Controversial topic...terrorists and innocent people

[benhur]

Comrades,

This has been a very confusing subject. I am not referring to Islamic terrorism, or any type of terrorism in particular, so let's be clear on that. My question is: who is a terrorist? One man's terrorist could be another man's freedom fighter, so isn't the whole thing relative?

If so, how do we define terrorism at all? Here, some people argue that if terrorists target the state (police, politicians, soldiers etc.), they are NOT terrorists, but freedom fighters:). But most of the time, terrorists target innocent people, which is why terrorists are to be hated. This is their argument.

There are two flaws in this argument, as I can see. I don't think it'll be easy for terrorists to target the state for obvious reasons. Security, for one thing. It would be easy for a terrorist to target an average guy on the street, than the president or some powerful leader. So why would he try to do the impossible? So the terrorist may feel that the logical course of action is to pick easy/soft targets.

Secondly, the argument that terrorists attack innocent people. Well, who's innocent, really? Most of these 'innocent' people are not class conscious, nor do they care about the poor. Most of them are greedy and cruel, insensitive, mean, and apathetic. In fact, if not for their fear of law, they would be no different from terrorists.:crying: That being the case, isn't it naive to assume that people who die in terrorist attacks are all innocent angels?

Therefore, it seems to me that there isn't much difference between 'normal' people and terrorists. So do we have to drop this word from our terminology, since I believe it's just another bourgeois invention to dehumanize revolutionaries?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are two flaws in this argument, as I can see. I don't think it'll be easy for terrorists to target the state for obvious reasons. Security, for one thing. It would be easy for a terrorist to target an average guy on the street, than the president or some powerful leader. So why would he try to do the impossible? So the terrorist may feel that the logical course of action is to pick easy/soft targets.

First of all, it sends the wrong message. Civilians, for the most part, are simply people going about their business. They will have a multitude of opinions about the issues that may concern a terrorist group, but blowing up buses and buildings shows that the terrorist group does not give a damn about what they think and are willing to use fear to achieve their goals.

Which kind of casts a dubious light over the goals of the terrorists, however noble they may in fact be.


Secondly, the argument that terrorists attack innocent people. Well, who's innocent, really? Most of these 'innocent' people are not class conscious, nor do they care about the poor. Most of them are greedy and cruel, insensitive, mean, and apathetic. In fact, if not for their fear of law, they would be no different from terrorists.:crying: That being the case, isn't it naive to assume that people who die in terrorist attacks are all innocent angels?People aren't angels, therefore it's OK to blow them up? Fuck off.


Therefore, it seems to me that there isn't much difference between 'normal' people and terrorists. So do we have to drop this word from our terminology, since I believe it's just another bourgeois invention to dehumanize revolutionaries?The fact that governments use the fear of terrorism for their own ends is no reason to give up the term.

[Yehuda Stern]

'Terrorist' isn't a moralist definition - that's just the way that American and Zionist anti-Muslim and anti-Arab propaganda treats it. Terrorism is any act which is meant to advance a political agenda by way of instilling fear in its rivals. In the Bolshevik civil war, there was the White Terrorism of the counterrevolution and the Red Terrorism of the Bolsheviks. Revolutionaries would oppose the former and support the latter.

Marxists oppose individual terrorism as a tactic, since it encourages the workers not to fight as a class for their interests but to rely on noble individuals to do the fighting for them. That being said, we have to be able to tell the difference between

1. State terrorism - the violence used by the imperialist powers to try to subdue oppressed people at home and outside (American aggression in Iraq, Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, etc.).

2. Individual terrorism which targets civilians, which is the way the definition is normally used. However, we must also stress the fact that the oppressed often use this tactic because they see no other way to fight, and although it should be condemned, could never be equated with state terrorism.

3. Individual terrorism which targets political and military figures, which is still tactically wrong from a Marxist point of view, but which cannot be condemned on moral grounds (for example, even though I think the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi was counterproductive, I see nothing morally wrong about it).

That being said, it's pretty monstrous to say that it's OK to kill people on the basis of them not being revolutionaries.

[benhur]

First of all, it sends the wrong message. Civilians, for the most part, are simply people going about their business.

That's the problem, exactly. People go about their business, working for the bourgeois, hating and mocking the poor, being mean to each other, etc. etc. Hence, the terrorist argues that these people are part of the problem.

They will have a multitude of opinions about the issues that may concern a terrorist group, but blowing up buses and buildings shows that the terrorist group does not give a damn about what they think and are willing to use fear to achieve their goals.

Which kind of casts a dubious light over the goals of the terrorists, however noble they may in fact be.

Again, it's not easy to attack a politician who has all the security in the world.

People aren't angels, therefore it's OK to blow them up? Fuck off.

Never said it's ok. I am just playing the devil's advocate here. I am not supporting the terrorists, just trying to see their viewpoint.

The fact that governments use the fear of terrorism for their own ends is no reason to give up the term.

But usually, the term is used to describe terrorism committed by groups like al quaeda, or nations like Iran. It is never used to describe state terrorism committed by western nations. So the word creates so much prejudice in people.


Just playing the devil's advocate to understand this better. Dont flame me.

[benhur]

'Terrorist' isn't a moralist definition - that's just the way that American and Zionist anti-Muslim and anti-Arab propaganda treats it. Terrorism is any act which is meant to advance a political agenda by way of instilling fear in its rivals. In the Bolshevik civil war, there was the White Terrorism of the counterrevolution and the Red Terrorism of the Bolsheviks. Revolutionaries would oppose the former and support the latter.

Marxists oppose individual terrorism as a tactic, since it encourages the workers not to fight as a class for their interests but to rely on noble individuals to do the fighting for them. That being said, we have to be able to tell the difference between

1. State terrorism - the violence used by the imperialist powers to try to subdue oppressed people at home and outside (American aggression in Iraq, Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, etc.).

2. Individual terrorism which targets civilians, which is the way the definition is normally used. However, we must also stress the fact that the oppressed often use this tactic because they see no other way to fight, and although it should be condemned, could never be equated with state terrorism.

3. Individual terrorism which targets political and military figures, which is still tactically wrong from a Marxist point of view, but which cannot be condemned on moral grounds (for example, even though I think the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi was counterproductive, I see nothing morally wrong about it).

That being said, it's pretty monstrous to say that it's OK to kill people on the basis of them not being revolutionaries.

Thanks for a detailed analysis. But when faced with a powerful state (and its terror), we have to admit that some sort of terrorism is inevitable. If not individual, then what?


Reg. #2, terrorists argue that these civilians are NOT innocent, because if they are, why would they support the govt.? Why would they not protest against state terrorism? Because they keep quiet when state is committing terrorism against their people.

[Yehuda Stern]

when faced with a powerful state (and its terror), we have to admit that some sort of terrorism is inevitable. If not individual, then what?


First of all, advanced workers should create a revolutionary party based on the working class. That party could best decide which tactics to follow in order to combat the armed forces of the oppressor. Guerrilla warfare, when it is subordinated to the interests of the workers, might be a good way to go about this.


terrorists argue that these civilians are NOT innocent, because if they are, why would they support the govt.? Why would they not protest against state terrorism? Because they keep quiet when state is committing terrorism against their people.

The question is, what is your goal? If your goal is to advance working class solidarity, you can't do that when you're blowing up workers of the oppressor nation. That only strengthens their support for their state. If you believe that only a world socialist revolution can free the oppressed nations, then you have to fight for it, and fight for working class solidarity. It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but then, it is far more productive than killing common people who have no power over the state.

[benhur]

The question is, what is your goal? If your goal is to advance working class solidarity, you can't do that when you're blowing up workers of the oppressor nation. That only strengthens their support for their state. If you believe that only a world socialist revolution can free the oppressed nations, then you have to fight for it, and fight for working class solidarity. It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but then, it is far more productive than killing common people who have no power over the state.

