There is no such thing as terrorism

[Milk Sheikh]

Do leftists believe there's a thing called terrorism, or is it just a bogeyman invented by the ruling class to scare people? I am only referring to so-called (and possibly nonexistent) Islamic terrorism.

Most of this 'terrorism' is a reaction to the violence perpetrated by non-Muslims - hence it's more like self-defense or freedom struggle.

But why is the world hypocritical on this issue? Why does the world always condemn Muslims for reacting but not the non-Muslims for provoking them in the first place?

[Dimmu]

Religion is the root of people being evil.. It divides the people into groups. Thats why Islam as well as other religions need to be removed as an organised force.


Also Islamic terrorism exists, as well as Christian, Jewish etc..

[hatzel]

Religion is the root of people being evil.. It divides the people into groups. Thats why Islam as well as other religions need to be removed as an organised force.

Also Islamic terrorism exists, as well as Christian, Jewish etc..

And Basque and Kurdish and anarchist and eco- and narco- and German ML-revolutionary and what did any of this actually have to do with religion again? :confused:

[Dimmu]

And Basque and Kurdish and anarchist and eco- and narco- and German ML-revolutionary and what did any of this actually have to do with religion again? :confused:
Basque, kurdish violence has to do with nationalism.

[Delenda Carthago]

Of course there is.NATO and Al Qaeda are two very good examples of terrorism.

kmBnvajSfWU

[Ocean Seal]

Religion is the root of people being evil.. It divides the people into groups. Thats why Islam as well as other religions need to be removed as an organised force.


Also Islamic terrorism exists, as well as Christian, Jewish etc..


That analysis seems to forget a core tenet of materialism. The forces at work are truly material ones and not as Weber thought cultural ones. It is not religion which causes the conflict but rather the underlying economic conditions. Also terrorism exists free of religion. The United States is not engaged in a crusade in the Middle East but instead an economic conquest. American imperialism is not rooted in religion and even if everyone negated their religion it would still occur because the United States is in a position of power to take from the majority of the world. The United States actively participates in terrorism killing as many as 1,000,000 civilians in Iraq and millions more worldwide.

It's as Noam Chomsky once said "Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. There's an easy way: Stop participating in it". He says this referring to United States imperialism.

Also your quote


Religion is the root of people being evil.. It divides the people into groups.

Is what especially neglects this. Its as if you imply that that religion automatically causes someone to become a raving bigot. And that's not true. There are plenty of identities far worse which divide the people more strongly. The first is the national identity (especially the imperial-national identity, the second is the racial identity, the third is the sex/sexual-privilege identity.

As bad as these things are I would never argue that any of these are the root of all evil. As the old quote goes, money is the root of all evil. And of course capitalism is the true root of all evil, the source of the negative identities.

[Milk Sheikh]

Of course there is.NATO and Al Qaeda are two very good examples of terrorism.

kmBnvajSfWU

NATO is a terrorist. But Al Qaeda? Some people even say they don't exist. Even otherwise, they're merely reacting to western terrorism, which is economic in nature rather than religious.

[Dimmu]

NATO is a terrorist. But Al Qaeda? Some people even say they don't exist. Even otherwise, they're merely reacting to western terrorism, which is economic in nature rather than religious.
muslims are too sensitive. Damn, people were being killed over a damn cartoon.

[Milk Sheikh]

muslims are too sensitive. Damn, people were being killed over a damn cartoon.

Muslims are being provoked repeatedly, hence the reaction from their side. We can't see the cartoon incident in isolation; we have to see it in the proper context.

[Delenda Carthago]

muslims are too sensitive. Damn, people were being killed over a damn cartoon.
And 7 years later after the incident!!!

No sympathy for NATO capitalist murderers or islamofascists. Someone who bombs a subway or the twin towers or whatever is a terrorist the same way a military is a murderer for throwing napalms over hospitals and unarmed civilians.

[Milk Sheikh]

And 7 years later after the incident!!!

No sympathy for NATO capitalist murderers or islamofascists. Someone who bombs a subway or the twin towers or whatever is a terrorist the same way a military is a murderer for throwing napalms over hospitals and unarmed civilians.

But is that the correct approach? Shouldn't we, as leftists, distinguish 'the violence of the oppressor' from 'the violence of the oppressed'?

