Anarchist Discussion Forums

by **FirePirate** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:03 am

Retaliate, there is always going to be people willing to fight. In an anarchist society people fought to take their freedom, they will be ready to fight to keep it that way.

by **Jawn Disease** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:33 pm

What we think of terrorism is a joke.

In India they have terrorism. In Pakistan they have terrorism. In Sri Lanka they invented the suicide belt.

Anyways, a stateless society would not be affected by terrorism because there would be no state to affect.

by **Caz** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:11 pm

2 cents:

What we think of as terrorism is a reaction to Western imperial/military actions, and if we had no aggressive power structure here trying to spread its influence, then I don't think we'd have a problem with it.

Were I living in an anarchist society and we saw domestic (TedK) terrorism, I would probably suggest a group band together and hunt down the bastard(s), which might garner support. Then that group would organize itself and develop into a cohesive task-driven unit with someone directing its activities for the sake of efficient operation and allocation of resources, eventually evolving a hierarchy. If it didn't, then another group would complain, start their own organization, and do it, taking advantage of increased effectiveness to garner public support...

by **lefty** » Mon May 05, 2008 5:28 pm

With the possible exception of Ted K, I can't think of any "terrorism" that wasn't state sponsored.

And come to think of it, Ted was a survivor of CIA mind control experiments (see http://counterpunch.org/tedk.html) so perhaps there is state involvement there as well.

Try googling for 'strategy of tension' or 'operation gladio' and you will begin to get a picture of what 'terrorism' really is. I also like this essay: http://spiritofmaat.com/archive/may2/faktrror.htm

by **MMMark** » Sat May 03, 2008 6:09 pm

Sat. 08/05/03 21:09 EDT
. post #316

Beloc wrote:Anarchism would not protect any rulers from terror.

Obviously, since Anarchy, by definition, is "without rulers".
There would be no rulers to protect.

Beloc wrote:As a strategic choice, then, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

This is a non sequitur, i.e., it does not follow from your initial statement, which is trivially true, but irrelevant.
Let's restate it, slightly edited, and without the irrelevant first part:

As a strategic choice, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

Before this proposition even "makes sense", you'll have to explain what you mean by your use of the word "sense". Assuming you can do that, the onus is now upon you to establish the validity of this proposition.

Beloc wrote:(1) The more terrorism works

"Works"? What could this possibly mean? Presumably, it has something to do with "terrorism making sense", a non-sensical expression you have failed to explain.

Beloc wrote:(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies

"Effective"? What could this possibly mean? See above.

Edit: corrected a spelling mistake

by **coeus** » Sat May 03, 2008 5:20 pm

E.L.S wrote:most ppl here think terrorism acts are targeted at the state..... but most religious terrorist act are not mainly focused at the state but at the people who live in them.... a anarchist sociaty would be a major target for religion based terrorism because of our focuses on librety and equality

WRONG. First of all, I'm assuming that you're talking about Islamic terrorism as "religious terrorism" and referring to groups like Al Qaeda. If you think that Al Qaeda attacked the US because of "liberty and equality" then you're a victim of state propaganda and I suggest you get yourself deprogrammed. Terrorist attacks against the US (and UK,etc ) are all political and are a result of imperialist foreign policy. Land grabs, military bases on foreign lands, stealing of resources, etc are all acts of the state and therefore states become targets from terrorists. If it were about liberty and equality, then Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, etc would be prime targets.

In fact, in most cases, terrorism is a RESULT of lack of liberty and inequality. See Ireland, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa when it was under the Apartheid, Palestinians, etc. For the most part, if people were living in equal and free societies they would not be willing to kill themselves. Capitalism also plays a huge part in this because it's the force that drives the desire to grab land, resources, etc.

The largest form of terrorism that anarchists need to worry about is state terrorism, as it's the largest form of terrorism that exists today.

by **|Y|** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:47 pm

We have to give the terrorist spammers credit for one thing, they do bump interesting topics ocassionally... I've seen some real gems from the 2003 days (when flag was switched over from that old software).

by **E.L.S** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:52 am

most ppl here think terrorism acts are targeted at the state..... but most religious terrorist act are not mainly focused at the state but at the people who live in them.... a anarchist sociaty would be a major target for religion based terrorism because of our focuses on librety and equality

by **Aaron** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:41 am

Post_Morpheus_I wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Beloc wrote:Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

In 3-4 you move from killing to threatening... why? You don't need to kill in order to threaten.

I disagree with 5.

Obvioulsy you don't NEED to kill in order to threaten, but terrorists DO kill and DO threaten. What is your point?

5 makes no sense.

by **tsihcrana laicos** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:33 am

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

What would be the point in terrorism? What effect would they be going for?

by **ive_been_registration_ed** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:22 pm

Beloc wrote:States protect the rulers from terror but do not protect the people from terror. Anarchism would not protect any rulers from terror. As a strategic choice, then, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

How would anarchists prevent, reduce, and respond to terrorism? Obviously changing foreign policy would eliminate many current threats, but changing social conditions could activate new threats, who now have (or believe they have) more leverage.

By abolishing government, you abolish terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic states use to force their agenda on the people. See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/.

by **Post_Morpheus_I** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:56 am

Aaron wrote:
Beloc wrote:Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

In 3-4 you move from killing to threatening... why? You don't need to kill in order to threaten.

I disagree with 5.

Obvioulsy you don't NEED to kill in order to threaten, but terrorists DO kill and DO threaten. What is your point?

by **Aaron** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:02 am

Beloc wrote:Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

In 3-4 you move from killing to threatening... why? You don't need to kill in order to threaten.

I disagree with 5.

by **Beloc** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:54 am

Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

by **|Y|** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:52 am

We need gulags!

Anarchist Discussion Forums

How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

Re:

Re: How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

Re: How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

Re: How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism