Terrorism: an unbeatable foe

[Rhys]

We are so used to seeing mass movements of poor people as exclusively Leftwing phenomena, that we automatically try to assimilate Islamism to that model. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There can be reactionary mass movements, as fascism was.

Not that Bin Laden and co. are a mass movement.

Imperialism, alas, has seen to it that there can be no effective mass movements in Arab countries with oil: they are replaced by 'religious' movements trying to get something like the same objectives, because only 'religious' cannot easily be repressed.

Militarist movements such as the IRA and the various very small extreme Islamic groups are a further reaction to near-absolute tyranny. It is easier to die than to struggle forever, aimlessly alive, against violent injustice, I suppose - and when you get into that state of mind, what does the object matter, since you'll be dead anyway?

 

[Doug]

While I would not argue against the idea that a mass leftwing secular movement in the Middle Eastern countries would not have been viewed with pleasure by Washington -- where it would have been assumed to be a cat's paw for the Soviet Union -- I do not think you can say that "imperialism" is responsible for there being no such movements there today.

It is true that the West -- mainly the US -- tried to fight communism in Muslim countries by encouraging the reactionary Islamists. A terrible tactic which has backfired disastrously. But these leftwing movements were generally weak anyway, and up against deeply-entrenched religious feeling. And/or they were out-maneuvered by what the communists would call "bourgeois nationalists," such as the Ba'athists.

Now that communism is dead as a threat, Marxist secularists don't look so bad. Thus it was that one of the vice-presidents of the Coalition-installed interim provisional government in Iraq was a trade-union leader who was a member of the Iraqi Communist Party (which had been a mass party in that country in the late 1950s). He was tortured to death in his home -- not by the CIA, but by reactionary "insurgents", who have no interest whatsoever in "social justice," however this term is defined.

In a great irony of history, the United States is now, objectively, on the side of those fighting for "social justice" in the Islamic world.

 

[Doug]

Reality: I think your definition of terrorism is a bit vague. You say that it is "the use of violence for coercive political means" (don't you mean political "ends", not means?).

When the Allies invaded France to drive the Wehrmacht out, and eventually installed, against the will of the German people, a new replacement government for the Hitler regime which we had overthrown ... was this terrorism? We coerced the German nation, and we used violence to do so. I would classify some of this violence as "terrorist" --deliberate attacks against civilians -- but not most of it: for instance, bombarding the German army.

Also: "coercive political [ends]" should be clarified: it is not clear, to me at least, what you mean here. Could you give some examples, and some non-examples?

 

[Reality]

Reality: I think your definition of terrorism is a bit vague. You say that it is "the use of violence for coercive political means" (don't you mean political "ends", not means?).

When the Allies invaded France to drive the Wehrmacht out, and eventually installed, against the will of the German people, a new replacement government for the Hitler regime which we had overthrown ... was this terrorism? We coerced the German nation, and we used violence to do so. I would classify some of this violence as "terrorist" --deliberate attacks against civilians -- but not most of it: for instance, bombarding the German army.

Also: "coercive political [ends]" should be clarified: it is not clear, to me at least, what you mean here. Could you give some examples, and some non-examples?

Firstly, thank you for a well thought out and polite post.

On "means" i think that is the appropriate word. Terrorism is a means to an end, per say. To use Palestinian terrorism as an example, they don't blow up people because they are rabid antisemites, as some would have us believe. They blow up people to terrorize the wider population into subjugating to their ideal (these groups vary widely on ends, some the destruction of Israel, some a state, end of occupation, etc.)

I think there are comparisons to the bombing of Berlin. Granted, the technology did not exist for what we have come to know as strategic targeting, but lets also not pretend that bombing civilians into submission was an unwelcome sidebar. Sure, destruction of the regime was the goal, but subjugating the population into rejecting the regime was more than welcome.

I tend to define terrorism broadly, as it would be defined in a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

I think another valid example is the "Shock and Awe" campaign which launched the invasion of Iraq. Its stated goal was to show American force, mostly on Baghdad. A Pentagon strategist told CBS before the war began that "there would be no safe place in Baghdad." Baghdad had, at the time, some 5m people. Clearly, pounding the Iraqi populace into turning against the regime certainly falls under the terrorism definition. To me, another obvious parallel would be Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many people get upset when i draw these parallels, calling me anti-American and bla bla bla. In actuality, it is not that I try to make Americans "terrorists." It is my position that terrorism is a natural tactic in war, similar to the use of propaganda. Terrorism is a natural occurrence in conflict.

