Samina Malik strikes me as being some sort of bedroom fantasist, daydreaming about being part of a war, but only on a vicarious level.

However, the thought occurs that one could say a lot about some of the left blogosphere. After all, the likes of Harry's Place aren't about to put down their keyboards, sign up for the Paras and head out to Afghanistan to dodge mortar bombs and take a crap in a foxhole. For one thing, you can't get a decent mocha for love nor money in Helmand.

Likewise, no matter how many times Lenny Lenin says he supports the "anti-imperialist resistance" in Iraq, this doesn't involve any actual rather than purely verbal support. He's never going to jump on a plane to Jordan, sneak across the Iraqi border and then behead a foreign journalist on the Internet or blow himself up in a suicide car bomb.

Makes you wonder what the left is coming to, really. Once upon a time they used to do cool things like storming winter palaces and stuff. Now they just argue on the internet.

As a student, I used to hang around the polytechnic bar clad in a Brigate Rosse T-shirt. These days, that might constitute prima facie evidence of the offence of glorifying terrorism.

Well, maybe. But most of all it showed you were a disckhead. All offense meant :)

Yeah LotB, I'd even agree with you ;-)

But then, my T-shirt was just like the one Joe Strummer wore on stage.

To quote Malik, 'it was cool'.

Indeed - "The Lyrical Terrorist" does sound 'cool', sort-of, at least. It wouldn't be my choice of a nom-de-plume, but if there was a punk poetry night going on over the road, I might pop in if the entrance fee was cheap enough. But if she was wearing a Red Brigades t-shirt I'd probably turn back.

which reminds me to finish off that half done post on FARC in Colombia

"Yes, I am in favour of intelligence service surveillance against violent Jihadists. But what is needed is action against real terrorists, not lyrical ones."

Would you have said the same thing about the IRA or is it just Muslims who are engaged in struggle that you have a problem with"?

It's true that fantasising on the Internet, is being targeted like never before. There's a serious problem there, since the Web is full of fantasy - that's a major part of the fun. Not that anyone who's cool (er, hem, such as someone near to this keyboard) would take to a bunch of vicious, anti-human, pious toe-rags as Al-Qaeda.

Dave may have played with the image of the likes of the Brigate Rossa etc. In fact many people in continental Europe in the 'seventies and early 'eighties did rather more than indulge in terrorist chic, and look where that ended (I believe Phil knows more than most about it in Italy - I am acquainted with some details about Action Directe in France).

The problem here is that there *are* sometimes links between day-dreams and reality.

Paddy, somehow blowing up innocent people on buses and tubes does not correspond with my idea of being 'in struggle'. You twat.

Still not answered my question Dave, would you have said the same about the IRA, even though civillians sometimes got killed as a result of their actions?

I'd have said the same thing about the IRA, no problem. I think the victims of Omagh and numerous bombs in London would agree.

Yes. The state should have done everything it could to prevent Irish republicans carrying out acts of terrorism. End of.

So you think its cool to grass? Where do you draw the line between "legitimate" and illegitimate" means of struggle? Is it methods? Ideology?

So you think its cool to grass?

Yes. If somebody you know is planning to let off a bomb in a place where ordinary people will be walking around, then you have a duty to phone the police. End of.

Paddy Gracia wrote:

even though civillians sometimes got killed as a result of their actions?

it wasn't sometimes, most of the attacks on the main land were aimed directly at civilian targets, that was their point

If Samina Malik's self-delusion had been merely excretable poetry and a few fantasy tags, then I would totally agree with you. Young people (and old ones too) are entitled to indulge themselves in 'harmless' fantasy; however, she possessed two manuals on weaponss training and poisons, both al-Quaeda issue. Since when does the average geek have that kind of stuff? When you wore your Brigate Rosso t-shirt, Dave, were you also studying home bomb-making? (Don't answer if that is going to incriminate you!). Yeah, she's been a sillybilly, but she did possess terrorist information. Interesting question, where did she get it from? Remember, she also worked at Heathrow airport, albeit in W H Smiths.

"it wasn't sometimes, most of the attacks on the main land were aimed directly at civilian targets, that was their point"

So in your opinion targets like Downing St, army barracks etc. arent legitimate? Warnings were always given, security forces didn't always act on them.
The ANC operated in much the same way, would you have grassed them to the South African security forces of the time?

Warnings were always given, security forces didn't always act on them.

Oh, I see, Paddy. They gave a few minutes warning, so if the security forces didn't manage to evacuate the area on time, it's the security forces' fault that some innocent shoppers got blown to pieces.

I believe this is the same "you made me do this" logic used by schoolyard bullies and wifebeaters.

