Terrorism: C or D?

Classik.

So terrorism : dud. But a deeper political understanding of the causes of various terrorist acts : classic. Why do you think that when they have terrorist bad guys in most Hollywood movies they belong to radical splinter groups of existing movements? Because if they are too violent for the main group they lose any sympathy that their cause is just. Its easier than engaging in a tricky debate about whether or not the IRA has a point or not. Of course it also means they miss out a potential wealth of interesting characterisation. And I don't mean Brad Pitt in The Devils Own (though a fair definition of cinematic terrorism).

Is the existance of terrorism inevitable in democratic states with the illusion of freedom and self-determinance?

The only thing that was right in the Matrix is that mobile phones are a portal to a different world. Ie the world in which you are a wanker.

It used to drive me insane, when I lived in the States, hearing these sentimental white middle class liberal PC-ers defending terrorist activities by, for example, the ANC or the IRA, because they "agreed with their ideologies" or such PC-speak nonsense. It was very easy for them to be idealistic, as, up to less than a decade ago, there had never been a terrorist attack on US soil.

It was very difficult for me to take a starry-eyed view on terrorism when I'd grown up remembering IRA attacks on tube stations during Xmas in the UK, and dealing with bombs on airplanes and in hotels and cyanide theft scares, and metal detectors in shopping malls while visiting my grandparents in South Africa.

It's interesting to see how Americans' attitudes towards ideological terrorists has changed since events like the World Trade Center bombing and the Tim McVeigh case.

the unibomber is timothy mcveigh, right? or is that a typo?

and the unabomber that guy who did the old compton st/brixton/brick lane bombings?

im confused. actually how about a thread concerning the definition of 'terrorism

I've been left convinced that real Pacifism is the ONLY way: once one commits any violence in the name of any cause, method corrupts intention. So I'm not at war.

If the US Army (and this international coalition) is going to make war on terrorism, shouldn't their first stop be the offices of the CIA?

(the Unabomber was a different terrorist to McVeigh or the London far- right bomber, he attacked people for 15 years, FBI couldn't find him and he convinced major publications to run his "manifesto", attacking soft-edged liberalism. Was dobbed in by his brother who recognised writing style and he's currently serving life.)

nobody anywhere making a deal of the westgate attack, idk if it's on my radar simply because there has been one or two articles speculating that one of the attackers has irish links or what

would ilx usually have a thread about this? would there usually have been more coverage? idk?

it might be in part a numbness to yet another "psychopaths indulging their bloodlust with the most tenuous of justifications" episode. i don't know what there is to say or think about this kind of thing now - horrible, inexcusable brutality that disbars the perps from being considered human imo - but what can we say that isn't trite or obvious?

i think anybody who sees this shit as happening in a vacuum is playing an obnoxious rhetorical game, but i think anybody who tries to explain away the act itself is playing a different, equally obnoxious rhetorical game. i feel like anybody offering a totalizing opinion about why this shit happens is kidding themselves or trying to kid me. i think the global perspective dishonestly plays down the local, specific elements, but also vice versa.

what can you say? violence is abhorrent, and leave it at that? just file it under threads about pacifism, and power relationships, and political agency, and god knows what else.

and i ran out of memory before my thought train had finished.

Somebody mentioned something on a UK politics thread because one of those suspected of orchestrating it is a British person called the White Widow.

British/irish w/e kind of think, yeah

nv- 100%

But no thread, hardly any mention, idk. Security forces possibly bombing the lot to spare hostages worse, wider implications if this takes, idk

i think there's probably a bunch of governments prepared to risk hostages' lives in the interests of a bigger picture - maybe most governments, if truth were known? if they did bomb the mall they wdn't be the first that had tried that gambit

in other words i don't think some random bunch of cunts who think shooting toddlers is tactically useful are gonna change their MO because in future because of it

Whether they did so, whether if so it was a better option for those left, as opposed to standard collateral damage, etc from gov pov

i think i honestly think - and i'm surprised to find myself saying it - that those kind of decisions shd probably be taken by the security forces at the scene and not by members of government. i think the decision shd be based on saving the most lives in the immediate event, without worrying about whether this has ramifications for potential future incidents.

obv no gov works like that. i think if i was a hostage i wd rather have GI Joe calling the shots than some dude worried about getting ribbed at the next UN conference

to focus again tho- is there not a suggestion that, aware of ongoing torture, the decision was taken to take out the area?

i've not come across that. i did wonder why a section of the mall apparently "collapsed", but i haven't felt able to follow some of this stuff in depth. are you saying that this might've happened solely to prevent further suffering on the part of hostages? and if so what's the question? i think it wd be preferable to try to effect a rescue, obv.

It might be the suggestion but tbh theres not much out there so idk

maybe its a distasteful conversation, again idk

has it come up brfore that hostage taking on a large scale becomes an exercise in inflicting damage before the security forces decide to act, will, if this was the case, it become a factor in the speed with which security forces react or the aggression with which they do so?

Terrorism is widely misunderstood, largely because all sides conceal its true nature under a smokescreen of propaganda.

To use Pentagon jargon, it is just a variant of asymmetric warfare, even when it is pursued by a lone individual like Ted Kaczynski. What makes it warfare is that it is violence intended solely to accomplish political goals. What makes it asymmetric is that one side clearly has far more power than the other.

