Zionism Terorism & Israels Roots In Terrorism

[Ibn Khaldoun]

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.

But is there an example which demonstrates this?

I can't think of one, certainly in the middle east where terrorism is always nationalist terrorism.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But is there an example which demonstrates this?

I can't think of one, certainly in the middle east where terrorism is always nationalist terrorism.

Christ in the temple?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

You mean the lending rabbis at the temple?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

You mean the lending rabbis at the temple?

Genuine question. I'm not sure.

Is a rather passive-aggressive act like that _terrorism_ (if it even happened)?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You mean the lending rabbis at the temple?

Yeah. Your request for examples of true, religion-only motivated acts of terrorism has me momentarily stumped. When you look back to the roots of the various examples, be it terrorism during the wars of religion in Europe, to the acts of the Sons of Freedom right here in BC, you find issues of control of land, the resistance against temporal laws, etc.

The Doukhobors might come closest. They were resisting against the application of various laws to them, but the motivation was to keep the purity of their religion.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Well, what I've brought into question is the definition of terrorism and what acts constitute it. That has produced the secondary question of whether religion is ever an independent motivation for political violence (as opposed to politics, economy, land, and so-on). I don't think there are.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

International terrorism, I think, has its origin in the distribution of capitals, and in the distribution by capitalism of power in general. THIS is the correct way to locate the relationship between capitalism and 'poverty'.

But terrorism only ever conditions the structures of power. Therefore, in that sense, perhaps, terrorism has always been reactionary in the final analysis.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, what I've brought into question is the definition of terrorism and what acts constitute it. That has produced the secondary question of whether religion is ever an independent motivation for political violence (as opposed to politics, economy, land, and so-on). I don't think there are.

But restricting terrorism to 'political' violence, excludes the possibility of other types, like religious violence. Granted, it's tough to come up with a pure example, but that doesn't mean that such a thing isn't possible.

 

[Spion]

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.

That's true. The difference is, I guess, we're not still seeing the inhabitants of those colonies being massacred and marginalised.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's true. The difference is, I guess, we're not still seeing the inhabitants of those colonies being massacred and marginalised.

You should ask the opinion of aboriginal people about that.

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

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.

Religeons are the same as political groups. They are all tribal groups.

No class war etc only tribal war

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Religeons are the same as political groups. They are all tribal groups.

No class war etc only tribal war

Religions aren't political groups. Religious ideology and 'tribal' membership of a religious community can be drawn on as part of a mobilizing strategy but is always about power, as in: A whole oppressed group, a class restricted from access to power, a group in competition with another part of the ruling class etc..

Motivations aside, terrorism has political aims. Even 'religious terrorism' like abortion clinic bombings is deeply political and goes beyond trying to force change in policy, even.

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

Religions aren't political groups. Religious ideology and 'tribal' membership of a religious community can be drawn on as part of a mobilizing strategy but is always about power, as in: A whole oppressed group, a class restricted from access to power, a group in competition with another part of the ruling class etc..

Motivations aside, terrorism has political aims. Even 'religious terrorism' like abortion clinic bombings is deeply political and goes beyond trying to force change in policy, even.

Sorry ALL religeons are just different tribes.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Sorry ALL religeons are just different tribes.

Most religions are too big and diverse to be called tribes.

Maybe some small sects are like that.

I know they're as important as nationalism in terms of identity, but religions don't act as whole groups. None that I can think of. And even cults don't because they rely on hierarchy and control.

Take Islam - way (more) diverse (than is given credit for), wayyy divided. Even Hinduism or Judaism which the religious community itself is central to.

 

[Bunjaj Pali]

That's true. The difference is, I guess, we're not still seeing the inhabitants of those colonies being massacred and marginalised.

If you could point me in the direction of a recent massacre of Palestinians in Israel then .... I'm not aware of any myself.