Think the warings allowed enough time to minimise the risk to civilians.
Did you really believe everything the British state said at the time?
Yes it is the fault of the British, American, Israeli, and other states that these things happen.
If they didn't jackboot around the world opressing people acts of "terrorism" wouldn't happen.

just picking a year at random, I run across a few of these "targets", shops and restaurants:

28 August 1975 Peter Brown’s in Oxford Street.

29 August 1975 Another booby-trapped bomb is planted at the K Shoe Shop in Kensington Church Street W8.

30 August 1975 A bomb explodes at the National Westminster Bank in High Holborn WC1.

5 September 1975 A bomb planted by O’Connell in the foyer of the Hilton Hotel in Park Lane W1 kills two more people and injures 63 others.

12 October 1975 A bomb at Lockett’s Restaurant in Marsham Street, Westminster.

30 October 1975 A 10 lb bomb at the Trattoria Fiore in Mount Street W1 injures 17.

see http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/t-z/year04.html

there's a lot more to it, so it's probably best to familiarise yourself with the range of targets that were chosen

and if you think that blowing up innocent people has advanced the cause of Irish republicanism, then you are sordidly mistaken, but amongst the young there is a certain romance, a certain bravado for distant violence, but never quite the grubby bits, when human flesh is splattered across the street, the smouldering bodily fluids poured out on the pavement, where someone's purse or jacket are burnt beyond recognition

But you ask, where do you draw the line?

Here's how: if you wouldn't have supported the fascist David Copeland's bombing of the Admiral Nelson pub, then don't support the blowing up of civilians in any other pub, shop or restaurant, etc

That's the difference

Commercial and financial targets are quite legitimate. Would you have condemed the French resistance who were even more brutal in the way they sometimes carried out their actions againts the Nazis? How about the ANC at the time?
Your list fails to mention Downing St. Old Bailey (where British injustice was dispensed), Hyde Park (legimate military target if you remember) and many others.
Mistakes did happen, apologies were always issued.
I have seen the sights you mentioned, not nice, but sometimes necessary Im afraid.

Ignoring Paddy's cartoon flagwaving for a defunct war - since's it's never a good idea to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed - then I'd say the philosophical concept of the Just War is applicable both to conflicts like Iraq and also to guerrilla campaigns like the IRA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Anyone wanting to make a case for war, any war, should be able to argue for the Jus ad bellum (going to war for a just cause, with an honourable intention and as an action of last resort) and the jus in bello (discriminating between soldiers and civilians and avoiding targeting the latter, use of proportionate, minimum force to achieve your goals).

I'd say neither the invasion of Iraq nor the IRA succeeded in meeting those tests.

It wasn't my intention to bring up the rights and wrongs of the IRA, just making an analogy thats all.
In answer to your question, the violence of the opressed can never be equated with the violence of the opressor. Sometimes I do wonder which side some on the left are.

talk to the topic, we are talking about very specific events here

"mistakes were made" oh yeah?

so then why shops, pubs and restaurants, deliberately, consciously and with considerable planning targeted??

the reason: to kill civilians

if you support that, that's your choice, but be honest about it

if you support the deliberately killing civilians please say so, don't hide it

PS: incidentally, my list was picked at random there are hundreds of targets, going back to the Fifties

It wasn't my intention to bring up the rights and wrongs of the IRA, just making an analogy thats all.

Backtrack away...

In answer to your question, the violence of the opressed can never be equated with the violence of the opressor.

Wrong. There is not one rule for one set of people and one rule for another. Ethics are universal, or they do not exist.

Sometimes I do wonder which side some on the left are.

Democratic dialogue? Civil liberties? The right of some mum and her kids out shopping not to get a nail bomb in the face?

Neither you or I know how much warning was given to the security foces to minimise the risk to civilians
in those cases. If you choose to believe what the BRitish state said at the time, thats your problem, you may as believe that Jean Charles de Menzes was "behaving suspiciously".
This is that last comment that Im going to make about the IRA.
The issue I brought up was whether socialists should be grasses and informers for the state, and some of you have made it very clear where you stand on this.

"Democratic dialogue? Civil liberties? The right of some mum and her kids out shopping not to get a nail bomb in the face?"

Or the right of an innocent man on his way to work not getting seven dum dum bullets in the face?

That was an act of terrorism angainst innocent civillians if there was one.

I'm ringing the cops now Paddy with your email address.

Just to reiterate my view, based on the Just War theory, politics should always be separated from violence unless absolutely necessary. If non-violent means fail, then political aims should only be pursued by violence for a deeply compelling reason, as a means of last resort and for the minimum amount of time. All possible steps should be taken to safeguard civilians and only minimum necessary force should be used. These criteria apply both to conventional and to guerrilla warfare.

All progressives (indeed, all decent human beings) have a duty to take steps to prevent either side from harming civilians. This includes the duty to report terrorist bombers to the police.

The above argument is so straightforward that only a simpleton could fail to understand it. Paddy Garcia will fail to understand it.

Thanks, thats very comradely. Just wondering when a comment like that would come up.

Paddy Garcia,

you don't address the issues,

would you have supported the bombing of the Admiral Nelson pub, if it had been done by Irish republicans?

but not support the bombing of the Admiral Nelson pub, when it's done by a fascist like David Copeland?

which is it?

