Zionism Terorism & Israels Roots In Terrorism

[goldenecitrone]

Terrorism is as old as the hills. What we have now is horrorism. That is definitely modern.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What are you calling 'terror' here?

The application of extra-legal force to achieve political ends.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I do as it happens. I have a long standing interest in the various ways 'terrorism' has been used by both states, armies and smaller entities such as groups of non-linear comabants, and you're talking bollocks when you say terrorism is a modern 'structure' (whatever you mean by that).

You could qualify your statement with 'post-ww2 era' terrorism, which could be argued has a different character to terrorism in previous epochs, but using terror, or more accurately using methods of coercion that as a weapon against military and civilian populations has been around since humans started fighting each other.

Quite, although even if we're only discussing "terrorism" in it's post-industrialisation form, there are still a vast number of different modes and methods.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The application of extra-legal force to achieve political ends.

I'll agree to disagree. I've qualified my objection.

 

[Bunjaj Pali]

And here's a reminder (as if we needed one) that terrorism is perpetrated by all sides; governmental and non-governmental, occupiers and occupied.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799083578&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

"The new book cites an intelligence report from Palestine made on August 23, 1946 - just a month after the King David Hotel bombing. The communique states: "Irgun and Stern have decided to send five cells to London to operate in a manner similar to the IRA. To use their own words 'beat the dog in his own kennel'." A second report from September 1946 adds: "In recent months it has been reported that [the Stern Group] have been training selected members for the purpose of proceeding overseas and assassinating a prominent British personality - special reference having been made several times to Mr Bevin in this connection.""

Source.

 

[david dissadent]

A relatively broad description of terrorism would be non governmental asymetric warefare you disaprove off. Obviously non governmental asymetric warfare you do approve off are freedom fighters.

Israels existance required far less death and destruction than Australia, Canada or America. Whatever their crimes they are not alone amoung the nations of the world in them.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

A relatively broad description of terrorism would be non governmental asymetric warefare you disaprove off. Obviously non governmental asymetric warfare you do approve off are freedom fighters.

True. I don't use it as an epithet. Sometimes it's justified, but most of the time it's reactionary.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The bombing of The King David Hotel was a significant event that allowed The Western nations to create a military Bridgehead in the Middle East. Zionism provided the political security for such a bridgehead, the Iranian revolution made it even more important, and, in many ways, the 9/11 bombers played a part in justifying it's continuation. Jewish people don't need Israel as much as Western Military Industrialists. It's a very sad situation.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

unfortunately it's the elephant in the room.

israel, as currently constituted, should not exist. it is a racist state more extreme than south african apartheid in the 1960's (noam chomsky)

it's also a relic of the second world war and the massive collective guilt felt by europeans and americans towards the jews after their treatment by the nazis. but ended up being the final act of european colonisation in a century that saw an end to that sort of thing generally, and recycling the same injustice to another people. the evil of hitler and the nazis lives on through the belligerent behaviour of modern israel

for the time being it is propped up by america, but any state that lives in a permanant siege mentality will not endure. history has shown that. either israeli society will heal itself from within, or some force from without will intervene. as the us declines, more arab states will seek to acquire their own nuclear capabilities, with the inevitable result

and spielburg won't be around forever

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It is historically accurate.

I'd describe this as terrorism: the Assyrian Incident.

n early August 1933, more than 1,000 Assyrians who had been refused asylum in Syria crossed the border to return to their villages in Northern Iraq. The French, who at the time were controlling Syria, had notified the Iraqis that the Assyrians were not armed; but while the Iraqi soldiers were disarming those whose arms had been returned, shots were fired resulting in 30 Iraqi and Assyrian casualties. Anti-Assyrian and Anti-British xenophobia, apparent throughout the crisis, accelerated.[5] Reports circulated of Assyrian mutilation of Iraqi soldiers (later proven to be false). In Baghdad, the government panicked, fearing disaster as the Assyrians presented a formidable fighting force that could provoke a general uprising in the north. The government unleashed Kurdish irregulars who killed some 120 inhabitants of two Assyrian villages in the week of August 2 to August 9 (with most of the massacre occurring on August 7). Then on August 11, Kurdish general Bakr Sidqi (who had clashed with Assyrians before) led a march to what was then one of the most heavily inhabited Assyrian area in Iraq, the Simele district.

The Assyrian population of the district of Simele was indiscriminately massacred; men women, and children. In one room alone, eighty one Assyrians of Baz tribe were massacred.[7] Religious leaders were prime targets; eight Assyrian priests were killed during the massacre, including one beheaded and another burned alive.[8] Girls were raped and women violated and made to march naked before the Muslim army commanders.[7] Holy books were used as fuel for burning girls. Children were run over by military cars. Pregnant women were bayoneted. Children were flung in the air and pierced with bayonets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simele_massacre

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's arguable that the Al-Hashshashin were the first terrorists in the area.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

relying on capitalist means of distribution in order to form part of a political strategy.

What does this mean, exactly?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I'd describe this as terrorism: the Assyrian Incident.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simele_massacre

No

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No

You're batting a thousand in your displays of erudition.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

What does this mean, exactly?

Thanks for asking this question. This is very important.

It relies on the capitalist means of distribution (i.e as in sites of civil society) because it is itself a structural effect of capitalist distribution (wealth, power, deployment of violence, etc.).

Marx, Grundisse

As regards whole societies, distribution seems to precede production and to determine it in yet another respect, almost as if it were a pre-economic fact. A conquering people divides the land among the conquerors, thus imposes a certain distribution and form of property in land, and thus determines production. Or it enslaves the conquered and so makes slave labour the foundation of production. Or a people rises in revolution and smashes the great landed estates into small parcels, and hence, by this new distribution, gives production a new character. Or a system of laws assigns property in land to certain families in perpetuity, or distributes labour [as] a hereditary privilege and thus confines it within certain castes. In all these cases, and they are all historical, it seems that distribution is not structured and determined by production, but rather the opposite, production by distribution.

In the shallowest conception, distribution appears as the distribution of products, and hence as further removed from and quasi-independent of production. But before distribution can be the distribution of products, it is: (1) the distribution of the instruments of production, and (2), which is a further specification of the same relation, the distribution of the members of the society among the different kinds of production. (Subsumption of the individuals under specific relations of production.)

The distribution of products is evidently only a result of this distribution, which is comprised within the process of production itself and determines the structure of production. To examine production while disregarding this internal distribution within it is obviously an empty abstraction; while conversely, the distribution of products follows by itself from this distribution which forms an original moment of production.[…] The question of the relation between this production-determining distribution, and production, belongs evidently within production itself. If it is said that, since production must begin with a certain distribution of the instruments of production, it follows that distribution at least in this sense precedes and forms the presupposition of production, then the reply must be that production does indeed have its determinants and preconditions which form its moments. At the very beginning these may appear as spontaneous, natural. […] The questions raised above all reduce themselves in the last instance to the role played by general-historical relations in production, and their relation to the movement of history generally. The question evidently belongs within the treatment and investigation of production itself.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you're going to vomit up a bunch of dense type, like bringing your big brother to a back alley fight, at least give the citation of where you're getting your juice from.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is this it?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh good. You edited. Looks like that is the cite.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ok, now that we know where you lifted it from, could you be so kind as to explain the concept, and how it relates to the topic at hand?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

If you're going to vomit up a bunch of dense type, like bringing your big brother to a back alley fight, at least give the citation of where you're getting your juice from.

Sorry, I forgot to to put in the cite initially.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sorry, I forgot to to put in the cite initially.

Hey, it happens.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Ok, now that we know where you lifted it from, could you be so kind as to explain the concept, and how it relates to the topic at hand?

I already done that. Try reading?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I already done that. Try reading?

I saw where you made the original comment that I quoted and asked what it meant. Since then, you've given us Marx. I'm more interested in your understanding of the concept, and how you apply it to the issue of middle eastern terrorism.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I saw where you made the original comment that I quoted and asked what it meant. Since then, you've given us Marx. I'm more interested in your understanding of the concept, and how you apply it to the issue of middle eastern terrorism.

OK.

We can interpret 'distribution' as politics (superstructure), production itself as economics (base, civil society etc.). The result of my interpretation (although not only mine, however) is that political violence must correspond to the distribution of social power and that, therefore, terrorist violence only corresponds to capitalism, and no other mode of production, because there is no inherent sense in any other era of civil society as a means of mobilizing/altering/etc. politics - rather that it is passive and incidental. A lot of legalistic discourse touches upon, but doesn't (can't) penetrate, this issue.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

OK.

We can interpret 'distribution' as politics (superstructure), production itself as economics (base, civil society etc.). The result of my interpretation (although not only mine, however) is that political violence must correspond to the distribution of social power and that, therefore, terrorist violence only corresponds to capitalism, and no other mode of production, because there is no inherent sense in any other era of civil society as a means of mobilizing/altering/etc. politics - rather that it is passive and incidental. A lot of legalistic discourse touches upon, but doesn't (can't) penetrate, this issue.

.

I think that that model can certainly explain terrorism such as might arise within a context of the capitalist economic/political system, but the model doesn't explain terrorism that occurs outside the capitalist model, such as the hashshashin.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that terrorism can arise any time there is an unequal distribution of access to the mechanisms of power, thus allowing us to encompass terrorist acts that occurred in Roman times, in feudal times, etc?

Although that might not be a broad enough model, since there can be acts of terrorism occurring in the name of religion, for religious purposes, that have nothing to do with distribution of temporal wealth or power.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Formally, it is correct to designate the Hashashin as terrorist. But does their use of violence correspond to my definition? Or, for that matter, does Guy Faulkes?

Consider: Did either have an indirect target (a distinguishable target)? Bear in mind there was a struggle among ruling classes heavily involved in the former (at least).

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Although that might not be a broad enough model, since there can be acts of terrorism occurring in the name of religion, for religious purposes, that have nothing to do with distribution of temporal wealth or power.

Religion is always a legitimating device for politics. I don't consider it to be an independent motivation. It always has to do with temporal power.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Religion is always a legitimating device for politics. I don't consider it to be an independent motivation. It always has to do with temporal power.

That might be the impetus behind the creation and propagation of religion, but in the hands of the individual zealot, or even groups of zealots, it becomes strength of belief, and of purpose. These people have bought into it, and their actions are 'pure' in that sense, not motivated by economics or politics.