneva.”

On May 5, 1941, the Ethiopian government reported that, “...provisional estimates of the slaughter of Ethiopians, from the evidence thus far investigated, is 760,000;” however, the report concluded that “these figures are not final," however, based on interviews with surviving Ethiopian Patriots, in Addis Ababa and America between 2000 and 2004, a more conservative estimate of Ethiopian causalities would be “no less than one million.”
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/vatican-apology-for-ethiopian-holocaust.html


Reading back on that I can see how you took it. I meant genocide doesn't have to be Fascist but Fascism has to be genocidal. Sorry for confusion.

[ComradeMan]

Reading back on that I can see how you took it. I meant genocide doesn't have to be Fascist but Fascism has to be genocidal. Sorry for confusion.

No problem! :thumbup1:

[Rottenfruit]

Extreme islam is infected with nationalism, islamism goes hand to hand with arabic nationalism

[ComradeMan]

Extreme islam is infected with nationalism, islamism goes hand to hand with arabic nationalism

Does it? Some of the most "islamist" states are generally not Arabic speaking or culturally historic "Arabic" nations.


Sudan
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iran

[Rottenfruit]

Does it? Some of the most "islamist" states are generally not Arabic speaking or culturally historic "Arabic" nations.


Sudan
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iran


pan arab nationalism look it up

[ComradeMan]

pan arab nationalism look it up

Sweeping generalisations- look it up. It's not de facto the same thing.

[Budguy68]

I had gone to the stormfront forums out of curiosity and they had a thread up about being allied with the Taliban. Mostly because the talis hate the jewish Zionist as much as they do.

Anyways I am all in favor of Them protecting Their Lands from western foreigners. Reminds me of the Chines boxer rebellian...

Since you commies now understand why Muslims are mad at westerners invading their lands I am sure you understand why now people are against Muslims moving to Europe or illegal aliens in the US and also feel sympathic towards them.

[ComradeMan]

I had gone to the stormfront forums out of curiosity and they had a thread up about being allied with the Taliban. Mostly because the talis hate the jewish Zionist as much as they do.

Anyways I am all in favor of Them protecting Their Lands from western foreigners. Reminds me of the Chines boxer rebellian...

Since you commies now understand why Muslims are mad at westerners invading their lands I am sure you understand why now people are against Muslims moving to Europe or illegal aliens in the US and also feel sympathic towards them.

A true master of perspective here aren't we? Think about the difference. ;)

[RGacky3]

Since you commies now understand why Muslims are mad at westerners invading their lands I am sure you understand why now people are against Muslims moving to Europe or illegal aliens in the US and also feel sympathic towards them.

So imperialism and immigration are the same thing right? You damned idiot.

Are you sympithetic to the Nazis being mad that Jews were "invading" their areas?

I don't know why it supprises me that your a bigot, but everytime I encounter one its somewhat of a suprise.