You're welcome Paddy.

So, to clarify your argument, we don't support the IRA, therefore we must support the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes? Did I miss a memo about that?

That's an argument so weak I can't be bothered to dissect and refute it, but when I next find a 5 year old child, I'll ask him to do it.

Don't think Irish republicans would have bombed a gay pub somehow.
Copeland was a crazed nazi, who targeted ethnic minorities and gays. There is a difference.
So do you support Israeli terrorism or the resistance to it? Did you support the bombing of Lebanon or the resistance against it?

My answer to spirit and others is simple, if you don't support the opressed and their struggle "by any means necessary" then you are on the side of the opressor. Yes a 5 year old can understand that.
Unconditional support is different to uncritical support, that to me is quite basic.

Don't think Irish republicans would have bombed a gay pub somehow.

Nope, just working class pubs. Very comradely of them.

Still, thanks for reminding me of the excellent work the IRA used to do at Gay Pride. I bet the IRA float and costumes were a laff riot.

So do you support Israeli terrorism or the resistance to it? Did you support the bombing of Lebanon or the resistance against it?

You know, I once showed a very similar online argument to a friend of mine who has Aspergers Syndrome. She said, "How come, even though I have Aspergers, I can still tell that they're engaging in simplistic, black-and-white thinking?"

The answer is, I would support democratic, progressive, pro-peace and pro-human rights voices in both Israel and Lebanon.

The above argument is so straightforward that only a simpleton could...oh wait, I've already mentioned that.

Paddy Garcia,

so when it comes down to it you are not against pub bombings or the deliberate killing of civilians, it just depends on who does it and why they do, that makes it right for you?

thanks for clarifying your views

Your welcome mod, its obvious whose side you are on.
You are an apologist for Israel, that is very clear.

This link from your website:
http://giladshalit.blogspot.com/
Nothing about freeing Palestinian prisoners there is there?

And this:
http://giyus.org/?bn=bn_eng_vert_small

Paddy Garcia,

I am on the side of a society where targeted killings (Gibraltar), pub bombings, deliberate targeting of civilians are outlawed

I am on the side of a society where socialists argue for issues, struggle for issues, and don't try to emulate the Fascist far right by planting bombs or support those planting them

I never found that bombing people is a good way to change their mind, be it Iraq, Birmingham, London or Belfast.

I appreciate you won't understand those ideas, but still...

Amazing! Modernity Blog has never ONCE mentioned Israel in this thread, and yet Paddy Garcia knows that he is "an apologist for Israel". Such wonderful clairvoyant powers.

Incidentally Paddy. You mention that "if you don't support the opressed and their struggle "by any means necessary" then you are on the side of the opressor."

Al Qaeda claim to be the oppressed (the Muslims) fighting the oppressor (the USA). Does that mean we should be on the side of al Qaeda, by any means that al Qaeda deem necessary? Cos fuck that for a game of imaginary soldiers.

So you arent deyning that you are an apologist for Israel? Do you support the release of Palestinian prisoners, or just IDF members? Please tell.
Or is it just maybe if Palestinians were released they would just go out and do naughty things, pesky Arabs, just cant trust them can you?
As if the IDF members were released wouldnt go back and do naughty things would they?

My point is that someone who supports a terrorist aparthied state like Israel is in no position to lecture others on the finer points of armed struggle.

It was the Admiral Duncan not the Nelson that got nailbombed, it was next door to my repo house so I used to drink in there.

As a rule of thumb anyone who regards me as a legitimate target or acceptable collateral damage is my enemy no matter how right/wrong, important/trivial their cause, I'd grass them in a second.

You only get one go at life, best spend none of it being blown into pink fatty mince because some egotist has got a cob on.

Scratch, am not going to take anyone who supports racist immigration controls seriously.

See below dickhead.

If you called me a racist to my face I'd break your teeth.

Scratch,

thanks for that, my poor old mind's none too good, I should have known I used to work up the road from it.

Paddy Garcia,

no one is lecturing you, just asking you to think about the logical consequences of your own views, which you seem reluctant to

these type of questions will be asked either by your own brain, or someone else, who may or may not be faultless, but the questions remain:

do you support pub and shop bombings simply because you support the idea behind? or are you against the indiscriminate killing of civilians, no matter where it is?

it is your choice, your fantasies and your Che Guevara T-shirt

You posted on the immigration thread that you supported immigration controls. As all immigration controls are by their very nature racist, ill leave it up to you to answer that question.

I don't posess a Che Guevara T-shirt.
So you slagging him off too are you?
Of course the deliberate killing of civillians is abhorrent. But instead of condemning which plays right into the hands of our imperialist enemy I put the blame where it firmy lies, with those who caused the conditions where these things happens.
Mow your turn to answer my questions about Israel please, so we can know which side youre on and what your real agenda is?

Then I recanted because I got owned by Red Deathy.

