Where are all dem leftist terrorists? (another political thread)

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Okay, I know you're all throwing things at me, screaming "Another of these damn things, we've been sniping shereads posts all weekend long." To those people, I say sorry. In truth, this isn't your average poly thread. I don't want to hear any shit about Bush or Kerry or which one will destroy the Earth (i don't care if Bush's brain wipe beam will make us all love NASCAR or if Kerry's homo beam will make us all love circle jerks and home decorating). It's more of a query.

Where are the leftist terrorists?

Everywhere in the news we hear about fundamentalist muslims blowing up shit. And we hear about fundamentalist Christians who love to blow up shit. Then there are the fundamentalist catholics in Ireland who could teach most of these people to blow up shit. And all the other waves of violence. So much seems to be coming out of these backward little conservative hatemongers. And the leftists seem so calm, so tranquil.

Sure every once in a while, you hear about a PETA raid, but no one ever gets hurt. Environmentalist psychos, ELF have yet to rack up a body count despite their home burning rampage. Greenpeace is getting mellower with age. The Anarchists went corporate with the success of punk. The Communists have been trying to gain power the old fashioned way with votes. And the Weathermen are barely a footnote in the history texts. It increasingly seems that for mind-shattering violence against the established order wherein bodies are pulled out with a crane, you gotta turn to the right-wing.

Leftists have been getting more and more intellectual with their war cries. They seemed to have turned over most of their bombs when they found out about the artistic uses of irony. And now right-wing violence that was spent in the gay-old sport of beating to death people that didn't know their place has exploded into monolithic death cults.

I know that the extremes have always been insane and an admonitioning of them in no way disparages those moderates who are slightly left or slightly right (which is most of us). Still this odd imbalance, this surge of psychosis in the fringe right and nihilistic trend in the left is striking and possibly revealing. Does it say something about the role of education in political extremism? Or of the dangers of fundamental religion or regionism? Or perhaps of the dangers of giving idiots guns and bombs? Or does it say nothing at all? An odd quirk of fate, a meaningless coincidence in a world of "now isn't that interesting"?

Anyway, that's all. Hopefully it wasn't as bad as all that.

 

[Weird Harold]

Where are the leftist terrorists?

I'd never really thought about it until you asked, but off-hand, the only "leftist" terrorists in all of history I can think of were the Communist Viet Min/Viet Cong and they stayed pretty much at home as Nationalist Guerillas instead of what we think of today as terrorists.

It's interesting that you class the Weathermen as "leftist" terrorists when there was a strong islamic influence (and/or other religious influences) in the Black Militant groups of the sixties and seventies.

I suppose it depends a bit on just how you define "terrorists" -- I'm sure many will mention many of the Labor Disputes and Strikes that turned violent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as "terrorists," citing groups like the Molly McGuires and other groups that used intimidation of families as well as workers to force unionization.

Still, I think the answer to your question is that the "leftists" (aka Liberals) have the law on their side at the moment in most of the world and don't need terrorism to get their way.

 

[rgraham666]

It depends on where you look Lucifer.

In South America there are still several "left wing" insurgent groups operating. Columbia has at least two. And I don't think the Sederosa Lumosa (sp?), The Shining Path, ever went out of business.

To me it's a moot point anyway. From my twisted point of view, there's nothing except aesthetics differentiating the various groups of homicidal nuts.

 

[minsue]

It depends on where you look Lucifer.

In South America there are still several "left wing" insurgent groups operating. Columbia has at least two. And I don't think the Sederosa Lumosa (sp?), The Shining Path, ever went out of business.

To me it's a moot point anyway. From my twisted point of view, there's nothing except aesthetics differentiating the various groups of homicidal nuts.

I don't think yours is a twisted point of view, RG, but I do think Luc has an interesting point. Yes, the politics of terrorists don't make them any less vile, but it is interesting that the violence and terror seems to use right-wing politics as their excuse for it almost exclusively.

You're right on the various terrorist groups in Latin America. They are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that use left-wing politics as their excuse for terrorism.

They seemed to have turned over most of their bombs when they found out about the artistic uses of irony.

Luc, I'm gonna be grinning all day over this line.

 

[Pure]

I've heard Sendera Luminosa is on the decline in Peru.

One does hear about maoists in Nepal.

I think Luc, I had a similar 'flash' the other day: If the US is against all Islamist (and other) insurgents, doesn't that mean that the US NOW supports *every* existing state? Iow, unlike some times in the past, where US supported insurgents, e.g., the mujihideen in Afghanistan in the 90s.

