user preferences

New Events

France / Belgium / Luxemburg

no event posted in the last week

Is Terrorism actually a threat to the State?

category france / belgium / luxemburg | religion | opinion / analysis author Saturday November 28, 2015 18:01author by Zaher Baher - Kurdistan Anarchists Forumauthor email Zaarif1 at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address London Report this post to the editors

Is Terrorism actually a threat to the State?

This article arguing that State and the terrorism completes one another's action and make each other stronger and the movement of people weaker. It tells the readers about the motive of killing innocent people by terrorism is not just ideological factor, in fact there are other reasons for this terrible act. Meanwhile the article urges us not to listen to Media, State and terrorist propaganda that they want to divide us. We should not be deceived and our demos and protests should be against both of them in the same time.


Terrorism actually a threat to the State?

By Zaher Baher

The latest Paris attack, killing 130 people and injuring over 350 more, again confirms the dangerous world we live in. There is no doubt that Isis and other terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, Taliban, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab, can be fatal and brutal forces bringing death to many people anywhere across the World including Europe as long as they have a base inside those countries.

Of course, this makes states, both inside and outside Europe to work together very closely in gathering and exchanging information against the groups mentioned above. They also share the same information against civilians, campaign groups, leftists, socialist and anarchist groups.

A quick look at the recent history of terrorism between Sep 2001 and the Paris attack on 13/11/15, and the one in Nigeria and Egypt soon after 13/11, shows us that all these attacks targeted people rather than the state and the current system. Until now, we know that none of these attacks in Europe targeted senior military officers, police chiefs, corporate directors, high-ranking spies, senior government officials or elected politicians (which, by the way, is something I am not hoping for). This is not just the case in Europe, but applies equally to the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, Nigeria, Kenai, Mali, Bali, Bangkok, Tunis, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Israel and Palestine with but one or two exceptions. The attackers, as always target ordinary people, including women, children and the elderly.

Regardless of what happened or how it happened, the media and politicians, as always, try to distort the reality by deceiving people. They still claim it is a war between “us and them”, and, “a clash of cultures and civilizations”, and that, “they are against our way of our life”, and. “they are jealous of us, hate us” and many more.

The media and politicians never ever tell us the truth as to why this terror happens again and again. They never, ever tell us about the state's terror against its citizens and the citizens of countries they have invaded, militarily or economically.

States, banks, corporations, churches, mosques, along with the media, are all functioning in different ways to protect the current system. They are the dark forces. The media and the rest of these dark forces try, deliberately, to hide the reality of the climate that is breeding terrorists. To blame terrorism only on religious ideology or medieval mindsets is short-sighted and self-serving. It conveniently obscures the fact that the foreign policies of the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Russia and other European countries, are crucial factors. This also means that a resolution of the Palestine question is not an issue. They do not want to admit that the state encourages Islam, the opening of hundreds of Madrassas without involvement in their activities, or any role in their control and inspection. That said, it is not the duty of the state to involve itself with Sharia law and its courts or modernizing the Qur’an which socialises and radicalises young Muslims. The state and the politicians ignore all these as if they do not play a role in breeding terrorism.

The media gets its facts wrong in at least three important respects. Firstly, in general, the terrors of authoritarian Islamists are not against culture and, to a certain extent, not even against other religions but against themselves whether Sunni or Shia and, additionally, against Eyazidis. Secondly, they call these murderers fanatical Muslims and not the authoritarians they are. The reason for this is quite clears; to defend the power and authority of the state. Behind these terrorist acts lies the true brutality of the authority and domination of the state, corporation, family or any other cells in society. Thirdly, the Media ignores the fact that the motive of Islamic authoritarians in killing innocent people in Muslim countries is to gain power. But their motives in killing people in US and Western Countries, in fact, is to exact revenge. The clearest evidence was the recent bringing down of the Russian passenger plane. People in the US, UK and other countries are, frankly, paying the price of the foreign polices of their governments. For instance in Paris, before they started killing people, the attackers chanted Allahu Akbar as they opened fire and also shouted “What you are doing in Syria? You are going to pay for it now”.

A quick look at the history of terrorism shows that the strength of terrorist groups and the state is demonstrated by using terror actions. They both play the same game; they make the people’s movements weaker and weaker and, at the same time, both get stronger. The terror increases the spirit and feeling of nationalism, racism and fascism. It makes the state and its brutal institutions, including police and spies, more attractive to people. A recent Ifop poll published by Le Figaro and RTL Radio found that 84% of French people were prepared to accept more controls and a certain limitation on their liberties in order to guarantee their security. This is the best example to show how terror action impacts the French people. How they fell into the trap of the terrorists and the state!

Islamic authoritarian groups use their savage terror to deceive ordinary people in their own countries by using the actions of the US and the Western countries against them. Meantime, all states, from democracy to dictatorship, use the terror actions as a good opportunity to create more, so-called, anti terrorism laws for “protecting people and their security”. Many of us know these laws are mainly designed to restrict our rights, civil liberties, migration and closing borders on refugees. And these laws, used against activists, seriously threaten the integrity of the state and the system.

In the countries where the terror happens, citizens are the losers when they are killed and then their rights and liberties are abolished or restricted. When the terror happened in Paris, the state announced a state emergency until Thursday, 19/11. Then Parliament extended it for another three months by 551 votes in favour with only three Socialist and three Green Party MPs abstaining. The state of emergency includes; expanding powers to immediately place any person under house arrest if there are “serious reasons to think their behavior is a threat to security or public order”, more scope to dissolve groups or associations that participate in, facilitate or incite acts that are a threat to public order, extending freedom to carry out searches without warrants and to copy data from any computer system found, increasing the capacity to block websites that “encourage” terrorism, extending detention from 24 to 72 hours and banning demonstrations, marches, and protests including the big march, estimated to attract 200,000 people, ahead of the UN Climate Change talks in Paris on 28/11. And now we can see a state of emergency is in place in Brussels whilst nothing is happening there. This is what terrorism actually wants.