I doubt the reason I wouldn't get a US green card, for instance, is because I'm white, you dunce.

Ok fair enough. Apologies.

You only get one go at life, best spend none of it being blown into pink fatty mince because some egotist has got a cob on.

Wise words, Scratch. There's nothing more dangerous in this world than an idealist with access to weaponry.

Accepted.

I'm one easy going get.

Paddy Garcia,

if you think there is some sanctity to the "armed struggle", and blowing people up in shoe shops, restaurants and pubs, then I pity you

equally, I notice you never addressed the point, that these targets were chosen deliberately to maximise civilian deaths

nor did you address the question of the philosophy of pub bombings, it seems to me that your views are:

pub bombing is bad if done by fascists, but excusable have done in the name of the "oppressed"?

surely you must see that that is subjective nonsense and morally repugnant?

Sometimes they are chosen to maximise civilian deaths, sometimes not. Whether I support them depends entirely on the situation.
Don't have aproblem with martyrdom actions in Israel, because unfortnuate as it may be its one of the few weapons Plaestinians have at their disposal.
When you have been ethnically cleansed from your land, your home bulldozed to make way for crazed settlers from Brooklyn, your children deliberately killed by Israeli soldiers while out playing, your parents killed by an IDF missile attack, your relatives living in squalid refugee camps many miles from where they are from, your choices can seem quite limited can't they?

Paddy Garcia,

I don't intend to high jack one of Dave's posts to discuss the rights or wrongs of blowing up Israelis in pizza parlours, my own blog is available for such discussions

personally, I don't think bombing Italian restaurants in London or pizza parlours in Jerusalem actually achieve anything, whoever does it

So please mod tell are you a supporter of the Israeli state that does the above things as well as launching wars of agression against its neighbours, is entirely based on a racist agenda?
Because that is what your website implies.
Do you want the uncondituonal release of IDF POWs just because they are Israeli, or do you support a fair exchange of prisoners from both sides?
Did you support the attack on Lebanon, with all the innocent civilians that died as a result or did you march to oppose it?

Uncomfortable questions arent they mod?
You should let us all know where you stand, I have.

I have never said that the deliberate targeting of civilians is right. Its an unfortunate consequence of what happens when people feel that they no other means at their disposal.
You on the other hand refuse to condemn Israel and its actions.

How sad that what I thought was an excellent piece by Dave, with maybe one ore two differences from my own point of view, degenerates in the comments section into a bare knuckle fight.
The point should be reiterated that, while the comments above are about acts of violence, Samina Malik had committed none.
I too had a Brigade Rosse t shirt and I think I still have a copy of the Anarchist Cook Book in amongst my collection of Sniffin Glue and ZigZag.
I definitely have video footage of insurgent actions in Iraq on my computer and links to websites that I keep an eye on.
But I'm a whiteboy and that probably means I'm safe from the attentions of the British state.

Is Paddy Garcia anything to do with the Paddy Garcia who was involved in the Slough Fertilizer Plot? I have raised this question before and not received an anser, but I think we should be told.

What you on about sue? I don't have an allotment. Is there another Paddy Garcia?

"the Slough Fertilizer Plot" lol !

the main land

France? Piss off English twat.

I have no time for the IRA but you do not live on the "main" land or even the mainland (which is the correct usage numbskull)

How sad that what I thought was an excellent piece by Dave, with maybe one ore two differences from my own point of view, degenerates in the comments section into a bare knuckle fight.
The point should be reiterated that, while the comments above are about acts of violence, Samina Malik had committed none.

I entirely agree with Eddie. Here we have a serious political issue, namely the prosecution and conviction of young Muslims for "terrorist offences" that don't amount to any sort of terrorism at all, and a bunch of complete plonkers almost completely ignore the subject of Dave's thoughtful post and engage in a self-indulgent flame war.

Samina Malik is not an isolated example. Her case follows close on the heels of Mohammed Atif Siddique's conviction, for which see Eddie's excellent post on Islamophobia Watch: http://tinyurl.com/24kube

Why don't we get down to discussing this?

Incidentally, Dave will be pleased to hear that he's the hero of the hour over at IW and we can't believe we ever said anything cruel about him: http://tinyurl.com/222uun

On the slough fertiliser plot...there was the hanwell fertiliser plot which led to a very long trial that was based on the evidence of informers. it looked to me at least to involve agent provecteurs.

oddly enough this is linked to the lyrical terrorist conviction today.

we have a number of people in jail because of what they thought. not what they did--but simply that they have had dark thoughts. in the conext of civil liberties and legal definitions that is beyond what the british state did to the irish.

while they were happy to fit up the odd person. they were happy to shoot the the odd person. in relaity they didn't put people away, (accept for the brief period of internment -- 90 day detention anyone) for sympathising with with the provos.

By this method of evidence cherie blair and jenny tonge should be banged up for supporting terrorism.

it is nasty. and as a final point too many of the comments above are nothing more than a bullshit trollish discussion on the merits or otherwise of terrorism as a method of struggle and that somewhat misses the point.