I can see a superpower pact (including Russia and China) declaring all actions against states--esp. themselves--to be terrorist. And worthy of suppression.

 

[bg23]

Don't you know? Haven't you heard? They simply don't EXIST.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Terrorists, be they VI Lenin's bolsehvics, the pathet Lao, Ossama bin Ladin, or Timothey McVeigh all have something in common. They have an ideology, that they believe puts them above normal moral concerns.

Most left leaning folks I know subscribe to an ideology, but in as far as I can see, a very basic tenet of that ideology is strong moral concern for your fellow man. It is possible that you see fewer leftest terrorists because they have to move even more radically to the fringe than right leaning idealogues, before they can rationalize killing in their cause to not violate that strong tenet of moral concern for your fellow man.

Just a thought.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Interesting, Collly,

From the other side of the coin, few leftists believe they'll go to heaven, so when they do suicidal attacks, they want to be damn sure it's well thought out, AND going to further the cause--cuz there ain't no pie in the sky when you die, bro. and sis.

Looking at Baeder Meinhof, for instance, I think more lefties now realize that, despite the 'romaniticism' of it, it was not very effectual.

It seems some Islamists don't mind going down in a blaze of 'glory.' Making what is essentially a dramatic gesture. (9-11 is an exceptional case.)

It's only an extremely rare breed of anarchist--arguably NOT left-- who wants violence for its own sake. And NO, they weren't at New York in droves, trying to attack the Republicans.

 

[amicus]

There seems to be a bit of semantical confusion in terms of left, right and terrorism.

And surely I am not the one point it out, but I can try.

In my eyes, any group that advocates the use of force to impose a way of life on others, is a 'terrorist group'

In my eyes, the 'left' describes all those who would use force to impose upon others.

I do not accept that the National Socialist, Nazi's, were 'Facists' and therefore, 'right' wing.

I do not accept that fundamentalist babtists or muslims are 'right' wing as they wish to use force to impose their beliefs on others.

In my eyes, the 'right' are those shining few that advocate human freedom and individual liberty.

Thus, Lucifer Carroll...you don't see the 'leftiist terrorists' because they are all around you, disguised as purveyors of 'intellectual irony'. They claim the high moral ground of 'we are confiscating your resources in a peaceful law abiding way for your own good since you are too stupid to take care of yourself.'

"Taxation without representation is Tyranny" someone said...

The United States of America, under the founding documents, acknowledges the innate right of all men to be free, it is enabled to protect and defend those rights.

That is a 'right wing' statement.

It has nothing to do the the 'boogey man' Right Wing' the Liberals chastize daily.

amicus

 

[minsue]

Ah, amicus. I love ya. Leave it to you to figure out how all terrorists are liberals and all liberals are terrorists.

 

[Pure]

Am: In my eyes, the 'left' describes all those who would use force to impose upon others.

So the left is all known socialists (from Lenin to Debbs to the Webbs)and capitalists (e.g., Rockefeller Sr., Carnegie, etc. down to Cheney)

All are bad or misguided.

That leaves, for the virtuous right: Amicus and Ayn Rand.

Because Amicus said so.

They want a government so small it doesn't even build roads. But it does provide for policing.

(But that involves, directly, the police 'using force,' and indirectly 'using force' to impose taxes to support the police, unless the police are supported through donations.)

Oh, I forgot; that force doesn't count.

Why, because Amicus says so.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

*ugh* Ayn Rand.

 

[Guest]

*ugh* Ayn Rand.

Jeeze, Joe, where were you when we really needed you? Not too long ago there was a thread full of Amicus promoting Rand to ridiculous heights. Ugh, indeed.

Perdita

 

[amicus]

Reading the three above posts, why do I see poor Joe languishing in an Inquisition prison under religious arrest for blasphemy.

And I see Pure happily goosestepping with the brownshirts in 1934 Germany, fully satisfied with a state directed life in all aspects.

And the third person....I have no comment for...


amicus...

 

[thebullet]

Amicus (in another of his less lucid moments) said:

I do not accept that the National Socialist, Nazi's, were 'Facists' and therefore, 'right' wing.

That's like saying that you don't believe the Pope is Catholic, therefore he isn't, so there!

If you asked Hitler or Herman Goering or Little Joe Goebbels if they were fascists the answer would have been a resounding "YES". Their closest ally was of course Benito Mussoulini.