[Dimmu]

But is that the correct approach? Shouldn't we, as leftists, distinguish 'the violence of the oppressor' from 'the violence of the oppressed'?
lets call spade a spade. A good way to resist is to attack military targets or people who are responsible. Attacking innocent civilians is terrorism.

[Delenda Carthago]

But is that the correct approach? Shouldn't we, as leftists, distinguish 'the violence of the oppressor' from 'the violence of the oppressed'?
Of course. The violence of the people in Iraq and Afganistan is the violence of the oppressed.The violence of the Palestines too. The violence of some fundamentalists who are being "provoked" because somebody in a country thats not a muslim one draw Allah and they killed him in cold blood some years later,after the whole situation has died down, is not the violence of the oppresed. Is the violence of a stupid retard fascist. Especially when at the same time they are being so disrespecting to every other religion besides theirs.Killing US troops in Iraq is resistance. Bombing infidels in a subway is not.

[Milk Sheikh]

You're being unfair to the victims. Let's say an Iraqi man has lost his home, his wife, and children. You think he, a man in great anguish, is going to sit down and think: since it's the US army that's responsible, I shouldn't just hate any random American.

Expecting victims to be objective is easy, since you've never been a victim. A victim, on the other hand, can only see US attacking him, not specifically US soldiers or US policy makers and so on. Since the US is responsible, for him any American will be a fair target.

Reg. the cartoon issue, it's not about the cartoon at all. Since the vilification of Muslims has been going on for a long time in Europe, the cartoon incident is simply the last straw. Again, context is your friend.

[Dimmu]

You're being unfair to the victims. Let's say an Iraqi man has lost his home, his wife, and children. You think he, a man in great anguish, is going to sit down and think: since it's the US army that's responsible, I shouldn't just hate any random American.

Expecting victims to be objective is easy, since you've never been a victim. A victim, on the other hand, can only see US attacking him, not specifically US soldiers or US policy makers and so on. Since the US is responsible, for him any American will be a fair target.
Its not terrorism if the guy joins a resistance movement and attacks US soldiers.. IT IS terrorism if he blows himself up in a crowd of normal working people.


Reg. the cartoon issue, it's not about the cartoon at all. Since the vilification of Muslims has been going on for a long time in Europe, the cartoon incident is simply the last straw. Again, context is your friend.

BS.. I am in Europe and here we make fun of every religion, be it Christianity or Judaism.. Islam like i said, is just too sensitive. Islam should i no way recive a special status just because its followers get enraged by a picture or a book.

[Viet Minh]

Its not terrorism if the guy joins a resistance movement and attacks US soldiers.. IT IS terrorism if he blows himself up in a crowd of normal working people.



BS.. I am in Europe and here we make fun of every religion, be it Christianity or Judaism.. Islam like i said, is just too sensitive. Islam should i no way recive a special status just because its followers get enraged by a picture or a book.

^What he said. Protestants at one time were quite militant like that, my great grandfather for example was a Protestant Minister, and converted to a slightly less Protestant Church (the latter allowed their followers to wear socks as long as they were black, which his former church denounced as sinful papish idolatry, something like that anyway) and a local mob stoned his house. Times have moved on since then, people have more respect for others' beliefs, or lack thereof.

Terrorism is basically using terror for political ends, usually targetting civilians to create a general climate of fear. For example the US air strikes on Iraq which fell on schools and hospitals between the Gulf Wars could reasonably be described as terrorist in nature.

[mosfeld]

The greatest terrorist and enemy of the people is the U.S. government -- focus your energy on opposing them, not fringe Islamist groups who are almost always a reaction to the terrorism and imperialism of the U.S.A and Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc)

[Dimmu]

The greatest terrorist and enemy of the people is the U.S. government -- focus your energy on opposing them, not fringe Islamist groups who are almost always a reaction to the terrorism and imperialism of the U.S.A and Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc)

I divide my energy equally. Why do you always have to take a side and choose between two devils?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

That analysis seems to forget a core tenet of materialism. The forces at work are truly material ones and not as Weber thought cultural ones. It is not religion which causes the conflict but rather the underlying economic conditions. Also terrorism exists free of religion. The United States is not engaged in a crusade in the Middle East but instead an economic conquest. American imperialism is not rooted in religion and even if everyone negated their religion it would still occur because the United States is in a position of power to take from the majority of the world. The United States actively participates in terrorism killing as many as 1,000,000 civilians in Iraq and millions more worldwide.

It's as Noam Chomsky once said "Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. There's an easy way: Stop participating in it". He says this referring to United States imperialism.

I agree with your analysis of the economic basis of conflict, but I want to interject that religion should still be abolished in the long term. It is yet another mechanism for dividing the working class... making people easier to control. It thrives on the same blind hatred as nationalism, and as such, is only a detriment.

[mosfeld]

I divide my energy equally. Why do you always have to take a side and choose between two devils? I'd like to know how the nation which is responsible for invasions or interventions in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Laos, China, Italy, Greece, the Philippines, both South and North Korea, Albania, Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Guyana, Vietnam, Cambodia, Congo, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Chile, East Timor, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Haiti, Angola, South Africa, Nepal, India and elsewhere is comparable to fringe Islamist "terrorist" groups.

I'd like to know how the nation which is built on the genocide of the indigenous Americans, stolen land from Mexico, imperialism and the slave labor of the black man is somehow comparable to fringe Islamist "terrorist" groups.

The imperialists and their world system of capitalist-imperialism is responsible for how the world operates today and all the misery which follows.

Please explain why we should "equally divide" our energies between imperialism and Islamist "terrorism", especially when this so-called "terrorism" can often work in our favor, like when groups attack our current worst enemies, like, for example, the colonial state of Israel?

[Delenda Carthago]

You're being unfair to the victims. Let's say an Iraqi man has lost his home, his wife, and children. You think he, a man in great anguish, is going to sit down and think: since it's the US army that's responsible, I shouldn't just hate any random American.

Expecting victims to be objective is easy, since you've never been a victim. A victim, on the other hand, can only see US attacking him, not specifically US soldiers or US policy makers and so on. Since the US is responsible, for him any American will be a fair target.

Reg. the cartoon issue, it's not about the cartoon at all. Since the vilification of Muslims has been going on for a long time in Europe, the cartoon incident is simply the last straw. Again, context is your friend.
Ok.Lets elaborate the logic. So if a fundamentalist bombs a subway in Spain, every relative or friend of the victims has the right to support the bombings of civilians in Afganistan.Cause thats what the victim logic is and its justified.


You did not asked for the causes in the first place.You did not asked to tell you who the bad guys are in the whole situation.You asked about terrorism.And this is the answer I gave you: both Al Qaeda and NATO are terrorists.The only difference is that the one is more efficient than the other.

[Milk Sheikh]

Ok.Lets elaborate the logic. So if a fundamentalist bombs a subway in Spain, every relative or friend of the victims has the right to support the bombings of civilians in Afganistan.Cause thats what the victim logic is and its justified.


You did not asked for the causes in the first place.You did not asked to tell you who the bad guys are in the whole situation.You asked about terrorism.And this is the answer I gave you: both Al Qaeda and NATO are terrorists.The only difference is that the one is more efficient than the other.

You're equating the violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed.

[#FF0000]

You're equating the violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed.

Not every "terrorist" carries out an attack out of legitimate self-defense, though. The 9/11 bombers, for example, were all wealthy sons. Folks like OBL are just another faction of the bourgeoisie.

[Bud Struggle]

You're equating the violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed.

And people wonder why no one takes Communism seriously. It's this stuff and the woman that can't say enough good thing about Pol Pot and those people just INFATUATED with Stalin.

Can we just move on and form a reasonable Communism that people can support? Really--Communism isnt that bad of an idea. It just keeps getting hijacked at every turn.

[#FF0000]

Also, communists do acknowledge "terrorism". I'm not 100% on how we define it, but as a rule communists reject individual acts of violence as useless at best, and very harmful at worst.

Trotsky wrote a bit on terrorism. Look him up.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure M. Sheik isn't a communist...

[RGacky3]

Terrorism = Acts of violence against civilians in order to induce terror to achieve a political end.

It does'nt matter what the motivation is. The 2 atomic bombs are the number one example of terrorism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

terrorism is just another term for a-symmetrical warfare.

[mosfeld]

Not every "terrorist" carries out an attack out of legitimate self-defense, though. The 9/11 bombers, for example, were all wealthy sons. Folks like OBL are just another faction of the bourgeoisie.

This. It depends on what "terrorist" you're talking about. Undoubtedly Osama and Al Qaeda are not in any way progressive and cannot work in the favor of communism and anti-imperialism. However, other so-called "terrorist" organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which the ordinary Palestinian and Lebanese joins as a means to resistance and self-defense, can work in our favor since it actively combats Israeli colonialism and keeps the resistance alive.

[Milk Sheikh]

Not every "terrorist" carries out an attack out of legitimate self-defense, though. The 9/11 bombers, for example, were all wealthy sons. Folks like OBL are just another faction of the bourgeoisie.

Fine, but even those people didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, today is a good day to hit the twin towers." There's always a cause.

[#FF0000]

Fine, but even those people didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, today is a good day to hit the twin towers." There's always a cause.

Yeah, no doubt. Their cause was pretty much all business, though. None of this "oh man people are suffering i better fight back to help them".

[Bud Struggle]

Terrorism = Acts of violence against civilians in order to induce terror to achieve a political end.

The are times I almost feel sorry for you trying to put over a reasonable world view of Socialism through all of this crap.

[Baseball]

Not every "terrorist" carries out an attack out of legitimate self-defense, though. The 9/11 bombers, for example, were all wealthy sons. Folks like OBL are just another faction of the bourgeoisie.

Karl Marx was the son of a fairly wealthy man. And not only did the child marry into the aristocracy, he also married into wealth.

Where would ideas of socialism be without the work of wealthy people? True, there have been famous and influential socialists who arose from impoverished backgrounds- Stalin comes to mind. But to delegitamatize OBL & Co. simply because they were "wealthy" simply turns your back on your own proud heritage.

[#FF0000]

Karl Marx was the son of a fairly wealthy man. And not only did the child marry into the aristocracy, he also married into wealth.

Where would ideas of socialism be without the work of wealthy people? True, there have been famous and influential socialists who arose from impoverished backgrounds- Stalin comes to mind. But to delegitamatize OBL & Co. simply because they were "wealthy" simply turns your back on your own proud heritage.

I'm well aware of Karl Marx's background (I'm not sure you are, though, since you're trying to make him sound like he was some wealthy fortunate son throughout his life). Someone's background doesn't necessarily define them as an individual.

In the case of OBL and his terrorist colleagues, their background has nothing to do with background and wealth. I'm saying what should be obvious to anyone: Osama Bin Laden isn't acting on behalf of the suffering and the struggling working people of the world. He's fighting for his political and economic ends. The only differences between folks like him and the folks calling the shots in America is how they pray, and whether or not they have mansions and tomahawk missiles or caves and bomb vests.

[RATM-Eubie]

Yes there is such a thing as terrorism.
State terrorism and small groups such as sucide bombers are terrorism. There really isnt much of a diference between a man strapping a bomb to himself and blowing himself up and some other people and a fighter jet dropping a bomb on people.
But yes there is such a thing as terrorism buddy.

[RGacky3]

Fine, but even those people didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, today is a good day to hit the twin towers." There's always a cause.

You know what, the colombine kids that shot up the school had a cause too, probably so do rapists, thats a bullshit explination, of coarse they have a cause, so does the US bombing the hell out of afghanistan.

Terrorism is terrorism, the cause does'nt change that fact.

Also in the begining you just said terrorism does'nt exist, then you said certain terrorist acts are terrorism, but certain are not.

YOu can't have it both ways, you can't just define terrorism sa terrorism that YOU don't think has a just cause.


The are times I almost feel sorry for you trying to put over a reasonable world view of Socialism through all of this crap.

I do too.

[Milk Sheikh]

Yeah, no doubt. Their cause was pretty much all business, though. None of this "oh man people are suffering i better fight back to help them".

I don't know what you mean by business as usual. OBL was a rich guy and could've had a cushy life anywhere on the planet. That he chose to live in horrible conditions in a war-torn country shows that the man really did want to fight against injustice, real or imagined.

[Viet Minh]

You're equating the violence of the oppressor with the violence of the oppressed.

And you're legitimising violence, albeit only on one side.


This. It depends on what "terrorist" you're talking about. Undoubtedly Osama and Al Qaeda are not in any way progressive and cannot work in the favor of communism and anti-imperialism. However, other so-called "terrorist" organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which the ordinary Palestinian and Lebanese joins as a means to resistance and self-defense, can work in our favor since it actively combats Israeli colonialism and keeps the resistance alive.