That's the problem, you see? We're not able to think of an alternative, except that we must aim for a world socialist revolution which, btw, is as vague as it can get. I am not faulting you, don't get me wrong, you're right about this. All I am saying is, there seems to be no other alternative, even though we condemn individual acts of terrorism that often kill the wrong people.

Then again, because we lack an alternative (let's face it, at the moment, we're impotent against the state, even third-world countries are armed to suppress all revolution), the only solution seems to be blackmailing the govt. through attacks on soft targets. This is the logic of some people, and I dont blame them, even if I dont agree.

[JimmyJazz]

http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm

[cyu]

The answer: civil disobedience, backed by self-defense.

A non-economic scenario: Racial segregation
The response: Show up at the segregated area, armed. Use the facilities designated for the other race. If anybody tries to stop you with bodily force, use your weapons to defend yourselves.

An economic scenario: Workplace dictatorship
The response: Show up at work with the rest of the employees, armed. Decide democratically how best to run the company. If anybody tries to stop you with bodily force, use your weapons to defend yourselves.

Discussion
Of course, doing this in isolated incidents may not get you much practical success, although it can get you a lot of publicity. However, if you've built a movement in which this was happening across the country (like a civil rights movement or a recovered factory movement), then chances of success are much higher.

[Yehuda Stern]

Again, the question is what your goal is. If your goal is to pressure imperialism into becoming more lenient, then terrorism could perhaps do the trick (although not really). If your question is a socialist revolution, then petty "revenge" against poor working class people is counterproductive.

[FreeFocus]

If "terrorism" is to be a word with any weight and meaning whatsoever, it has to be defined objectively and any attempt at redefinition or misuse must be called out. An appropriate definition of terrorism is the targeting or excessive killing (even if done by accident; it shows a real lack of concern for life when a person might target a group of non-civilians but ends up killing more civilians than whomever they were targeting) of civilians for political, economic, or social goals. Some people argue that states can't engage in terrorism when using state institutions, which is ridiculous because there's no qualitative difference between a militant blowing a building up with innocents inside and some pigs dropping a bomb from an F16. Thus, I think that most people who try to artificially divide violence that targets or primarily affects civilians are simply blinded by conventional thinking which says that states are necessary institutions, militaries defend the people, etc. It's especially pronounced in the US.

[Comrade B]

Terrorists use fear upon the civilian population as to force them to, not necessarily join, but surrender to the terrorist's stance.
Accidental collateral damage is not terrorism.
Using IEDs in civilian areas to destroy a military structure or government structure is not terrorism.
Bombing neighborhoods to scare the people into surrender or the neighbors into not being as related to a view (as the US does in the middle east to small communities that are militant related) is terrorism

[benhur]

Thanks, everyone, for all the different insights.

I've come to the conclusion that terrorism isn't all that bad, provided no one dies. If the terrorists can simply terrorize people, and NOT kill them, that should suffice. Even though the state is the primary enemy, I feel the middle class is the worse enemy of all.

[jake williams]

I use the word "terrorism" to refer to violence used as a psychological tool against populations. This is a very broad, and I think useful, definition. It's a tactic used by a very very broad number of political groups, in fact probably with the exception of some radical pacifists just about any major political idea will eventually have someone ask the question about the efficacy or appropriateness of terrorism.

Personally I don't like it, but there's an argument for it. One of the most irksome things for me is how the whole idea behind the "shock and awe" dealie in Iraq in 2003 fit any sensible concept of "terrorism".

[redguard2009]

There was a time when the term "terrorist" and "terrorism" was much less controversial and was seen by many people as a legitimate political tactic. But, back then, terrorists didn't blow up buses filled with people, or fly jet planes into skyscrapers; usually their acts of "terror" involved assassinating a politician or robbing a bank or shooting soldiers or police.

Today, I feel terrorism is more a red herring, a convenient demonization of anyone which can evoke strong negative feelings about them -- in a way, use of the term terrorism has become in itself a terror tactic, by terrorizing people into hating someone or some group or what-have-you. Which is gleefully ironic.