In Walter Laquer's The Essence of Fascism, he defines Fascism, not specific to Italy, as being:
1) Nationalistic
2) A leader, whom has unlimited power.
3) The Ideology is Faith, in the sense that it is almost dogmatic religion.
4) The use of Violence.
5) Anti-Democratic and Anti-Communist.
6) Expansionist
7) The usage of Propaganda
8) Militeristic
9) Anti-Liberalism
10) Extreme Right Wing

This particular author, who has some patina of authority, unlike Amicus who merely states off the wall opinions with no concern for little things like facts, lumps German Nazism and Italian Facism together, and also claims that Facism is an ideaology of the Extreme Right.

Well shut my mouth. Better yet, well shut Amicus's mouth. PLEASE!!!


Amicus says:

In my eyes, the 'right' are those shining few that advocate human freedom and individual liberty.

In this country, the 'right' are those that shoved the Patriot Act down our throats. Where is the shining advocacy of human freedom and individual liberty in that act? The 'right' are directing soldiers to torture prisoners in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan. Where is the human freedom and individual liberty in that? The 'right' steals elections by eliminating thousands of black voters from the roles because they have names that sound kind of similar to convicted felons, but don't do the same thing to white voters. These are people who believe in human freedom, the shining example of individual liberty?

These are people who have learned how to acquire and hold on to POWER through any means necessary. That is the RIGHT WING in America. And just because Amicus may say these people aren't RIGHT WING by HIS definition, I suggest he get a Dictionary and start using the standard definitions as accepted by everyone else in the world.

Amicus' definitions of Right, Left, Liberal and Conservative are obviously fucked up.

 

[thebullet]

Amicus also says (believe it or not!):

I do not accept that fundamentalist babtists or muslims are 'right' wing as they wish to use force to impose their beliefs on others.

Now I'm assuming that Amicus was referring to Baptists, unless there is some sect running around called babtists that I've never heard of. In any event, you better watch out, Amicus. Calling Baptists Left Wing may be an executable offense in this country.


I had an idea when my son was very small. I'll admit that I may have hatched this idea in a smoke-filled room late at night. My idea was to select a few randomly chosen words and replace them with other randomly chosen words whenever I spoke to my son. I would have four or five years to teach my son that these randomly chosen words were in fact the correct usage, even though they had no basis in reality. For example, one might refer to a chicken as a grapefruit. By the time he made it to the real world, he would be totally screwed up about just a few specific meanings of words. It's a cruel and stupid joke and of course nothing ever came of it.

But I think that Amicus's parents had the same pot-induced idea but they actually did it to Amicus. They substituted words with different meanings for Right Wing, Conservative, Liberal, Left Wing until Amicus was totally confused about the correct usage of these words.

And now, years later, this poor fellow is making a fool of himself on the internet by totally screwing up the English language. Amicus: Get a dictionary. And boy, you should be pissed at your parents for making you look like such a complete idiot.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Jeeze, Joe, where were you when we really needed you? Not too long ago there was a thread full of Amicus promoting Rand to ridiculous heights. Ugh, indeed.

Oh, nobody wants me to start with the arguing... that just leads to annoyed them-who-don't-respect-reason and annoyed me-who-don't-respect-them-who-don't-respect-reason. Not good stuff.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I like Colly's and Pure's points on why leftists seem to be less violent, that is their huge embracing of humanism, sometimes radically. It explains some but I seem to get the drift that education also plays a part. Someone who is University lad in ELF is going to think more about consequences, ways to avoid unneccesary bloodshed, etc... whereas your average Mohammed in Al-Queda is only going to think about how happy Allah will be with this sacrifice.

On the other hand, intelligent men have also slipped off the other edge of brilliance in history. Many would argue that Lenin and Trotsky were too sharp for their own good and that keeness handed Russia to Stalin for so many years. Anyway....


amicus, your input gives me a warm glow inside. Don't think too hard about it and don't wonder about the towering pillars of flame around me, this is Hell after all. In fact, it would be good to continue to not think at all. Rand will save the world and all is good. There is no way mankind will turn that dream into a horrific dystopia just like Stalin and Mao did to Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx's dream. And faeries were found in a mushroom circle up in bonny Ireland the other day.

 

[rgraham666]

As I've said so many times before, I don't use the terms 'right' and 'left'. Plus I laugh, as I always have since I learned where those terms originated.

I prefer to use the Jeffersonian terms, 'aristocrat' and 'democrat'

Aristocrats 'distrust the people and so attempt to draw all power into their own hands'.

Democrats regard the people 'as the most honest, if not always the wisest' repositories of power.

I think the biggest failing of the aristocrats is they lack empathy and imagination. They have no feeling for people outside of their own little group and lack the imagination to create the knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

Sound familiar amicus?