The Lyrical Terrorist did not carry out acts of murder or mayhem it is true, perhaps she did not have the wherewithal to do it, but she did possess al-Quaeda manuals on weapons training and poisoning. Ok, so she might never have put the information contained within to use, but someone must have given them to her, or someone might have asked her to look after them. I don't believe that 'knowledge' is neutral, it all has a purpose.

I agree that the debate degenerated somewhat. All I did was asking Dave and others whether socialists should be stae grasses and informers, a few answered yes, to thats all on that folks!
Now to the point in question:
What happened to this girl is truly outrageous and if we dont stand by her then who knows who will be next.
"First they came for the Muslims"...........You know the rest.

quote: The Lyrical Terrorist did not carry out acts of murder or mayhem it is true

Exactly my point.
thought cime.

Well sue r seems to support prosecutions for "thought crimes"
Just wondering if she is some sort of a Stalinist?

paddy garcia wrote:

Don't think Irish republicans would have bombed a gay pub somehow.

On September 19th 1992 the Irish People's Liberation Army, a republican paramilitary group that split from the Irish National Liberation Army, fire-bombed a gay pub in Belfast while apparently shouting '`We have a bomb for this queer pub'.

Was this a legitimate act of resistance paddy?

If that is true, no. Anyway enough off topic remarks.

Not a Stalinist no. Just an average holiday maker, and sometime commuter on London Underground. Bit past the nightclubbing thing though, so I'm not a dancing slag.

I'm with Paddy (and Eddie and Martin ) 100%.

It's symptomatic of today's Left that so few sign up to this basic anti national chauvinism and anti-imperalism, as the comrades have expressed above.

Samina Malik is just the latest in a recent stream of political prisoners incarcerated by the British state.

Imagine you are 'Paddy Garcia' walking home from work one evening and you spot an Irish Republican or an 'Islamic Fundamentalist' planting a bomb in a bin between an Army barracks and a nursery school what would you do?

A/ Hurry home and write the incident up on your blog.

B/ Sidle up to the bomber and whisper in his ear "I'm critical of your actions and opposed to individual terrorism on principle but would like to assure you of my unconditional support".

C/ Phone the police?

None of the above.

But Paddy dear heart, I'm terribly confused. Shirley to be consistent, B must be your choice.

After all, your position on terrorist incidents as discussed above, is one of unconditional but critical support, to use the traditional formulation. Except in your case, unconditional really means cheerleading individual terrorism regardless of the consequences to others in a totally uncritical manner.

I have been known to cheer after some actions yes, don't have a problem in admitting that and certainly not going to make any apologies for it either.
Am sure a few here have done excatly the same. Anyway this is off topic again.

It's symptomatic of today's Left that the disconnect from the working classes is such, that some on the Left (generally the barking mad fringes), seek to substitute bluster, militarism and support for bombings with vacant sloganeering.

There is no connection to the working class, other than some meaningless buzzwords, and then some on the Left wonder periodically "why is the Left so small?", to which one answer is "if you are going to cheer on, excuse and apologise for the bombing of pubs, shoe shops, restaurants, etc then you don't deserve to be supported by the working class"

Dressed up nihilism isn't really socialism and it is hardly going to win over the working classes, is it?

And for those remaining supporters of these tactics, please could they explain how a shoe shop, full of civilians, counts as a "legitimate" anti-imperialist target?

I wonder where do you stop? Agreeing to pub bombings? Critical support of attacks on restaurants?

What about if some misplaced "anti-imperialist" rebel decides to bomb a Council Estate?

Is that still "unconditional, but critical support"? Or have they stepped over some invisible line?

Is there a chart which you tick off? "Hmm, I support that, only two old ladies killed. Next, not that one, but the right type of car bombing, might be excused with enough waffle"?

So next time, when you try to explain socialism to someone, tell them your views on car bombings, exploding shoe shops and blowing up buses, see what their reaction is, I'll bet you're not too surprised when they run a mile.

Paddy,
Stop beating around the bush, man. The fact of the matter is if a group consisting of Saudi millionaire's children and lumpen trash from Milton Keynes were to bomb a nursery resulting in several casualties you would celebrate. To win your support all these fools need do is mutter some half-witted platitudes about fighting imperialism and you coo like a lovestruck swain. This is not unconditional but critical support. This is simply stupid.

I do indeed know a bit about the Italian 'armed struggle' scene (hi Andrew), and what I know is that it was bloody complicated. When it comes to defining 'terrorism', I tend to agree with our anonymous Zionist friend - the definition should centre on indiscriminate large-scale violence against random civilians. However, very little of what the left-wing 'armed struggle' groups got up to fits that bill. No less an authority than Francesco Cossiga has said on the record that the Brigate Rosse (and a fortiori the smaller left-wing armed groups) weren't terrorists ("terrorists plant bombs in cinemas").

This isn't to apologise for the BR - who were murdering Maoist headbangers - but just to suggest that this whole area is, well, complicated. You can condemn the Italian armed struggle groups out of hand if you're an intransigent pacifist - or, conversely, if you believe that violence by non-state actors is always and everywhere illegitimate. If you don't take either of these extreme positions, it's a bit harder.

What the fuck are you on aout mike? Who excatly do you mean?
As far as mod is concerned, you still havent answered my question about Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians. As you seem to be a supporter of Israeli state terrorism am not going to take anything you say on "terrorism" too seriously.
As far as the working class is concerned, opinions vary greatly, we know that. Because some may disagree it doesnt mean that it isnt right.
Anyway off topic again.

Paddy wrote "What the fuck are you on aout mike? Who excatly do you mean?"

I mean Paddy that on line you act like a cheerleader for thugs who murder civilians and spout halfwitted 'anti-imperialist' bs. You do not come over as a Marxist critical of a tactic which we have always opposed as counter productive.

PS The French Trotskyists opposed and criticised the actions of the bourgeois French Resistance groups who murdered German workers. You know why because they correctly calculated that German workers in uniform could turn their guns against the German bosses. Some did and were murdered by the Nazis for doing so. Thats my political tradition, you are welcome to the heritage of the Gaulliste terrorists.

"a group consisting of Saudi millionaire's children and lumpen trash from Milton Keynes"

That is what i meant.

As you know the French resistance did have a large number of left wingers of different traditions in its ranks.
If a "worker in uniform" working on the side of imperialism points his gun at you, rounds up your family to deport to a death camp, what would you do?
Say to him "please don't do that mate, you are as opressed as these people you kill, you should turn your guns against your officers and bosses"
Its as absurd as the "quiz" you asked me to answer.

have you ever considered how the most vigorous supporters of the "armed struggle" (in various guises), from Ireland to Sri Lanka, from London to Bogota, etc are, in fact, a gift to the Tory media and capitalists

why? because they repudiate any positive aspect of socialism, by their words, by their excuses

imagine a dialogue on the Gulags:

you've finally managed to convince someone that socialists don't approve of the Gulags, show trials or ice picking opponents

they are sceptical so they ask your view on the bombing of civilians in London, Belfast or Hyderabad,

but you're stuck, you equivocate, gone is your certainty against Gulags, you humm, you arrh and "but…", and before you can say "unconditional, but critical support for the bombing of shoe shops and Pubs", the person that you are talking to, trying to convince them of the logic, rationality, even sanity of socialism, that person has marked you down as a borderline psychotic, nihilist that would justify any atrocities, if it suits your ideology

and then they say "you're probably worse than the 1930s Stalinists" and off they go, running to get away, leaving, another victory for the Tory bastards, an own goal.

what a gift such attitudes are to the Daily Mail :(

Still noot clarified your position on Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians.
So I can safely assume you are a supporter of Israeli terrorism, how would you convince young angry working class Muslims to your cause. They will say to you "Ah yes, but whats your position on Palestine, Lebanon, iraq Afganistan etc? Do you support the mass murder of our brothers and sisters in these places, would you grass Muslims to the British state"?

again:

I am happy to discuss the Middle East, etc on my own blog, but do not wish to intrude or derail Dave's thread.

just in case, you missed it, my blog is at http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/

Well you are derailing this thread, I was prepared to stick to the topic but you and mike jumped on me again. And Israel etc is totally relevant to what has now become a discussion on "Individual terrorism"
I answered your questions to the best of my ability, even though they were off topic, so can you extend the same courtesy to me please?
Your are not blogging on this issue at the moment, but will gladly contribute when you do so again.
We can also discuss on facebook, ill send you friend request if you interested.

Yes Paddy the French resistance did include many left wingers in its ranks. Indeed the major military force involved was led by the Stalinist Party and raised the chauvinist slogan 'Let every Man Kill a German'. The alliance, in deeds if not words, of the Stalinists with the french bourgeoisie was a continuation of the Popular Front which disarmed the French workers and denied them the opportunity of smashing fascism by means of revolutionary struggle.

As for the heroic French Trotskyists, and indeed some Germans living in France too, they did indeed approach german troops and recruit them to the cause of internationalism. A cause you have no understanding of whatsoever, despite your needless cyber-cheerleading for that most bourgeois of politics, individual terrorism.

I have created a thread on this general topic, I like discussing things on my blog, in the open, not facebook, as I have not scared or troubled by my own views on these topic

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/open-thread-on-the-middle-east/

I ask only one thing, try to type halfway decently (use firefox and a dictionary plug in, if that's a problem) as I use a screen reader and garbled words are very annoying, when I am listening to the speech to text output.

I hope that's clear?

ops, meant text to speech

Thanks, will do my best to type clearly.
Am bit of a technophobe, what is a dictionary plug in? How do I get one, I do use firefox on a mac.
Be nice to chat to you on facebook anyway, sent you fiend request, hope you accept.

Just logged on and added comment on modernityblog. You moderate contributions, not exactly in the spirit of open debate is it?

This thread has been derailed a bit, but I think there's a point that can be made that can bring it all together.

Dave describes Samina Malik as "just one of many millions of kids in every country around the world wrapped up in a flirtation with any variety of anti-establishment symbolism that comes immediately to hand. Mostly it stops at posting message on online talk boards, as it did in her case."

Arguably, this is equally true of Paddy Garcia.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and speculate that if we were to go round to Paddy's house we probably wouldn't find several bags of fertiliser, some home-made detonators and a hitlist of British soldiers and policemen that Paddy is going to personally assassinate. I suspect this would be because Paddy doesn't want either the inconvenience of spending years in prison or the mild irritation of the SAS administering one in the head and two in the chest with a Glock 9mm.

Just as Paddy will never blow up a pub, so too will Malik never incinerate a tube train, the bloggers at Harry's Place will never man a sentry post at Camp Bastion, Lenny Lenin will never detonate himself at an Israeli Army checkpoint.

All these people are essentially spectators imagining themselves to be participants; vicarious onlookers to wars they will never see, let alone fight in. Most of this, I suspect, is because without this fantasy, they'd be forced to admit that their lives have very little relevance in the scheme of things.

Is this still going on?

sent you fiend request

How true. But do you really have to request fiends?

Mike, out of historical etc interest can you clarify what the French trotskyists' approach to resistance was? You seem to be saying that they tried to recruit 'workers in uniform' to internationalism - with some success. Did that mean that they undertook no armed actions against occupying troops?

Strikes me that there no real contradiction between trying to recruit "workers in uniform" one day and shooting them them the next.

Else the Bolsheviks would still be leafleting the troops defending the Winter Palace.

Buenaventura

Thanks for that Buenaventura. There may well be "no real contradiction between trying to recruit "workers in uniform" one day and shooting them them the next" under certain circumstances.

Unfortunately, I was asking a question about a specific period of political history.

As someone here has already pointed out, Malik on paper (or an MI5 surveillance file) certainly appears more dangerous than your average youthful revolutionary twerp. She downloaded weapons' manuals and a guide to poisoning and behading, wrote explicit poems fantasising about killing people, and of course had obtained a job at an airport. Frankly it would have been irresponsible of the security services not to have taken this seriously. Of course many of us have had periods of stupidity where we've been turned on by the apparent glamour of armed struggle (some posters here are clearly still stuck in that phase), but I seriously doubt 95% of acne-scarred hormonal wannabe insurrectionists actually undertake research into weapons usage and wax lyrical about the joys of planting car bombs and beheading hostages. It's getting a bit serious at that stage. Especially with a context in which a small section of young British Muslims are apparently willing to do stupid violent things in the name of their religion.

I agree that being too harsh on Malik may backfire in terms of winning over alienated Muslim youth. I await her sentence with interest. However, let's not get into lazy generalisations. Most of the Muslims I know think that people like Malik and her terrorist heroes are scumbags who need to be dealt with severely.

The laughable arguments of Paddy Garcia and Southpawpunch confirm beyond doubt (if there ever was any) of the sheer lunacy of the far-far "left" (not that I've ever seen anything remotely socialist about psychotic individuals using violence to try to force their will upon others). I wonder if Lenin, Trotsky, Che, etc would have come across as equally cunty if they'd been able to post on Dave's blog back in the day?

Great article by Dave. State repression is becoming more acute by the day here in the UK, as is the persecution of muslims. For those who put a lot of stock in this girl's alleged possession of "training manuals" should consider that military and gun magazines, Jane's manuals etc. are freely available and popular among the white public school conservatives. It is absurd that a document containing bin Laden's statements is considered illegal. After all, bin Laden is part of current world affairs. Suppressing anything that includes his point of view just lends weight to the idea that his message is difficult to refute.
The fact that poetry and a bracelet containing the word "jihad" were cited as evidence against this girl just shows how far the state's war on dissenting muslims has gone.

As for the discussion on means of resistance I tend to agree with paddy garcia. Condemnation of the oppressed people's methods of resistance should only ever be expressed in the context of outright opposition to the oppressors. The misery caused by IRA violence, ALL its atrocity,is at root CAUSED BY the British imperialists. No ifs or buts.

Ah - "no ifs or buts". Nothing better than a bit of dogma and intolerance of other points of view to make an argument more persuasive! Just like Paddy insisting that if you don't agree with his 'no borders' ideas you are automatically a racist.

I think David Copeland could take reassurance from your line of argument. After all, he was simply an oppressed white nationalist being bullied by PC imperialism!

I've always wondered how these internet apologists for IRA and Jihadi violence would be able to cope in a situation in which one of their loved ones was killed by a bomb in a pub or on the tube.

