Terrorism

[RNK]

Okay, so, you right-wingers seem to be all up-in-the-panties about this word. Yeah, terrorism is bad, but it all depends on who the terrorists actually are.

So I'm going to put forward some names, and I'd like you to come up with your BEST reason why it was okay for the US to create, arm, support or generally be an ally of these people:

Sani Abacha
Batista
King Fahd
Ferdinand Marcos
Pinochet
Somoza
Musharraf
Saddam
Karimov
Nazarbayev
Osama bin Laden

Like I said, terrorism is bad... but what about the people who create the terrorists?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:35 am
Okay, so, you right-wingers seem to be all up-in-the-panties about this word. Yeah, terrorism is bad, but it all depends on who the terrorists actually are.

So I'm going to put forward some names, and I'd like you to come up with your BEST reason why it was okay for the US to create, arm, support or generally be an ally of these people:

Sani Abacha
Batista
King Fahd
Ferdinand Marcos
Pinochet
Somoza
Musharraf
Saddam
Karimov
Nazarbayev
Osama bin Laden

Like I said, terrorism is bad... but what about the people who create the terrorists?
There are plenty of things that we do that are distasteful or even horrible but are judged to be necessary to prevent even greater evil. Sometimes, in retrospect, those judgments are wrong, but such is the price of living.

[Intifada]

So why do you lot complain when those you bully push back?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:08 pm
So why do you lot complain when those you bully push back?
Obviously, because they fight for values that we believe are evil or pernicious.

[Le People]

So why support their cause in the first place? The reason America is all tied up with terrorism is because America itself has no values persay. The ends justify the means. So America utilizes terrorist groups to attack its enemies so at the end of all the wars "democracy" will supposedly be installed everywhere. Its just Hegelian Idealism at its finest.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 18, 2007 02:36 pm
So why support their cause in the first place?
Because circumstances change. If you do something bad to prevent a greater evil, and the greater evil is thus prevented, you can now stop doing the bad thing. You seem to be arguing that support, once given, can never be withdrawn no matter how much the circumstances change. That's just ridiculous.

[Le People]

No, its called being ethical. Stick by your values which is supposedly liberty. So we use forces that are not for liberty (some of them are, though) to fight great evils. Once the blood has been split, it shall always stay on our hands. Besides, what makes you so sure that the governments we perform terrorist actions against are evil? Hell, we're the evil ones if we're beating the hell out of other countries such as Cuba. Thats not defense, its dirty imperialism.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by pusher robot+July 18, 2007 02:24 pm--> (pusher robot @ July 18, 2007 02:24 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 02:08 pm
So why do you lot complain when those you bully push back?
Obviously, because they fight for values that we believe are evil or pernicious. [/b]
Then you understand where they are coming from.

They do not like your belief that you have a right to interfere in their business.

They do not like your imperial values.

Moreover, I do not agree (as you seem to have inferred) that this whole issue is about them not liking your values (at which point I ask what these values are exactly).

The normal "values" that come up at this point are those of "democracy", "liberty" and "justice". Yet, at the same time you do not like democratically elected officials who do not accept your conditions for living, while you refuse people their liberty for years on end and commit crimes all too easily.

All of your so-called "values" are simply a facade.

[Marsella]

Okay, so, you right-wingers seem to be all up-in-the-panties about this word. Yeah, terrorism is bad, but it all depends on who the terrorists actually are.

Terrorism is a method. The purpose of that method must be judged - not the method itself.

I see nothing wrong with applying terrorist methods; assassinations, planned bombings, kidnappings. However, these tactics should never replace revolutionary struggle.


So I'm going to put forward some names, and I'd like you to come up with your BEST reason why it was okay for the US to create, arm, support or generally be an ally of these people:

Sani Abacha
Batista
King Fahd
Ferdinand Marcos
Pinochet
Somoza
Musharraf
Saddam
Karimov
Nazarbayev
Osama bin Laden

The US utilises most groups to attack their enemies. Its like using a condom. Why waste American lives, damaging political support when others can do it?

[Publius]

Okay, so, you right-wingers seem to be all up-in-the-panties about this word. Yeah, terrorism is bad, but it all depends on who the terrorists actually are.

No it doesn't.

Terrorism is always bad.



So I'm going to put forward some names, and I'd like you to come up with your BEST reason why it was okay for the US to create, arm, support or generally be an ally of these people:

What if we don't think there was a good reason?



Like I said, terrorism is bad... but what about the people who create the terrorists?

Just as bad.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:23 pm

Terrorism is always bad.

Not that I disagree. But does that include George Washington and the terrorists who fought against Britain? Because you know, they were terrorists, using normal definitions. Or what about the French Resistance? I am not a fan of terrorism but I have a hard time condemning them despite the fact they do fit the profile and so on...

[Entrails Konfetti]

What I like is how most history teachers pin the American Revolution against the French Terror, and try to minimize the terror of the united states. About 4 Native American villages were burnt to the ground during the revolution-- with women and children ofcourse, yes, this is a fact. But, lets not forget during the process in which it took to colonize USA how many natives were rubbed out. If it weren't for this rubbing out USA as it is today couldn't have been possible. Sure you can say that it was the British empires fault, but the attitude and actions towards the Natives still stayed them same after the revolution for some time.

[Publius]

Not that I disagree. But does that include George Washington and the terrorists who fought against Britain? Because you know, they were terrorists, using normal definitions.

I can hardly see how.


Or what about the French Resistance?

I believe the French resistance mostly attacked military and industrial targets as well as the Vichy government, correct?

A better example might be Algeria.

Anyway, when I say terrorism I generally mean the killing of innocent civilians for a political purpose. Simply blowing something up isn't strictly "terrorism" to me, because it lacks the emotional propaganda aspect. Kidnapping someone is not necessarily terroristic, unless you videotape it and distribute it to the media.

I have no problem with resistance, even violent resistance, but I do have a problem with, say, blowing up a cafe with a planted in a stroller.

I don't care what you're fighting for, that's not justified.


I am not a fan of terrorism but I have a hard time condemning them despite the fact they do fit the profile and so on...

I don't have any trouble at all condemning, say, al Qaeda or some of the 'insurgents' in Iraq.

What they're doing is clearly wrong, and they're often doing it for repressive, theocratic purposes.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Publius
What they're doing is clearly wrong, and they're often doing it for repressive, theocratic purposes.
You know, old Dubya came to my mind when I read that! :lol:

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:53 pm
I can hardly see how.

Washington's tactics fell completely outwith the mores of war at the time. He used tactics that were regarded as underhand and certainly the equivalent to how we regard, say, suicide bombing today. Of course he is an American hero of the highest order so such matters tend to be overlooked. A bit like the fact that here in Scotland, William Wallace is a national hero despite the fact that a large portion of his modus operandi was simply getting his men to rape as many English women as possible. People are a bit blind when it comes to national heroes.
I believe the French resistance mostly attacked military and industrial targets as well as the Vichy government, correct?
Yeah, but most terrorism is caried out against political or military targets. Al Quaeda's methods are pretty a-typical really

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:56 pm
The US utilises most groups to attack their enemies. Its like using a condom. Why waste American lives, damaging political support when others can do it?
Thats makes no sense what so ever lol :lol:

Terrorism / Terrorist is mostly a term decided by whose saying it , e.g the us called the contras freedom fighters and the Sandinista's terrorists , the bbc called the ira terrorists , called the uvf paramilitaries ..

Martov:
I see nothing wrong with applying terrorist methods; assassinations, planned bombings, kidnappings. However, these tactics should never replace revolutionary struggle.

What does this mean ?
Why would you advocate assinations? planned bombings? kidnapings i spose can be ok , Farc uses that to fund their struggle and some groups in the niger dealta do it to foreign shell workers .

Personnally i don't get the point in doing bombing or anything unless your in a war against the bourgeois or something ... generally i don't think any left movement should be picking up a gun , unless the country their in is repressive to their beliefs and won't let them speak .


All in all i dont even know i why i posted here ... OI so boring these days Lol ;)

[RNK]

Anyway, when I say terrorism I generally mean the killing of innocent civilians for a political purpose.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Erm... pretty much every right-wing dictator supported by the US over the past 60 years?

[Publius]

Washington's tactics fell completely outwith the mores of war at the time. He used tactics that were regarded as underhand and certainly the equivalent to how we regard, say, suicide bombing today.

I would call that Guerilla Warfare.



Of course he is an American hero of the highest order so such matters tend to be overlooked. A bit like the fact that here in Scotland, William Wallace is a national hero despite the fact that a large portion of his modus operandi was simply getting his men to rape as many English women as possible. People are a bit blind when it comes to national heroes.

I prefer Thomas Paine myself.



Yeah, but most terrorism is caried out against political or military targets. Al Quaeda's methods are pretty a-typical really

I don't know about that.

[Publius]

Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

I don't think that's at all fair.

Just because we used nuclear weapons as opposed to standard doesn't make those cases special. Hell, we killed more people and did more damage firebombing Tokyo.

Going through all the tragedies of World War II and picking out 2 just to pin something on the US does nothing. I mean just look what Japan did to China. That makes us come out like angels, I think.

And I can't even say that I disagree with the decision, because ultimately, it might have saved lives.



Erm... pretty much every right-wing dictator supported by the US over the past 60 years?

Sure.

[pusher robot]

No, its called being ethical.

We are too pragmatic - better to be a living hypocrite than ethical and dead.


Stick by your values which is supposedly liberty.

Right, well, there's the rub: by whose definition of liberty? Does that include the liberty to attack us? The liberty to oppress others?


Once the blood has been split, it shall always stay on our hands.

IF that is to be true for us, it ought to be true for everybody.


Besides, what makes you so sure that the governments we perform terrorist actions against are evil?

Our own judgment, by the standards of our values, to the best of our ability.


Hell, we're the evil ones if we're beating the hell out of other countries such as Cuba. Thats not defense, its dirty imperialism.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what your values are and what our actions are. Other than the incredibly lame Bay of Pigs fiasco, we've hardly "beat up on" Cuba at all, only refused to interact with them.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:55 pm


Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

I don't think that's at all fair.

Just because we used nuclear weapons as opposed to standard doesn't make those cases special. Hell, we killed more people and did more damage firebombing Tokyo.

Going through all the tragedies of World War II and picking out 2 just to pin something on the US does nothing. I mean just look what Japan did to China. That makes us come out like angels, I think.

And I can't even say that I disagree with the decision, because ultimately, it might have saved lives.



Erm... pretty much every right-wing dictator supported by the US over the past 60 years?

Sure.
Sure, the fire bombings of Tokyo as well. I think the point is, that they killed civilians for political (war) purposes. The civilians were the targets. Regardless of the consequences, the number of lives that were "saved" or whatever, by your definition, many many acts (committed by both sides sure) during WW2 were in fact terrorism.

I agree.

The USA government doesn&#39;t of course, because terrorism can&#39;t be committed by a government <_< :rolleyes:.

[freakazoid]

generally i don&#39;t think any left movement should be picking up a gun , unless the country their in is repressive to their beliefs and won&#39;t let them speak .

I do think so, :D


better to be a living hypocrite than ethical and dead.

Not me, I&#39;d prefer to die fighting for what I believe in than to be a hypocrite.

[Le People]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 11:11 am

No, its called being ethical.

We are too pragmatic - better to be a living hypocrite than ethical and dead.


Stick by your values which is supposedly liberty.

Right, well, there&#39;s the rub: by whose definition of liberty? Does that include the liberty to attack us? The liberty to oppress others?


Once the blood has been split, it shall always stay on our hands.

IF that is to be true for us, it ought to be true for everybody.


Besides, what makes you so sure that the governments we perform terrorist actions against are evil?

Our own judgment, by the standards of our values, to the best of our ability.


Hell, we&#39;re the evil ones if we&#39;re beating the hell out of other countries such as Cuba. Thats not defense, its dirty imperialism.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what your values are and what our actions are. Other than the incredibly lame Bay of Pigs fiasco, we&#39;ve hardly "beat up on" Cuba at all, only refused to interact with them.
Liberty- to do what ever the hell you want without impeding others ability to do whatever the hell they want. And I completely agree with you. If its true for us, then it is true for them. But there are many opitions to dealing with problems on the international scene rather than convincing some terrorists to do our bidding. Any way, we are contradicting our "values". A democratic state (which we sadly claim to be) would respect others autonmy and only enter into wars if violnece is perpertrated on them. They would never dominate threats just because they are threats. They would only invade them if the threat shot the first shot. As to Cuba, look up all the various anti Castro groups we&#39;ve helped whose perpertrated terrorist acts against Cuba.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I don&#39;t think you could easily reduce terrorism into something that is either exclusively &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39;.

In advanced capitalist countries, the ruling class uses the state to repress and intimidate the mass of people. Its primary function is to protect the bourgeois social order, especially in those crisis situations when the normal mechanisms of class rule are no longer effective; it also assists in ventures for raw materials and new markets, which can only be seized through the naked employment of violence and terror. This is why the United States funds this assorted mass of bandits, robbers, warlords, and murderers. There is nothing incorrect about what Pusher Robot is saying - he is reaffmirming a reality; the capitalists sometime resort to funding their enemies since they are the lesser threat to their overall profits, and they change their position towards this enemy as soon as conditions are in their favor.

In the context of a workers&#39; republic however, we will allocate the surplus capital from the holdings of the capitalists into our own hands, and during this process of confiscation, we will face employed fascist thugs who will try to stop us through terror in order to preserve the delicate social order that they are fighting for. Now, we can either go home while sticking to our moral framework of anti-terrorism, or we can start hurting people. Though this may be going too far, we are dealing with a class of desperate sociopathic criminals who will anyone or anything that stands in their way or threatens their position; I think the past world wars, and the rise of Hitler and Mussolini are a testament of that.

However, we are consistently against individual terror, such as the attacks on September 11th, or other assorted assasinations or bombings by revolutionaries alike. In The Autocracy and the Proletariat, Lenin makes his sentiments towards terrorism quite clear,


Russian terrorism has always been a specifically intellectualist method of struggle. And whatever may be said of the importance of terrorism, not in lieu of, but in conjunction with, the people’s movement, the facts irrefutably testify that in our country individual political assassinations have nothing in common with the forcible actions of the people’s revolution. In capitalist society a mass movement is possible only as a class movement of the workers. This movement is developing in Russia according to its own independent laws; it is proceeding in its own way, gaining in depth and in breadth, and passing from a temporary lull to a new upsurge. It is only the liberal wave that rises and falls strictly in accord with the moods of the different ministers, whose replacement is accelerated by bombs. Small wonder, then, that sympathy with terrorism is to be met with so often in our country among the radical (or radical-posing) representatives of the bourgeois Opposition. Small wonder that; among the revolutionary intelligentsia, the people most likely to be carried away (whether for long or for a moment) by terrorism are those who have no faith in the vitality and strength of the proletariat and the proletarian class struggle.

[RNK]

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s at all fair.

Of course not. And I believe that&#39;s the point.


Anyway, when I say terrorism I generally mean the killing of innocent civilians for a political purpose.

By anyone but you.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:34 am





Of course not. And I believe that&#39;s the point.


No, it&#39;s ridiculous to take 2 bombings of a city out of a war where literally thousands of similar bombings occurred and call THOSE terrorism.

It&#39;s just as ridiculous to call the Battle of Britain terrorism.

Bombing a city in wartime is not an example of &#39;terrorism&#39;. If that were considered terrorism it would impossible to distinguish &#39;war&#39; from &#39;terrorism&#39; to begin with, and so what use would the term even have?



By anyone but you.


Fuck off.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)
No, it&#39;s ridiculous to take 2 bombings of a city out of a war where literally thousands of similar bombings occurred and call THOSE terrorism.[/b] the problem is with the coalition actions it nearly always involves wanton bombings which involve many civillian death and casualties which are later justified as being &#39;collateral&#39; and &#39;necessary cost in undermining enemy infrastructure&#39; when Al Quaeda could just as easilly use the same justification for 9/11.


Publius
It&#39;s just as ridiculous to call the Battle of Britain terrorism.
thats entirely different because it took place between legitimate military targets (in the air) <_<

[Marsella]

Thats makes no sense what so ever lol

Sure it does. USA primarily commands influence in other countries through groups: e.g. employed Osama to fight USSR, same as in Indonesia. They fuck other countries through certain groups (e.g. condom).


Terrorism / Terrorist is mostly a term decided by whose saying it , e.g the us called the contras freedom fighters and the Sandinista&#39;s terrorists , the bbc called the ira terrorists , called the uvf paramilitaries ..

Yeah sure, the adjective terrorist is generally synonomous with &#39;bad guys.&#39; But there are still terrorist methods.


I see nothing wrong with applying terrorist methods; assassinations, planned bombings, kidnappings. However, these tactics should never replace revolutionary struggle.

What does this mean ?

That terrorist methods should only be used alongside mainstream revolutionary struggle. E.g the RAF was just a terrorist organisation per se - there was no revolutionary situation. In other words we want change through revolution not through blowing shit up.


Why would you advocate assinations? planned bombings? kidnapings i spose can be ok , Farc uses that to fund their struggle and some groups in the niger dealta do it to foreign shell workers .

FARC also employs assassinations and bombings. I would advocate them because they can be very effective in highlighting issues, gaining attention and, in a revolutionary situation, of gaining power.


Personnally i don&#39;t get the point in doing bombing or anything unless your in a war against the bourgeois or something ... generally i don&#39;t think any left movement should be picking up a gun , unless the country their in is repressive to their beliefs and won&#39;t let them speak .

Are you advocating a peaceful &#39;revolution?&#39; A revolution ain&#39;t a picnic. At the end of the day it results in the complete crushing of the ruling class. We can&#39;t just vote in socialism. It would be &#39;nice&#39; to have a complete overhaul but I doubt whether Mr Jones is going to give up his wealthy lifestyle.

[Ol' Dirty]

What exactly is "terrorism?"

[hajduk]

terrorism always become bad becouse when you whant to make terrorist attack you need a wheapon,and from who you will by that?
from capitalists of course,and by that you supported capitalistic system who doesnt care who gonna die

[NorthStarRepublicML]

What exactly is "terrorism?"

good question ..... because reading through this thread it&#39;s really jumbled ... i mean perhaps the parties in disagreement should each state their own definition of "terrorism" and we could argue about that ....

but i&#39;m not jumping into this discussion until people clarify their positions ....

obviously this is contentious ... but a lot of it seems semantic ...

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:40 pm

What exactly is "terrorism?"

good question ..... because reading through this thread it&#39;s really jumbled ... i mean perhaps the parties in disagreement should each state their own definition of "terrorism" and we could argue about that ....

but i&#39;m not jumping into this discussion until people clarify their positions ....

obviously this is contentious ... but a lot of it seems semantic ...
terror = ruling by fear