Russel Brand On Revolution

[crofter]

Are you a CIA agent recluting psycho fanatics?

That depends. Are you willing to kill and/or die for your cause?

No because he's a lazy cunt without the courage of his convictions.

[myrnova]

[myrnova]

You have got this wrong. Terrorism is a fact. When a suicide bomber blows up civilians in a crowded market, he is not popular I can assure you. Not popular, not legitimate, and doing nothing for any progressive struggle.

The only organisations who commit such things are:
(1) the CIA (all over the world) and secret services
(2) the fascists/nazis individually (Breivik etc.) or controlled by the CIA
(3) fanatics (usually controlled by the CIA)

That's all. It is called "war propaganda": the best strategy (create an enemy: nowadays "the evil islam terrorist" seems to work well). Unless you call "terrorism" the partisans who put bombs under nazis arse or the ones who sabotage capitalism. I don't call it "terrorism", I call it "struggle".

Terrorism is terrorism. 911 was a terrorist act. Bombing a bus in Israel is a terrorist act. Planting a bomb in a shopping centre is a terrorist act. These are not controlled by the CIA, they are controlled by terrorists.

The LTTE in Sri Lanka used to be the world's most prolific terrorist organisation. It was also a genuine liberation struggle organisation. But when it carried out terrorist attacks it was using terrorist methods, which are false methods. False methods do not become legitimate because the are aimed at a legitimate cause. When they used suicide bombers on a Buddhist shrine, killing 8 worshippers, that act was still an inexcusable, useless terrorist act whether or not the LTTE's aims in general were legitimate national liberation ones.

All the horrible facts you quote are the CONSEQUENCE of terrorism, not terrorism. Terrorism is a strategy of the State. Nobody would commit those crimes, otherwise (unless you think Israel and the U.S.A. are not terrorist States, yet peaceful countries which aim is peace?!)

Of course the CIA "stays behind", does not put bombs directly. They usually brainwash fanatics. In Italy they did like that for all bombs in trains, stations, banks etc. (through fascists). It is proved it was the CIA, even if people though it was "the communists" (that was the aim).

[H20nly]

Are you a CIA agent recluting psycho fanatics?

That depends. Are you willing to kill and/or die for your cause?

No because he's a lazy cunt without the courage of his convictions.

[H20nly]

ter·ror·ism
?ter??riz?m/

noun

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

[crofter]

80-90% of the CIA are CIA, the rest are CIA

[myrnova]

All the horrible facts you quote are the CONSEQUENCE of terrorism, not terrorism. Terrorism is a strategy of the State. Nobody would commit those crimes, otherwise (unless you think Israel and the U.S.A. are not terrorist States, yet peaceful countries which aim is peace?!)

Of course the CIA "stays behind", does not put bombs directly. They usually brainwash fanatics. In Italy they did like that for all bombs in trains, stations, banks etc. (through fascists). It is proved it was the CIA, even if people thought it was "the communists" (that was the aim).

Myra, you are plucking this stuff out of your arse. Terrorism by definition is the act of individuals and small clandestine groups. It is different from state terror. I am taking about what used to be called individual terrorism, which nowadays is just called terrorism. Please read Trotsky's writings on the subject plus more recent analysis by the CWI.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms ... #terrorism

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Terrorism

https://www.google.de/search?as_sitesea ... gle+Search

https://www.google.de/search?as_sitesea ... +terrorism

Again, I am not talking of individual terrorism (the brave individualist anarchists in '800 which "terrorized" the "good" conservative society in France, Italy and Russia dropping bombs on kings and soldiers). This is very romantic, but actually I am talking of real terrorism, which is a strategy of the State in order to justify its violence (war and exploitment). I don't consider crimes like the one of 9/11/2001 "terrorism", for me these are the obvious consequence of the U.S. terrorism. So I was not much surprised when it happened. After all the U.S. are the only nation condemned for terrorism by the international Aja Court. On the contrary, I consider the 9/11/1973 crime in Chile "terrorism" (infact it was committed by the U.S. and CIA). At the same time I don't consider "terrorism" the carnage made by single "terrorists", like that nazi idiot in Norway or the two nuts in Boston. For me those are just psychos, most of them usually brainwashed by CIA, which stays behind and use them at the right time, when useful for war strategy. I mean, they can commit carnage for the glory of arians, for satan, for allah, for wathever, that is the less important thing, once brainwashed. In Italy, for example, the CIA stayed behind the fascist bombs: in order to avoid communism (in the 60s, 70s and 80s), they put bombs everywhere and put the blame on the anarchists and/or the Brigate Rosse ("red brigades", which were the neo partisans, leninists), which infact were called "terrorists", even today (I guess you had somethng similar with IRA in Eire? You call them "terrorists", but for me they aren't).

[Galt]

Trotsky: Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism

"Whether a terrorist attempt, even a ‘successful’ one throws the ruling class into confusion depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case the confusion can only be shortlived; the capitalist state does not base itself on government ministers and cannot be eliminated with them. The classes it serves will always find new people; the mechanism remains intact and continues to function.... If we oppose terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky ... /tia09.htm)

So, here we have Trotsky saying VERY FUCKING CLEARLY that the ONLY reason he opposes terrorism is because it is... ineffective?

Thank you, FnF, for exposing Trotsky as the huge douche that he is.

[Galt]

Trotsky opposes terrorism because it is worse than ineffective, it is worse than useless:

"But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy. "

Same source

By the way, this was written when Russia was a feudal dictatorship, and the villages were burning in peasant revolts.

Exactly, it undermines the efforts of the proles, and ultimately does away with the need for a Trotsky. Essentially, what Trotstky is saying here is "Oi, you people need me! (cheap and available!)"

Just another prick done got made redundant...

[Galt]

By the way, this was written when Russia was a feudal dictatorship, and the villages were burning in peasant revolts.

I don't give a flying fuck when it was written. This is 100% relevance-free. If Yobama signed in the Yobamacare Act whilst dribbling shite out of his arse on the bog, it wouldn't make it an any shittier act than it is already.

[Galt]

He is saying that terrorism belittles the role of the masses, not the professional revolutionary.

Exactly, it undermines the efforts of the proles, and ultimately does away with the need for a Trotsky

Our interpretation of Trotsky is exactly the same here. The only difference is that I believe it makes Trotsky a douche.

"If we oppose terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us." -> "I support terrorism that is effective"

Fucking. Douche.

[Galt]

Good good, when you can't argue the points, go after the pointer.

Violenz would call this a "logic fail".

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Trotsky supported efficient terrorism, as per your links.

[ian_halsall]

Is Russel Brand Joe Brand's husband?

[Galt]

? This post is a fail. But not logical.

Genetic fallacy anyone?