Islamists and Anarchists

[The Last Conformist]

Interesting Economist piece comparing today's Islamist terrorists to the anarchists of a century ago:

For jihadist, read anarchist
Aug 18th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Repression did little to stop anarchist violence. But eventually the world moved on and the movement withered

BOMBS, beards and backpacks: these are the distinguishing marks, at least in the popular imagination, of the terror-mongers who either incite or carry out the explosions that periodically rock the cities of the western world. A century or so ago it was not so different: bombs, beards and fizzing fuses. The worries generated by the two waves of terror, the responses to them and some of their other characteristics are also similar. The spasm of anarchist violence that was at its most convulsive in the 1880s and 1890s was felt, if indirectly, in every continent. It claimed hundreds of lives, including those of several heads of government, aroused widespread fear and prompted quantities of new laws and restrictions. But it passed. Jihadism is certainly not a lineal descendant of anarchism: far from it. Even so, the parallels between the anarchist bombings of the 19th century and the Islamist ones of today may be instructive.

...

Full article

 

[King Alexander]

[off topic]
Well, I haven't seen anyone so far DEMANDING a revision to the passage from C'uran that says "infidels/non-theists should be fought/are enemies"(I don't know the exact translation).

Whatever I critisize Christians for, the Bible doesn't say such things.

For me, that specific passage is an insult, and I could see Islam as a threat only from that perspective and/or to take an defensive stance to protect myself, if you know what I mean.

[on topic]
Maybe there're similarities between the two groups, but their ideologies aren't even close.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Maybe there're similarities between the two groups, but their ideologies aren't even close.

The article doesn't claim their ideologies are close. The parallels are in tactics, polarized worldview, and society's reactions to them.

He doesn't say so explicitly, but I think the writer would agree with me that for the sort of people who become terrorists (and for that matter street fighters* at similar troublemakers), the particular ideology they use as justification is fairly ephemeral. It's sometimes said bin Ladin is a terrorist because he takes the fierier parts of the Qu'ran literally. I'd rather think he takes those parts literally because it gives him an excuse to blow people up.

* A standard example here in Sweden is the fact it seems pretty much random which violent youthts become neonazis and which become antifascists.

 

[BasketCase]

They had terrorists and suicide bombers a century ago??

Wow.

Shows ya what they left out in the college history courses.

 

[The Last Conformist]

They had terrorists and suicide bombers a century ago??

They usually didn't deliberately blow themselves up, but yes.

 

[Flak]

You know this term 'anarchist' is really dated. It refers back to a time where monarchies were struggling to justify their existance. Afterall, in those days, there was no other valid form of government imaginable. Dare to do anything violent against the monarchy that might encourage some of other form of government? ANARCHIST!

It's an old label. These days it's better to say terrorist, or perhaps even insurgent.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

A single terrorist assassinated one Austrian guy almost a century ago, and set in motion a chain of events that culminated in WW2 and the complete transformation of the world order. We live in the world created by that terrorist. Whatever you want to call them, small groups of very violent angry people who dont wear uniforms can have a potentially greater impact on the course of human history than the leaders of great nations that command vast armies and almost limitless resources.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A single terrorist assassinated one Austrian guy almost a century ago, and set in motion a chain of events that culminated in WW2 and the complete transformation of the world order. We live in the world created by that terrorist. Whatever you want to call them, small groups of very violent angry people who dont wear uniforms can have a potentially greater impact on the course of human history than the leaders of great nations that command vast armies and almost limitless resources.

Clearly the killing of the archduke in Serbia launched WW 1; It's a stretch to say that he also launched WW 2 or set in motion the events that started WW 2.

 

[farting bob]

Clearly the killing of the archduke in Serbia launched WW 1; It's a stretch to say that he also launched WW 2 or set in motion the events that started WW 2.

2 of Hitlers main 'policies' that he used to win public support in the early 1930's was to overturn the treaty of versailles and to amke germany a great, respected country again. Its hard to see how he would have been noticed if it wasnt for WW1. Most early nazi's were war veterans and right wing kaiser supporters.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Bird, if WW1 hadnt happened, there would have been no post war Germany, no Weimar Republic, no Nazi Party, and nobody today would ever have heard of a guy named Adolph Hitler.

