Terrorism?

I know that just the word terrorism seems to bring up the image of a turban clad religious zealot (only for the racist islamophobes on this site - Bobkindles) but I have a very different idea. Terrorism is the act of placing or instilling fear into a populus in order to bring about change. I feel that the travesties against civilians is sick, but specificly placed political strikes and attacks are a key intrument in placing the fear into not the people but the government. We don't need to blow up the world trade center to make a statment about our feelings, that is just mass murder, but executing Glen Beck on the air as a statment that we will not tolerate Neo-Conservative mind numbings. All things in this world must be balenced and the use of terrorism as a positive as oposed to the silly random killings of the current terrorists and bring about a new world of unconventional warfare. Your thoughts?

Seems about right to me. Something to realise also is that the authorities cannot watch and/or protect everything and that they are only human.

Another thing, which is a question of definition - are attacks on infrastructure and instances of property destruction considered "terrorism"? Obviously they would be called such by the authorities and the mainstream media, but to me that seems far removed from public execution, even of odious figures such as Glenn Beck.

"I feel that the travesties against civilians is sick, but specificly placed political strikes and attacks are a key intrument in placing the fear into not the people but the government."

Yep definitely agree with that.

Yea, if you're in a situation where you're being occupied or there's martial law, then I'd say keep taking out officers and the like till you drive them out or make them afraid to roam the streets :/

I have no problem executing , attacking and scaring shitless the right people however the right people are obviously not random pub goers but people such as politicians bankers , bobkindles and cops.

The term "terrorist" is basically just people who are enemies of the state. If you commit an act of violence but do so in the name of the government, you are not a terrorist, but if you commit an act of violence AGAINST the government, you are. It is a good way to delegitimize liberation movements such as in Palestine or Ireland.

^ That's it. You're always seen as a terrorists, as long as you fight against the state, now matter how unjust and opressive it is and what your ideals are.

I totally agree that attacks against civillians are wrong and should be avoided under all circumstances, since they harm innocent people and may even help to legitimise the state and present the attackers as a threat for society and "vicious monsters".

But I have absolutely no problem with attacking the right persons or groups, I e.g. see nothing wrong with what the RAF did, when they kidnapped and killed Hans-Martin Schleyer, a former convinced Nazi, anti-semite, HJ member and SS officer, who discovered the joys of capitalism after the war and became manager and head of the main German employers' organistaion.

for i belive that armed struggle is the most important struggle and any any other struggle must be the provider for the armed one
but we must differintuate between armed struggle and terrorism that first is for given freedom and welfare and equity for people but the second give people death and screams
i guess the left side armed struggle must be against the real enemy "the big companies" and the Imperialism so worker and poor people can have thier rights in equity and socialism
life long communisit
Syrian Comrade

Robert Fisk covers the topic of "terrorism" very well in his book on Lebanon, Pity the Nation. The term has no independent meaning, and Fisk advocates avoiding the term completely. States use the term, not just to de-legitimise struggles, but also to de-humanise their victims.

The most inhumane things can be done in the fight against terror. People are prepared to accept more casualties, more affronts to their liberty if the acts are done against terrorists or even terrorist suspects. Terrorists certainly don't have any rights. They can be tortured, they can be subjected to extra-judicial execution without even a mention of the geneva convention and of course without anyone being made accountable for the actions. The families of terrorists have no rights, the neighbours of terrorists have no rights, the people who inhabit the same city or country of terrorists have no rights. The term is essentially a carte blanche for state violence.

Anyone who uses the term is implicitly supporting state violence and rejecting the right of the state's enemies to fight back. The hypocrisy is sickening, especially since most of these people consider themselves pacificsts.

I shall join this group for varying reasons. But I cannot discuss the ideas of this group on this forum, I'm far too paranoid. But I look forward to potential discussions outside this forum.

It seems to me that no matter what our armed struggle would be considered terrorism by the media.

is seems all the efforts these will explain as terrorism, and yet they are they real terrorist. i'm fucking apologetic, but am sees as if am of having no identification with the amerikans after their deal with terror that was clearly an inside job. (obviousfuckingly) and yet these are all it seems to understand
mayhaps is thyme for outside assistance in the matter at hand. clearly is what is all understanding by now. china, russia: inside job, blame on amerikkkka, then support invasion of the fucking disgusting states!
(/sarcasm)

is seems all the efforts these will explain as terrorism, and yet they are they real terrorist. i'm fucking apologetic, but am sees as if am of having no identification with the amerikans after their deal with terror that was clearly an inside job. (obviousfuckingly) and yet these are all it seems to understand
mayhaps is thyme for outside assistance in the matter at hand. clearly is what is all understanding by now. china, russia: inside job, blame on amerikkkka, then support invasion of the fucking disgusting states!
(/sarcasm)

wuuuuut...?

wuuuuut...?

what were is meant by is sarcastic
the whole idea that is terrorist good idea is completely backwarded is and reactionary also that is any use of doing these
is what is enemy do to keep them as sheep and their oppiates... etc.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Don't know who said that, but bloody correct.

this is hypothetical of course,...
the key is high profile targets, glen beck, great, your local congressman or senator, even better, many have their homwe addresses listed right on their webpages, why you ask if you can kill the political puppets in their own homes you show the whole nation the weakness on their internal system. also they would have to elect new officials and a propaganda/information campaign could be run to get someone with much more leftist beliefs elected. you can kill them all but you can kill enough

Agreed.