 

[Pure]

I know it's pretty crass, but the actual dictionary definitions of 'right', 'left' and 'conservative' may be a good starting point.
Amicus' wants 'right' to mean his own view, favoring an ideal government which would be of smallest possible size, and never impose anything by force. If anything, the definition of 'right' correctly notes a link with force, and the def. of left leaves *open* that possibility.

Merriam Webster Unabridged www.merriam-webster.com

{right (noun)}
12 a (1) usually capitalized : individuals or groups sometimes professing views characterized by opposition to change in the established political, social, and economic order and favoring the preservation of traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the establishment of an authoritarian political order by revolution or other forceful means <a sweeping victory for the conservative Right -- F.A.Magruder> <brickbats from the extreme Right -- Al Hine> -- compare AUTHORITARIAN, CONSERVATIVE, FASCIST, LEFT 4 a, NAZI, REACTIONARY, TRADITIONALIST

{"left" (noun)}
4 usually capitalized a : individuals or groups professing views usually characterized by opposition to and a desire to alter (as by reform or revolution) the established order especially in politics and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man <the tradition of liberalism, democracy, and socialism belongs to the democratic Left -- Simon Paynter> <the totalitarianism of the Left -- Howard Rushmore> <his position in the literary Left -- Paul Potts> <his contempt for the Right is exceeded only by his contempt for the Left -- Bergen Evans>

-----
{conservative} {note the two variants}
2 a : of or relating to a political party, point of view, or philosophy that advocates preservation of the established order and views proposals for change critically and usually with distrust <conservative elements opposed to ... further steps toward socialization or nationalization -- Collier's Year Book>

b : of, relating to, or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) usually capitalized : of or constituting one of the two major parties in the United Kingdom evolving from the 18th century Tories and in modern times associated with policies advocating support of established institutions, a close relationship with the Commonwealth and Empire, and a positive although limited role by the government in social and economic affairs <the parliamentary Conservative party is preeminently recruited from the upper and upper-middle classes -- J.F.S.Ross> <a handsome Conservative majority ... emerged from the general election -- J.A.Hawgood> -- compare LABOR, LIBERAL, TORY, UNIONIST, WHIG (2) usually capitalized : Progressive Conservative
-=-------

rgraham seems pretty much on target.
amicus wish to have 'right' mean 'minimal government' is idiosyncratic. 'libertarian' might be closer (to amicus), but that term is now highly ambiguous, and not a few 'libertarians' reject Rand, since she seems to think that 'rights' just happen if the gov is so minimal as to do nothing about them (except be weak, and stand aside), and the entrepreneurs and capitalists call the shots.

 

[Pure]

Luc is generally on target, but I'd like to disagree on one point:

I seem to get the drift that education also plays a part. Someone who is University lad in ELF is going to think more about consequences, ways to avoid unneccesary bloodshed, etc... whereas your average Mohammed in Al-Queda is only going to think about how happy Allah will be with this sacrifice.

It's now known, for instance, that several of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were university educated, at least in part. Certainly Osama was. One of the founders of Islamic militance was an Egyptian physician named -----. Atta, for instance, was reasonably educated, but quite believing in heaven. There have been several Palestinian suicide bombers who were educated; I'm thinking of some of the females.

I don't deny that Islamic fundamentalism recruits ignorant, poor, and peasant as footsoldier and fodder.

Those familiar with the history of the communist movement will see similarities. I.e., Mao, and Ho Chi Minh, and their right hand men and women were generally NOT peasants, or of 'poor' background.

 

[thebullet]

Pure:
That was an extremely well thought out response. Amicus's misuse of terminology is both annoying and misleading. Because he has been taught to hate everything on the Left or that could vaguely be called 'liberal', he now finds it appropriate to categorize anything he opposes as being "left" or "liberal", no matter how outrageously Right wing it really is.

One would suppose that any student of history or politics recognizes that the further to the "Right", the more authoritarian the individual. That's the facts, Jack.

The same can be said of the "Left". It is my interpretation, however that one must be very far left indeed before totalitarianism enters the picture.

On the "Right", authoritarianism begins to rear its very ugly head quite early on. It seems to be a very small step indeed from "Classical Liberal" or "Jeffersonian Liberal" - that ideal Conservative that perhaps Amicus has in his mind - to ravaging Fascist. The Republican Party made that leap quite quickly in the '80s and '90s.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Luc is generally on target, but I'd like to disagree on one point:

I seem to get the drift that education also plays a part. Someone who is University lad in ELF is going to think more about consequences, ways to avoid unneccesary bloodshed, etc... whereas your average Mohammed in Al-Queda is only going to think about how happy Allah will be with this sacrifice.