 

[Grisu]

but do you think WW1 woulnd't have happened without the assassination of the Archduke? I seriously doubt that, it was just the excuse needed for that war, if it hadn't been that, people would have found another reason.

I pretty much agree with the article. there are many similarities, and I sure that it'll pass in time.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sure it'll pass, just like it did before. Lets see what our world order looks like after it passes, this time.

 

[farting bob]

but do you think WW1 woulnd't have happened without the assassination of the Archduke? I seriously doubt that, it was just the excuse needed for that war, if it hadn't been that, people would have found another reason.

I pretty much agree with the article. there are many similarities, and I sure that it'll pass in time.

i dont think it would have, not on the scale of WW1 anyway. Tensions were pretty high at the start of 1914 anyway, but tensions have been high in europe before and since and have not resulted in wars. Also, each 'side' declared war to defend smaller nations initially, it wasnt suddenly germany declare war on france and britian, it was a rapid escalation. No-one knew it would end up a war engulfing the whole continant.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

There are violent people of all types, including anarchists. For example, can you think of luceafarul as a violent criminal?

A single terrorist assassinated one Austrian guy almost a century ago, and set in motion a chain of events that culminated in WW2 and the complete transformation of the world order. We live in the world created by that terrorist. Whatever you want to call them, small groups of very violent angry people who dont wear uniforms can have a potentially greater impact on the course of human history than the leaders of great nations that command vast armies and almost limitless resources.

Is the match guilty of blowing up the leaky canister of gasoline?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Is the match guilty of blowing up the leaky canister of gasoline?

Was the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand guilty?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Was the bullet that killed Archduke Ferdinand guilty?

My point was: can we really blame Gavrilo Princip for WW1? Responsibility should be relegated to the people in the positions of authority.

Conversely, if Al Quaeda is responsible for 9/11, the US (gov) does retain responsibility for the war in Iraq as well as responsibility for the Patriot Act.


And closing down that relatively-OT point, about the article at hand...


There is currently no unified view as to what terrorists want. It's known they want to bring down the two "Satans" (US & Israel) and their allies, but it's not entirely clear wether or not they want to establish a muslim superstate or pure anarchy.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Lets put it this way: If you break into my house, try to shoot members of my family and set the place on fire, youre severely limiting my range of options. I can either sit back and let you succeed, or I can bash your skull in with a baseball bat. A court can decide later if Im responsible for the sorry state of your skull, or you are responsible, but everyone would agree that I had few options.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Lets put it this way: If you break into my house, try to shoot members of my family and set the place on fire, youre severely limiting my range of options. I can either sit back and let you succeed, or I can bash your skull in with a baseball bat. A court can decide later if Im responsible for the sorry state of your skull, or you are responsible, but everyone would agree that I had few options.

Would you consider bashing the skulls of the members of my family, aquaintances or even random people, loosely connected to me in some imaginary or real way as a reasonable act of vindication?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If members of your family, or people lossely associated with you stated that they had the same goal, which is to kill me and my family and set our house on fire, then yes I would. If innocent people died as a result, Id be very sorry about that, but it all could have been avoided if only you hadnt messed with me and my family in the first place.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

If members of your family, or people lossely associated with you stated that they had the same goal, which is to kill me and my family and set our house on fire, then yes I would. If innocent people died as a result, Id be very sorry about that, but it all could have been avoided if only you hadnt messed with me and my family in the first place.

Which is the same as denying responsibility for your own actions. To make everything consistent, the families of the innocents killed have a right to go after you, your family and those associated with you. You might point out "you were acting in a fit of rage and it's me who's responsible", but what if say, you are accidentally connected with someone who has wronged me, to warrant me validity to go after you. This game can go on forever. Every single human being is somehow connected to another human being. It is even conjectured (though strongly plausible) that it takes about six people acting as relays (aquaintances) to connect every single human with every other human.