All good ideas.

Here is a response I wrote in the learning thread over the question of "terror." I included a typical argument against "terror" as well

obviously, when you break the law there is punishment. That falls under the category of crime and punishment, the way you would punish a murderer or a thief. This is not terror. Fair and justified criminal punishment for people who resist expropriation is not terror because it's crime and punishment. Now, shooting someone because they whine about their golden toilet being melted down is terror because it's completely excessive. But since nobody here supports that, that shouldn't really be an issue.

Here's how Marxists define "terror":

Terrorism
An aspect of psychological warfare whose aim is to instill fear and intimidation among both civilians and the military/police through the use of limited but concentrated violence. The basis of terrorist actions are a lack of popular support and the need to subjugate the popular will through destructive acts of violence causing widespread fear and terror.


Terrorism has historically been practiced by any class as a weapon in the class struggle. It is typically a reactionary use of force. While terrorism is commonly conducted by individuals or small groups, historical examples of terrorism can also be found in the Spanish Inquisition, and more recently in organizations like the U.S. Ku Klux Klan, and during the latter half of the 19th century terrorism was used by anarchist organizations claiming "propaganda of the deed".


Terrorism is a weapon that has been used by nearly all governments at various times against their opposing classes. Some of the best known examples of this in the 20th-century were Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Stalin, the United States during the McCarthy trials, etc. After this, imperialism predominantly exported terrorism to the underdeveloped nation's – U.S. tactics from Guatemala to Iraq, etc.
Terrorism is not necessarily violence against civilians, but if not it is then certainly meant to create psychological terror against civilians through violence against the government, police, military, structures, etc. Some terrorists target the government or the police, just as a guerilla would, but without *local* popular support. As an example, put a Black Panther in a white suburban community who acts exactly as he would in a minority community, and he would be a terrorist (The Black Panthers never did this, and they were not terrorists). The narodiniki were assasins, and believed that attacks on the government would show the masses that the government was bad; they were terrorists because the people loved the czar, and were terrified that something could happen to him. Castro was not a terrorist in his Moncada attack; there was not obvious support for a revolution in that there were no open revolutionary groups nor movements, but his attack expressed the will of the people -- he became an instant hero among Cuba's peasants. The issue of popular local support is thus fundamental to understanding the terrorist. Terrorist ideals may be popular in Afghanistan, for example, but when exported to the US, they are not popular, and when violence is employed, they become terror. A palestinian among his brother and sister civilians who defends herself against an invading Israeli solider is a guerilla, not a terrorist; while those who go into land occupied by Isreali's and carry out attacks against soldiers and/or civilians are terrorists, different only from an invading army as a result of a lack resources; e.g. having a conventional military.


"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more 'effective' the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy."
Leon Trotsky
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism


Governmental Use: In practice, governments have defined terrorism in many different ways to defend themselves with whatever means they deam necessary. After September 11, 2001, the U.S. government created a new definition for domestic terrorism.
Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Pamphlet
October, 2002
Needless to say, this means everyone from Civil Rights activists to environmentalists, to anyone who engages in unlawful activity with the intent to influence others to think differently. This definition has little bearing on the history nor meaning of the practice of terrorism.

So, why can't a government arresting a criminal and throwing them in jail be considered terror. The use of "consequences" is a form of terror, terrorizing people into following a certain law. Laws become really useless (in a State society, that is) without some form of terror, whether in the form of capital punishment, lay-offs and strike breakers, jail time, etc. Not all terror is necessarily a bad thing, although it should be noted (as the glossary here says correctly) that terror is more than often the reactionary use of terror by the ruling class against the exploited class, but terror can go both ways. it is also important to distinguish individual terrorism from terrorism executed by a mass movement (such as the "Red Terror," which was supported by the toiling masses against counterrevolution). If one were to just define terror as :

Now, shooting someone because they whine about their golden toilet being melted down is terror because it's completely excessive.

Excessive to what? Excessive terror, yes, I agree. But then there must be a more "moderate" terror. No one is advocating excessive behvior or vigilante retribution style violence, but the use of violence, physical, psychological, social or economic, is terror nonetheless and is used by the State (either bourgeois or proletarian) on pretty much a daily basis so long as the class struggle exists

http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-cr...234/index.html

I can not advocate terrorism that strikes innocent people; nor can I support destruction of infrastructure unless such infrastructure is of specific use to the state.
Against enemy states and their agents, I would say it is okay if it is useful - but unless there is a significant revolutionary presence already underway such terrorism just alienates people.

Terrorism for me is when you deliberately target civilians in order to cause fear and mass hysteria. Targeting citizens is not right because the populace did nothing wrong themselves. You should not target civilians. However, let's say you act and it turns out it raises fear among political rivals, this is not terrorism because it's just a result of operations. I myself prefer direct action.