Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:45:20 -0500 From: "Todd Archer" <todda39 at hotmail.com> Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: LBO-Talk = Outliers (What Do The Iraqi
Ok, you seem to be saying that terrorism (on its own, by a relatively small number of people, with NO kind of outside support) doesn't liberate people. There has to be some sort of mass action that "destroys the legitimacy" of the regime, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems an accurate
summary of your position.
Tahir: Fair enough.
I thought, in a way, we were on the same wavelength wrt the effectiveness of unsupported terrorists since I said:
>A big difference between then and now seems to be the lack of a "big"
>supplier to the "terrorists" of money and materials.
I wasn't clear enough about my position; I see that now. I thought the
mention of such "terrorist groups" as the various French and Jewish resistance fighters against Nazi occupation, explicitly aided and abetted by the US (where they could) as well as implicitly by its engaging in conventional warfare, would serve to illustrate my point. Which is basically that that these small groups, I strongly believe, can make a
difference under the right circumstances when supported by (a) larger,
wealthier group(s) and/or mass(es). And I doubt those circumstances are present in Iraq, assuming the "terrorists" are all of one mind and goal, which I also doubt.
Tahir: Actually there are two of my points in there which I probably didn't separate out enough: On the one hand there's my opposition to terrorism, which I believe is mostly counterproductive (in a project of liberation, that is) and also unethical. But on the other hand there is the point about small groups. These points are related however: terrorism is usually a form of struggle that does not aim to strengthen the masses, to arm them one might say, but keeps all the means of violence within a restricted group. Later that group will position themselves at the head of the state, if they have achieved a victory, and tend to use that means of violence against the masses. There are so many examples of this.
>As for killing soldiers, well that is not
>part of my definition of terrorism. I call that self defence.
<shrug> Depends on how the deed's done and what's made of the aftermath.
Tahir: No it doesn't depend on that in my view. I don't particularly have any scruples about someone shooting a soldier in the back or garrotting him/her or whatever. A soldier is in the busines of war and I think it is fine to eliminate enemy soldiers
Terrorism's basically about using violence for political ends, right?
Tahir: No this is where you misunderstood me. Violence comes from the bourgeoisie and they must expect counter-violence; there is nothing to cry about or condemn there. Terrorism, on the other hand, is indiscriminate killing, bombs in the street or in restaurants, etc. where people who have no identifiable political project can be killed or maimed. The examples I gave you were meant to illustrate that point. But you cannot simply equate violence with terrorism, unless you are a bland pacifist with no conception of liberation struggle at all.
If the politicians are reluctant to put more soldiers in the field because
they're getting too many calls from parents/spouses/children about troops getting murdered in their own beds, I'd call that terror campaign a success.
Same goes for troops, or parts of them, being put on display as examples and warnings.
Tahir: "Troops getting murdered in their own beds" is not terrorism in my view; it is eliminating the enemy; I also dispute the use of the term "murder" in this connection.
>Let me
>give you an example of terrorism in my home town. Just prior to the
>change of regime in South Africa, the military wing of the Pan
>Africanist Congress suddenly embarked on a spate of terrorist
>activities, targetting particularly those places where racial mixing
was
>taking place, like the St James church in the street where I was
living
>at the time and the Heidelberg tavern near where I live now. They
burst
>in and sprayed the worshippers and drinkers with automatic weapon
fire
>and lobbed in grenades. Many were killed or maimed. What was the
>contribution of this to liberation in SA? Less than zero in my view -
it
>was just an expression of a dehumanised mentality that saw blacks
mixing
>with whites as something ideologically unacceptable and hateful. I
think
>that the terrorism we are seeing in Iraq (I'm NOT talking about the
>killing of American combatants, which leaves me cold, I have to say)
is
>of the same order.
Assuming your analysis of the reasoning behind the murders is the right one, I agree. But could their reasoning have been different? Could they have been trying to get someone in particular and didn't really care who got
killed along the way?
Tahir: It's possible, but unlikely. The PAC specifically argued for racial segregation on the part of black people as part of the struggle, and the fact that they deliberately targetted integrated venues tells me a lot. As for "not caring who got in the way" of an assasination, well I don't buy that; it's part of an ugly terrorist mentality too.
Could the shooters have wanted to get rid of white people they saw colonising "black space" and punish those blacks who collaborated by allowing/encouraging it?
Tahir: Well fuck them for that. You can argue that all whites in Africa are in some abstract sense there because of colonialism; that doesn't mean that any and every white person is a legitimate target, especially when (a) many white people fought apartheid and quite a few suffered under torture or were killed by the state, and (b) many black people not only collaborated under apartheid but grew rich and powerful. The fact is that racial targetting is never legitimate.
I think that might be more understandable than simply calling the killings an expression of unreasoning and illogical hatred.
Tahir: Not totally unreasoning, but certainly based on hatred.