Many of the ordinary Palestinians despise Hamas and Hezbollah, some have even stated for the record they are worse than the IDF, the son of a Hamas leader has recently spoken out against Hamas (in a wider criticism of Islam). Why should leftists support a movement that many believe is not truly leftist in ideology? Opposing Zionism and Israeli imperialism and opression and genocide of palestinians =/= supporting Hamas and cheering rockets fired into Israel or basically kids blowing themselves up because they are told that is how they will go to heaven. Communism is NYPA


Fine, but even those people didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Hey, today is a good day to hit the twin towers." There's always a cause.

But its not our cause, that's the point. Unless you truly believe that Al Quaeda will herald a new age of Socialist Utopia?

[Milk Sheikh]

You know what, the colombine kids that shot up the school had a cause too, probably so do rapists, thats a bullshit explination, of coarse they have a cause, so does the US bombing the hell out of afghanistan.

Terrorism is terrorism, the cause does'nt change that fact.

Also in the begining you just said terrorism does'nt exist, then you said certain terrorist acts are terrorism, but certain are not.


I am getting tired explaining this over and over. What people call Islamic terrorism is self-defense and therefore not terrorism at all. Comparing this with other forms of violence (such US bombing A or occupying Iraq etc.) is silly because the 'self-defense' factor is clearly missing in those instances. Of course, the bourgeois is going to say it's preemptive strike, it's self-defense against terrorists etc. etc. They have a war to sell, so they're gonna say that. Why the hell do leftists buy it?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I am getting tired explaining this over and over. What people call Islamic terrorism is self-defense and therefore not terrorism at all. Comparing this with other forms of violence (such US bombing A or occupying Iraq etc.) is silly because the 'self-defense' factor is clearly missing in those instances. Of course, the bourgeois is going to say it's preemptive strike, it's self-defense against terrorists etc. etc. They have a war to sell, so they're gonna say that. Why the hell do leftists buy it?

Yes, because actions like Al-Qaeda gunmen storming a church in Baghdad and shooting dead 50+ Iraqi Christians is "self-defense". Totally. :rolleyes:

[Viet Minh]

I am getting tired explaining this over and over. What people call Islamic terrorism is self-defense and therefore not terrorism at all. Comparing this with other forms of violence (such US bombing A or occupying Iraq etc.) is silly because the 'self-defense' factor is clearly missing in those instances. Of course, the bourgeois is going to say it's preemptive strike, it's self-defense against terrorists etc. etc. They have a war to sell, so they're gonna say that. Why the hell do leftists buy it?

No leftists 'buy it' it in fact most of the threads here are dedicated to USA-bashing, it doesn't mean they automatically support whoever they're at war with. For instance you oppose the USA invading Iraq, does that therefore automatically mean you support Saddam Hussein invading Iran or Kuwait (for their oil) or gassing Kurds? Actually, bad example :D
So as previously asked, 'Islamic Fundamentalists' :rolleyes: bomb the Spanish underground, therefore their families have the right to bomb an Afghan family, and so forth? I can't argue with that as an effective solution, no humans left= no problems! :thumbup1: Count me in to the Anarcho-Saddamites :laugh:

[RGacky3]

What people call Islamic terrorism is self-defense and therefore not terrorism at all.

Its not self defense, do you know what self defense is? Its when someone tries to attack you and you hit back, THATS self defense, going to afghanistan, plotting an attack on people in a building for what a COMPLETELY different group of people did that you don't like, is not self defense.

I don't care what the motivation was, he could have been bombing the twin towers to help starving children, or to further the cures for cancer, its terrorism.


Of course, the bourgeois is going to say it's preemptive strike, it's self-defense against terrorists etc. etc. They have a war to sell, so they're gonna say that. Why the hell do leftists buy it?

I don't buy it, but nor do I buy that Osama bin laden was acting in self-defense.

In my opinion the attacks in palestine are a different issue because that is more of a direct reaction of self defense .... But its still terrorism.

The Al Queda style terrorists are simply politically motivated terrorists.

BTW, this argument about self defense is such bullshit, I'm against war, I'm against violence, I'm not a pacifist because I believe in self defense, but SELF is not your country, its not your religion its not your ideology, its you, (your family can be included), so your country getting attacked and you flying over to Iraq to bomb people is not self defense. Self defense IS DEFENSE OF SELF.

[Milk Sheikh]

Muslims usually mind their own business and never attack anyone unless they are attacked first. It's also possible that some of these terrorist strikes are carried out by the govt. to defame the Muslims.

[RGacky3]

Muslims usually mind their own business and never attack anyone unless they are attacked first.