It is not terrorism, per say, that I am speaking against. It is the stupidity of a "war on terror." There is no war on terror. Terrorism has been used in every conflict in modern times by every side. It is nothing more than violent propaganda.

I think the use of the phrase "war on terror" really just dumbs down the discussion we all need to be having. These are not "depraved opponents of civilization" as Reagan called them, they do not "hate us for our freedoms" and we are not in a "battle against evil." We are being opposed for our actions or their interpretations of our actions. Their interpretations is something we should all work a lot harder to understand, instead of wasting our time with misnomers fit for a Star Wars movie.

 

[Rhys]

While I would not argue against the idea that a mass leftwing secular movement in the Middle Eastern countries would not have been viewed with pleasure by Washington -- where it would have been assumed to be a cat's paw for the Soviet Union -- I do not think you can say that "imperialism" is responsible for there being no such movements there today.

It is true that the West -- mainly the US -- tried to fight communism in Muslim countries by encouraging the reactionary Islamists. A terrible tactic which has backfired disastrously. But these leftwing movements were generally weak anyway, and up against deeply-entrenched religious feeling. And/or they were out-maneuvered by what the communists would call "bourgeois nationalists," such as the Ba'athists.

Now that communism is dead as a threat, Marxist secularists don't look so bad. Thus it was that one of the vice-presidents of the Coalition-installed interim provisional government in Iraq was a trade-union leader who was a member of the Iraqi Communist Party (which had been a mass party in that country in the late 1950s). He was tortured to death in his home -- not by the CIA, but by reactionary "insurgents", who have no interest whatsoever in "social justice," however this term is defined.

In a great irony of history, the United States is now, objectively, on the side of those fighting for "social justice" in the Islamic world.

All left-wing movements are weak until the moment they triumph - they have the whole huge weight of ideology and of the monopoly- and state-capitalist powers against them, every minute and for lifetimes long. Big but unsuccessful workers movements like the European communist parties are already rotting or they'd take power - in my view anyway. There wasn't that big a difference between, say, the Greek CP or the Tudeh and Tito's party: it all depended on the strength - and the outside backing - of the opposition.

I think your post is very sensible except that you wheel in the (essentially zionist-inspired) notion of a by-its-nature-deeply-reactionary Islam. Outside a few backward areas - just compare the dark backwoods of traditional bigotry in the US - Islam was NOT reactionary, any more than Christianity has been: 'fundamentalism' is a deeply modern, deeply ignorant answer to deracination everywhere, meaningless to traditional believers.

The problem with the Baath Party, like the Labour Party with us, is that it gave up democracy. Once that happens, any grotesquerie is possible, based on all these vacuous 'leaders' bossmen favour. But I think you have to keep coming back to the question of who it was opposed left wing groups, encouraged 'fundamentalism' as a tactic and deliberately destroyed democracy as in Iran. When you do, I think 'imperialism' begins to look a lot more convincing as an answer to the problems of the Middle east.

 

[editec]

Bin Laden is not interested in replacing the oppressive regimes of the Middle East with regimes committed to "social justice". He wants to replace them with Taliban-like regimes.

It is theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely, that the people who follow Bin Laden think they are fighting for social equality and gay rights. If so, they are badly mistaken.

We are so used to seeing mass movements of poor people as exclusively Leftwing phenomena, that we automatically try to assimilate Islamism to that model. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There can be reactionary mass movements, as fascism was.

Not that Bin Laden and co. are a mass movement.

Exactly.

Bin Laden does not enjoy univsal respect in the Islamic community.

He does enjoy spikes in popularity when he strikes at America, though.

Ask yourselves why the rank and file MidEasterner doesn't support terror except to strike at us.

Here's a hint... It surely ain't because they hate us for our freedoms.

 

[coolgeee]

You are right about that!!!
Americans live in fear and terror everyday. I live in the NYC area, and people are scared of the ghettos, scared to loose their jobs, scared of terrorist attacks, and most importantly, if they are not ignorant sheeple, scared of our FASCIST Government and the planned collapse of our country.


Educate yourself:
EditorialDigest
Truly fair and balanced

Zeddicus is right, of course.

People living in every ghetto in american live with terror every day.

Why aren't we protecting them?

(Hint-- there's no oil under Harlem.)

 

[Zeddicus]

All i am saying is we can send 100 thousand troops to iraq but that won't make us any safer here from terror and death, its everywhere.


plus i a war with china but be in the not to distant future.