Because the less powerful party cannot directly confront the more powerful party with any hope of securing its political goals, it seeks to raise the cost of maintaining the status quo through the selective use of violence, in the hope that the more powerful party abandons its current policy as too costly. The increased cost is exacted through direct damage to persons and property, through increased security costs to prevent attacks, and through the ongoing stress of feeling insecure (that's where the "terror" fits in).

It's all rather cold-blooded on both sides, but both sides use emotion as a primary weapon. Until you opt out of the emotional propaganda, it is impossible to see the issues clearly.

I mentioned it on the UK thread but I didn't really know what else to say. Al Shabaab are a blend of domestic rebels and international nutcases, many of them converts or fucked up young people returning to religion. I'm reading Pankaj Mishra's From The Ruins Of Empire at the moment and it really brings home the obvious point that pan-Islamic consciousness as a tool of rebellion can't be seen as isolated from OG colonisation. It's easy to blame "US foreign policy" but the scars go back at least as far as the 1800s.

The reports are chilling. American-accented kids laughing while deciding which shoppers to shoot. I don't know how anyone can square that with the superficially attractive idea of being descendants of the Mahdi liberating Africa from the foreign aggressor. How do you even imagine there's glory or nobility in murdering check-out girls?

can someone post the photo of tww i havent seen her dumb evil stupid evil white british glare for several minutes now

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/14274/from-reagan-to-obama_secrecy-and-covert-operations#.UkDU5EkEZjs.facebook

Following revelations that the Contras used so-called CIA “torture manuals,” on 3 October 1984 Senator Dodd re-offered his amendment. Confronted with several specific examples of attacks against civilians, Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, acknowledged that such acts did amount to “terrorism” and were indeed “terrorism” “in terms of our law,” but added: “But in terms of people fighting for their freedom, what they do in Afghanistan, is that done?”

To Senator Stevens, what mattered was not whether the methods of the Contras amounted to “terrorism,” but that the United States be able to continue, in Nicaragua as in Afghanistan, to support “freedom fighters.” Senator Dodd rejected that logic, pointing out that this was precisely the logic followed by Yassir Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO):

"That is the argument the PLO uses, that any act they engage in, no matter how many civilians die when they blow up a bus, that is a legitimate act. That is their argument, that it is not a terrorist act. The Senator from Alaska has just provided us with the kind of rationale they use."

Terrorist Attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait Kill Dozens

There was no immediate indication that the attacks were coordinated. But the three strikes came at roughly the same time, and just days after the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS or ISIL, called for such operations during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

“It appears to be an effort to launch and inspire a wave of attacks across three continents, reminiscent of Al Qaeda’s simultaneous multiple attacks of the past,” said Bruce O Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer who is a counterterrorism expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“The Kuwait operation is especially dangerous, as this is ISIS’ first operation in a gulf state,” Mr. Riedel said in an email. “The others will be deeply alarmed.”

While investigations continued in each of the countries, the quick succession of the attacks raised the possibility that the Islamic State, which has seized control of territory in Iraq and Syria, has successfully inspired sympathizers to plan and carry out attacks in their own countries.

ISIS is full of Tunisians, of course.

al-shabaab attacked a hotel complex in nairobi yesterday, 14 confirmed killed. sounds fairly similar to the westgate attack: some men roving with machine guns, fancy 'western' target, although this started with a suicide bomber in the foyer. one could be forgiven for thinking ppl wld care a lot more if it had happened elsewhere.

was just reading about the government oppression and slaughter in zimbabwe as well. suppose the colonies can take care of their own business now, harrumph

one could be forgiven for thinking ppl wld care a lot more if it had happened elsewhere.

― ogmor, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 10:46 (fifty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean, yeah?

not sure how to posit a solution to this tbh, except perhaps concentrating less of the awful things in the world that nonetheless aren't likely to affect one.

I thankfully got news that my family that have relocated to neighborhoods in the vicinity were safe.
Not been to Nairobi in 30+ years so I think it has probably been built up quite a bit.
My brother went to his first school in the neighborhood of that hotel etc complex.

glad to hear your family is safe stevo.

while i am frustrated w/ the way ppl identify with or disconnect from suffering/news/tragedies based on all sorts of at best un-useful biases and shoddy thinking, i shld probably have left that derailing line out.

apparently one of the attackers was a regular patron at the coffee shop he shot up.

seems like al shabaab have been on the back foot for a while, I wonder if this is primarily about trying to hurt kenya economically, or to get a harsh reaction from kenyan authorities that might garner more sympathy. anyone know how the kenyan drive to send refugees back to somalia has been working out?

If it’s any comfort, we probably care more about things that happen to people in other places than humans have done up until now. Maybe it’ll keep getting easier to empathise with people around the world?

Though our capacity to do harm is also expanded.

BREAKING: Trump says he will label violence against Tesla, $TSLA, dealerships as domestic terrorism.

LOL so dorky

dude is launching rockets that explode all over the caribbean but key a new tesla and you're a terrorist, got it

Can’t wait to get sent to a black site because I flipped off a Cybertruck in traffic.