It's now known, for instance, that several of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were university educated, at least in part. Certainly Osama was. One of the founders of Islamic militance was an Egyptian physician named -----. Atta, for instance, was reasonably educated, but quite believing in heaven. There have been several Palestinian suicide bombers who were educated; I'm thinking of some of the females.

I don't deny that Islamic fundamentalism recruits ignorant, poor, and peasant as footsoldier and fodder.

Those familiar with the history of the communist movement will see similarities. I.e., Mao, and Ho Chi Minh, and their right hand men and women were generally NOT peasants, or of 'poor' background.

AS far as education goes, it seems that many of Ossama Bin Ladin's cohorts are well educated. I read a blistering attack on Saudi Arabia. Some of it was plainly over the top, but one point I thought was germane to this discussion.

The sons of the richest, are sent out of country to get an education. The hope, was that they would get western education in things that could help the country, such as engineering, or geology, or some other hard scientific or technical back ground that could help lessen the dependance of the country on outsiders. This article said most of them don't select anything that is useful, they come home with a liberal arts or humanities degree, are too rich to need to work, and thus have time to sit around, discuss politics and religion. They absorb the virulent anti-westernism that characterizes much of the Saudi religious leaders and political thinkers.

The next wave of terrorist leaders aren't being made in the squalor of Palestien or the streets of Iraq, they are being grown in the indolence of Saudi Arabia.

A rather chilling observation. I think however it's a good one. You average red wasn't educated, but Lenin and his inner circe were, your average Aq operative probably isn't well educated, but his leaders are. Education dosen't seem to have a dampening influence. it seems thosew ho have the time and lesiure to get an education are the ones who form the dogma of the ideology.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

Long ago, after completing course work at four universities, I began post graduate work with the intent of becoming a University instructor. My chosen field was Philosophy, namely the the Greeks from the time of Thales.

I had other minor interests, such as Political Science and Colonial American History.

The reason I put that quest aside is well illustrated by the bitter, vicious, subjective personal attacks on this forum thread.

American education, at all levels has a parasitic infestation of Marxist, anti-freedom teachers and professors. The method is quite similar regardless of where one goes. It deterioates from a disagreement in principle, to a level of petty academic bickering over semantics.

It is quite true that the development of political parties in the western world is complex and convoluted. Which is why I have never declared to 'be' an advocate of any party. As a few experts at political manipulation and intellectual chicanery on this forum know well, one can find statistics, meanings and even definitions to fit ones purpose.

Right and Left in terms of defining political viewpoints, does not serve well to engender understanding of the two opposite extremes in political thought.

Although I am fond of the word, 'right' and it is easy to use 'left' in opposition, it is, of course, not accurate.

That is not the point. Those of the left know exactly the mind set of control and regulation to which I refer. They also know, but will not face or admit, that it is a 'power' trip. The so called, 'intellectual snob' of the left looking down their noses at the unwashed 'collective' of lesser beings.

All the 'peace corps' freaks, the ecologists, the environmentalists, the altruistic 'do-gooders', social democrats, liberals, et al, ad nauseum, share one common goal, they wish to rule, to control, to guide, direct and manage the lives of others..

Perhaps instead of 'right' and 'left' I will revert to a more clear enunciation of the extremes, namely, 'free' and 'slave'.

In a fond farewell to that lovely word, 'Right', I offer, from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged edition:


right, adj:

1. In accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.

2. In conformity with fact, reason, or some standard of principle; correct, the right solution.

3. Correct in judgement, opinion, or action.

4. Sound or normal, as the mind; to be in one's right mind.


Now...there are 62 total examples of the use of the word, 'right' and I will not type them all, but you get the idea, I think.


Thus, since the liberal left wing kerryites in the Presidential campaign lack the courage to even advocate a party platform, or to express the principles of liberal politics, they have reverted to name calling and a pissing contest about military service. Kerry saluting the audience at the democrats convention, that video clip will haunt the party until Kerry is but a footnote.

So, no more right and left wing, no more conservatives, republicans or neocons, no more liberals, leff wing, democrats, social democrats, socialists, marxists....et cetera.

Free= (your definition)

Slave =(your definition)

Not that it matters....(the turtle in Neverending Story)


amicus...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by amicus
My chosen field was Philosophy, namely the the Greeks from the time of Thales.

When the extent of philosophical development was the understanding that all things are made out of water (or, then onto Anaxagoras or the like... with different elements)?

*shudder*

Scholastic, Synthesis, or Contemporary's sooooo much better.

'Course, to each his own, I guess.