Terrorism does not threaten the integrity of the state. In fact, it makes it stronger. The state is continuously conspiring against its citizens so that, when the terror takes place, then it will be easier for the state to implement its brutal agendas and policies, without much resistance. We must not be deceived by state lies and propaganda. We are, as a people, facing two major threats; one from the state and the other from terrorist groups which is why it is important that any demonstrations, marches or protests against terrorism must be, simultaneously, against the state too.

author by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.publication date Sun Nov 29, 2015 21:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There are many long discussions involved in such a piece, and although I generally agree with the outlook, I think there are many toxic elements in this piece which have been borrowed directly from the dominant ideology and accepted acritically.

For a start, it is interesting that every time that we talk of "terrorism" is in relation to Muslims, racialising and ideologising the debate straight away. This article in question mentiones as examples of terrorism "al-Qaida, Taliban, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab"... wildly diverse groups to be sure, with little in common and actually some of them openly hostile to one another. But appart from the fact that, although inaccurate, it may be convenient for argument's sake every now and then to lump wildly diverse groups into the same bag, there is one thing they all have in common: they are all Islamists. Therefore, an article like this reinforces the idea that there is an identity between being Muslim and being a terrorist. And it reinforces the bias that excuses right-wing, ultra-nationalist and Christian fundamentalism as something different, as not really terrorism. André Breivik was just a maniac, not a "terrorist". To be a "real" terrorist you need to be darker and pray while facing Mecca. Mind you, no one has referred to the guy who attacked a Family Planning clinic in Colorado, US, yesterday as a "terrorist" -not at least in the mainstream media- and these attacks are on the rise, they claim the lives of innocent people, but they do not fit dominant discourses on terrorism, which are in themselves convenient to justify the persistence of imperialist intervention in large areas of the planet in the name of the "Global War on Terror". No one will say that his local preacher or religious authority is inciting to hatred, no one will claim that his gun club (if he belongs to one, which is very likely) is a terrorist cell, or that his right-wing friends (he participated actively in anti-Obama campaigns) are accessories to terrorism activity.

That biased use of the word terrorism, reinforcing colonial imaginaries, in itself is more than questionable, particularly in the current environment where we see that the attacks and prejudice against the Muslim population in the "First World" is on the rise.

But the "T" word itself is used very liberally, without problematising or defining the concept -indeed, this article uses the concept of "terrorism" in exactly the same way than the big media -an understanding which is not grounded in consistent categories, but which is opportunist. A friend wrote about the inaccuracy and the difficulties of defining terrorism (which render the use of the term, at this stage, meaningless), I'd recommend its reading... in spite of the fact that some claim that "terrorism" is a precise, legal, term, in fact it is an emotional rant against people we don't like who engage in activities of physical violence. The fact that you cannot find the word "terrorist" together with the word "brave", but only in association to words such as "ruthless", "coward", "inhuman", etc. is proof that this is an emotionally charged term and that only

We all know that the EU and the US have their "terorist lists" where they include groups so different such as the PKK, the FARC, Hamas and Al Qaeda, which have nothing in common, save for the fact that they are inconvenient for their imperial policies. So we put them all in the same bag -even though the predominant use of the word in mainstream media is directed against Islamists, still they can agitate the "T" word against other non-State actors whenever it suits them. Terrorism is spoken of as if it was something that was only done by non-State actors; again we have the same ideological bias that we were talking about. I'd recommend you a book of Richard Jackson called "Contemporary State Terrorism: Theory and Practice" (2010) or Gillian Duncan and Orla Lynch "State Terrorism and Human Rights" (2013). Both books are accessible and provide compelling evidence to show that terrorism is far more widely used by States than by non-State actors. This article, instead, uses "Terrorism" and "State" as if they were opposites (in a symbiotic relationship, complementary and mutually re-inforcing, but still as analytical opposites).

This whole argument only proves that the dominant ideology is internalised routinely by the oppressed and not-dominant layers of society. But as critical people, as libertarians, as anarchists, one would expect a bit more of a critical introspection into our own ideas and how they are shaped by the dominant ideology to which we cannot escape, but which we need to confront. As Marx wrote in the 18 Brumaire, when the ruling class plays the fiddle, there is nothing left to do to those down below but to dance. Well, I for one am not dancing to this horrible tune.

author by mazen kamalmazpublication date Thu Dec 03, 2015 15:54author email author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is an important issue : Is there an oppressed civilization and its oppressed ones ? It looks like there is indeed .. But when it comes to national , religious , racial conflicts it is stunning how the oppressed group will act when it exchanges powers with its old oppressor : In middle East itself : Shi'aa , and other religious and national minorities , were systematically oppressed for ages ; but when time comes and "they" "hold" authority , they acted exactly like their old oppressors .. I don't think that we have simple or straight forward answers here : to tell the truth I started to feel more like anti-civilization , as civilization itself seems as an oppressive system that can only create war and national , religious , cultural hatred , tensions and rivalries .. In this way it creates and helps to maintain internal false unity based on external tensions and elitist hegemony .. We have to keep in mind that civilization appeared on the ruins of the long lived primitive anarcho-communist societies , and with it came : gods and priests and gender inequalities and empires ... Civilization doesn't only oppress other nations , etc ; but humanity itself

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2023 Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]