EVERYONE usually minds their own buisiness and never attack anyone unless they are attacked first.

Are you Muslim btw?

[Milk Sheikh]

EVERYONE usually minds their own buisiness and never attack anyone unless they are attacked first.

Everyone, including US, Israel, and powerful nations that constantly meddle in the affairs of other nations?

[RGacky3]

Everyone, including US, Israel, and powerful nations that constantly meddle in the affairs of other nations?

Those are nations, and yeah, all powerful nations act like that, just like muslim natoins that were powerful in history.

Stop pretending Muslims are special, they arn't.

[Viet Minh]

Muslims usually mind their own business and never attack anyone unless they are attacked first. It's also possible that some of these terrorist strikes are carried out by the govt. to defame the Muslims.

Thats how Islam spread to north africa, europe, near east and the east indies is it? The US did it to defame them? I'm not criticising Islam here, it just seems to me you're being a hypocrite yourself.

[Dimmu]

Muslims usually mind their own business and never attack anyone unless they are attacked first. It's also possible that some of these terrorist strikes are carried out by the govt. to defame the Muslims.

Nobody needs to "defame" the Muslims.. They are doing the job themselves.


Like i wrote earlier, the organized religion is a bane that needs to be removed, until that we wont have peace in the Middle-East or in other places.

Just look at the Europe after the Reformation, a time when religion was still playing a major role in politics. At that time we had 24/7 wars.

[Milk Sheikh]

Thats how Islam spread to north africa, europe, near east and the east indies is it? The US did it to defame them? I'm not criticising Islam here, it just seems to me you're being a hypocrite yourself.

I am talking about the present, not ancient history where war was a daily reality.

[RGacky3]

I am talking about the present, not ancient history where war was a daily reality.

It still is a daily reality numbnuts.

[Viet Minh]

I am talking about the present, not ancient history where war was a daily reality.

Whats the time limit on it?

btw whats your opinion on the struggles happening in Pakistan, between the Taliban and Government? Both sides are muslim (admittedly the Government are slightly more secular)

[Milk Sheikh]

It still is a daily reality numbnuts.

Oh really? Occupying other countries, placing sanctions on those that refuse to 'cooperate', demonizing ethnic minorities, sponsoring terrorism etc. etc. ... all these things are done mostly by western nations, never by Muslims. So please stop pretending as if they're both equally guilty.

[Milk Sheikh]

Whats the time limit on it?

btw whats your opinion on the struggles happening in Pakistan, between the Taliban and Government? Both sides are muslim (admittedly the Government are slightly more secular)

The Pakistan problem has been created by the US. Since the secular govt. is merely functioning as the pawns of American imperialists, Muslims are angry. Would you blame them? And besides, why do you give isolated examples? On the whole, Muslims don't cause that much damage.

[RGacky3]

Oh really? Occupying other countries, placing sanctions on those that refuse to 'cooperate', demonizing ethnic minorities, sponsoring terrorism etc. etc. ... all these things are done mostly by western nations, never by Muslims. So please stop pretending as if they're both equally guilty.

Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, bla bla bla, bla bla bla, and they'd do it much if if they were powerful.

Anyway, it does'nt matter, terrorism is terrorism, Muslim terrorists are terrorists, as are western terrorists.

[Milk Sheikh]

Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, bla bla bla, bla bla bla, and they'd do it much if if they were powerful.

Anyway, it does'nt matter, terrorism is terrorism, Muslim terrorists are terrorists, as are western terrorists.

You're talking about 'what might be' while I am talking about 'what is'. Besides, Iraq, Pakistan etc. are suffering at the hands of western imperialists, so what the heck are you talking about?

[RGacky3]

You're talking about 'what might be' while I am talking about 'what is'.

I'm talking about what WOULD MOST DEFINATELY BE by looking at every moment in history.

The whole third world is suffering at the hands of western imperialists, so what the heck are you talking about?

Using your argument I could say Catholics are less inclined to terrorism are are nicer than everyone else, because every latin American country that does dickish stuff is under western imperialism, but its a bullshit argument.

[Viet Minh]

Oh really? Occupying other countries, placing sanctions on those that refuse to 'cooperate', demonizing ethnic minorities, sponsoring terrorism etc. etc. ... all these things are done mostly by western nations, never by Muslims. So please stop pretending as if they're both equally guilty.

Nobody said that, its you who are pretending that one side can do no wrong, neither are guilt free. PS apart from sanctions, all those examples you gave could be arguably attributed to Muslim nations.


The Pakistan problem has been created by the US. Since the secular govt. is merely functioning as the pawns of American imperialists, Muslims are angry. Would you blame them? And besides, why do you give isolated examples? On the whole, Muslims don't cause that much damage.

Muslims are angry, damn right! (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/03/2011397258740365.html) The Pakistani Government is far from being secular (http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=2390) incidentally
You say why do I give isolated examples, then say muslims don't cause that much damage. Make up your mind!!
Btw I agree that overall Muslims don't do much damage at all, and largely that which they do is provoked, but that doesn't extend to revering the groups that commit terrorist acts.


You're talking about 'what might be' while I am talking about 'what is'. Besides, Iraq, Pakistan etc. are suffering at the hands of western imperialists, so what the heck are you talking about?

Iraq is suffering under US occupation, Pakistan is suffering at the hands of the Taliban last time I checked.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Nobody needs to "defame" the Muslims.. They are doing the job themselves.Not quite true - at least not here in the US where our politicians are conducting a public hearing to find out if American Muslims are doing enough to prove their patriotism, where building a cultural center is called a "victory mosque" by the right. And not in Europe where politicians are stoking anti-Muslim hate to attack immigrants.


Like i wrote earlier, the organized religion is a bane that needs to be removed, until that we wont have peace in the Middle-East or in other places.I think the experience of the uprising in Egypt shows this to be false. In a country that saw a large attack on a Christian minority weeks before the anti-Mubarak movement, the protests overcame the religious divide as Muslims went to a church to protect worshipers and then Coptics protected praying Muslims from police attacks in Tahrir.

Religion is a surface issue, not the "cause" of divisions in the Middle East or elsewhere. Religion is used by ruling classes as an excuse for this or that, they are not fundamentally driven by the religion - and that's why in different social contexts, the same religious views can be used in totally different ways.


Just look at the Europe after the Reformation, a time when religion was still playing a major role in politics. At that time we had 24/7 wars.Considering that most radicals and even many mainstream historians agree that the Reformation was an expression of social changes in parts of Europe (namely the rise of a more confident and self-conscious bourgeois class that needed to do away with titled caste hierarchy, needed to get rid of laws against "usury", needed a more individualistic ideology) this is not the best example to make your case.

[RGacky3]

I think the experience of the uprising in Egypt shows this to be false. In a country that saw a large attack on a Christian minority weeks before the anti-Mubarak movement, the protests overcame the religious divide as Muslims went to a church to protect worshipers and then Coptics protected praying Muslims from police attacks in Tahrir.

Religion is a surface issue, not the "cause" of divisions in the Middle East or elsewhere. Religion is used by ruling classes as an excuse for this or that, they are not fundamentally driven by the religion - and that's why in different social contexts, the same religious views can be used in totally different ways.


Absolutely, the cultural issues are way over rated, could'nt have said it better myself.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the experience of the uprising in Egypt shows this to be false. In a country that saw a large attack on a Christian minority weeks before the anti-Mubarak movement, the protests overcame the religious divide as Muslims went to a church to protect worshipers and then Coptics protected praying Muslims from police attacks in Tahrir.

some recent events that should be noted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2042704&postcount=141)

[Che a chara]

I think it is important to recognise the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed, especially if it consists of an imperialistic power. Now that's not me trying to excuse deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians, but the reality in any situation of oppression, discrimination or state terrorism (domestic or foreign) is that for every action, there is a reaction... rightly or wrongly. Oppression breeds resistance.

if you commit an act of physical or mental harm or torture on innocent people, then that is terrorism. Western imperialism is guilty of this on an enormous scale, so the West and their proxies do not have any right to cry foul when there is likewise retaliation from Islamic extremists i.e. 9/11, 7/7. These where awful attacks, but were a response to decades of interference and imperialist exploitation. In that, it should be understood, but should not be considered acceptable, just a scenario of war, which all admit they are engaging in.

US/NATO presence in the Middle East has recruited thousands and thousands of resistance/freedom fighters who have the legitimacy, in my eyes, to expel the invaders by any means necessary, but that does not include attacks on their own population or innocent civilians elsewhere in the world. That is terrorism, so if that occurs, again in reality, US/NATO retaliation should also be expected, but it is not as justified in comparison to Islamic rebellion.

[Viet Minh]

I think it is important to recognise the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed, especially if it consists of an imperialistic power. Now that's not me trying to excuse deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians, but the reality in any situation of oppression, discrimination or state terrorism (domestic or foreign) is that for every action, there is a reaction... rightly or wrongly. Oppression breeds resistance.

if you commit an act of physical or mental harm or torture on innocent people, then that is terrorism. Western imperialism is guilty of this on an enormous scale, so the West and their proxies do not have any right to cry foul when there is likewise retaliation from Islamic extremists i.e. 9/11, 7/7. These where awful attacks, but were a response to decades of interference and imperialist exploitation. In that, it should be understood, but should not be considered acceptable, just a scenario of war, which all admit they are engaging in.

US/NATO presence in the Middle East has recruited thousands and thousands of resistance/freedom fighters who have the legitimacy, in my eyes, to expel the invaders by any means necessary, but that does not include attacks on their own population or innocent civilians elsewhere in the world. That is terrorism, so if that occurs, again in reality, US/NATO retaliation should also be expected, but it is not as justified in comparison to Islamic rebellion.

I agree with what you're saying but opressed can be a subjective term. For example whilst the majority would decry the US invasion of Iraq, there were Kurds and Shia Muslims, even Iraqi Arabs who saw it as their salvation, at the time at least, regardless of the motivation for oil. Now there's no doubt the US are the opressors in this situation to my mind, with the death toll of the invasion and subsequent 'insurrection', sectarian violence between shia and sunni groups, torture and rape by US and allied soldiers, essentially one dictator was replaced with another, arguably worse one. As leftists I would argue our sympathy should be to the people, who should not have to suffer under either saddam hussein or the US junta.

[danyboy27]

Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve a group or an individual end.

so yea, terrorism exist now and was present even durinng the antiquity.

The Romans, the huns, the khans, the brittish, the belgian, there is not a single nation on earth who havnt used or not been a victim of terrorism at a moment or another of history.

Terrorism cannot be mesured by the number of death or wounded, its the amount of fear it created and its impact that is used to measure it.

For exemple german terrorism in Switzerland didnt involved bombing or killing peoples, all it took was implied threat of invasion and bombing run to make the swiss governement to cut deal with them for precision armement and suspicious banking account.

It was succesfull terrorism, they scared the swiss governement, and the swiss collaborated.

No shot fired, no bomb exploded, only fear of ending like the generalgovernement of Poland sufficed.

Terrorism is the use of fear has a weapon.

So yea, terrorism exist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

some recent events that should be noted (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2042704&postcount=141)What's your point? I'm not saying struggle (let alone an incomplete one like in Egypt) is magic, but religious strife now does not negate the fact that in the protest movement in Tarhir, religion was not a barrier - people united along common interests, not along religion.

I think people on the left tend to fetishise region - give it more significance than it has. On the one hand, the OP suggests that people of the same set of beliefs "seem" to be more just or whatnot but I think this is a pretty baseless generalization. Almost all major religions have had progressive and regressive phases in their development and even then it is not across the board because how religion acts in society is not based on the religious ideas or practices or whatnot, religion is subordinate to the structure of whatever class society it is in. It has always been a main tool of ruling classes to disseminate their ideas and try and unite the other classes under their hegemony. It has also been the rallying ideology for rebellions and new rising classes (the reformation, the Bohemian and English Revolutions).

On the other hand are people in this thread are arguing that religion is a fundamental cause of strife which IMO fetishises it from the opposite direction. It's true that relgion is one of the ways the ruling class divides people - but it also does this with nationality and other things but no one would suggest that in order to have a revolution, we must first get rid of nation-states and nationalities. No, we have a revolution and the process unites people and gets rid of states and the current ideas of nationality would organically change and fall away. It would be impossible to get rid of religion and then have a revolution since the conditions of class society is what draws people to religion: they crave the sense of community in this alienated kind of society and security/understanding in a capitalist world that is irrational and senseless. IMO, it's a false understanding, but it's idealist to think that all people would willingly give up even a false sense of understanding and security unless they had a viable alternative offering real understanding and security (say a world run democratically and cooperatively and free of needless want or suffering).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hey, I'm not saying that what happened in Cairo wasn't impressive or anything, but there's still a loooooong way to go.

(I'm not an anti-theist, btw.)