I'm not sure about the subject of the thread itself. She is certainly an extremely unpleasant fantasist, but whether she was a serious threat or not I don't know, as I've not been following the case in great detail, only heard the reports in the media yesterday.

On this debate about whether to always 'support armed struggle' or be a 'grass', surely the point is that violence and war are 'the continuation of politics by other means'. There is nothing inherently progressive about 'armed struggle'; it depends on the politics.
The IRA are not analagous with people like Al Qa'eda, because the IRA had a concrete demand which is within the bounds of reasonable politics,(whether or not you agree with it) a united Ireland.
Al Qa'eda want nothing less than the destruction of the modern world and a global pre-feudal theocratic confessional state. Why on earth would anyone supposedly on the left support or defend the actions of such a movement or hesitate to be 'a grass' against it?

Where does Stu get his idea that public school boys read Jane's weapons manuals and militaria. The only people I know who have ever taken an interest in weapons and how to kill people are former soldiers, officers and privates. It's not the sort of knowledge that one needs in abstract is it, not like how to tie your shoelaces or cross the road.

I'd like to point out that unfortunately for Samina Malik, her dream of being a walking bomb would have remained just that. Hamas has allowed a few women to blow themselves and others up, but it is in reality a form of honour killing. They are disgraced women who were going to be killed anyway by their families. One woman bomb whose bomb failed to detonate in Syria (a couple of years ago, they were trying to blow up a hotel) when put on trial blamed her husband. He had FORCED her to wear the belt and not properly explained to her that it carried a high risk of annihilation. She would say that, I suppose, but generally women are not allowed to carry out murder. I think this is because men think they will get in the way of their constant orgyfying in Paradise, with requests to take the rubbish out and asking if they have changed the lightbulb in the spare room.

Your David Copeland counter-argument to my point is pure postmodernism or moral relativism or some sort of subjectivism.

As I don't believe there's such a thing as an oppressed "white nation" or such a thing as "PC imperialism" (do you, by the way?) I have no reason to accept your point. If you believe David Copeland phenomena are similarly explained as the phenomena of the IRA or Hamas then that's up to you.

Stu, yes the problems in Northern Ireland are, at root, caused by British imperialism. That is a historical fact.
What is also true is that the IRA are a catholic-chauvanist organisation who had no interest in coming to any kind of democratic settlement with the Protestants and targeted ordinary Northern Irish protestants and ordinary British people.
It is very patronising to say that oppressed peoples are not capable of making their own decisions or taking responsibility for their actions. The IRA are a sectarian organisation and coercive in their intent.

Paddy Garcia talks uniquely about Ireland. What about the Brigate Rossa and other groups during Italy's years of lead? What did they achieve? A lot of people killed and many broken lives - plus an ever more complicated set of allegations (both true and false) about State involvement, agents provocateurs, and sordid gangster activity, that's what.

Phil knows more than I do about this but I recall the atmosphere amongst some of the exiles in Paris in the 1980s and it was, to say the least, dire, with such people out for Toni Negri (accused of being the BR head, though everyone knew he was not, and then disliked for leaving Italy when he was elected on the Radical Party's list and got out of prison - there's lots to say on that, not always to Negri's credit and Toby Abse has, in What Next?).

Let's look at other countries with which I have some familiarity, such as France, where Action Directe in the 1980s achieved precisely nothing, had no links with the working class in any case, murdered a few people, and ended up with lengthy gaol sentences. Or the Basque Country, where they killed and/or attacked - amongst others (such as in the Barcelona supermarket bombing) - local Socialist and Right wing councillors, former ETA members, and what have they got for it?

These were, in theory at any rate, targeted campaigns, however misguided. Is Al-Qaeda the same? In fact the nearest parallel to the Jihadist atrocities is, by no coincidence whatsoever, the fash's bombing of the Bologna railway station, which killed scores and scores (a plaque is there to remind you): directed against workers leaving for their summer holidays (CF Mardid attacks).

One thing stood out in the vile diatribe produced by Malik was her call for the blood of the kufur: a racist through and through she deserves only loathing.

Not, necessarily prosecution, that judgement remains open, at least on my part.

Sue makes a good point. It was for that reason I couldn't stand Britz (as if jihadists would train women with men in any case,and as if you 'ask' to join these kind of armed groups, including European ones - you get told to come to a little talk and it's not easy to talk your way out). The whole premis of the film seemed to be that she was 'driven' by the British state to her murderous acts. No free will there.

As if someone protrayed as so feeling and humane would be 'forced' to kill innocents - the kind of bankrupt argument Paddy, who seems to know nothng of how such things work at close hand endorses.

The kind of callow statement even anarchists used to parody: "It's not me gov, society's to blame."

What was marked in the extracts

Sue is talking a load of bollocks, her bigotry against Muslims coming to the fore again.
She gives no evidence to back up her outrageous claim that female martyrs are somehow forced to do it. They are just as dedicated and committed as their male comrades. True revolutionaries, and not all are Islamists anyway.
Maybe this article will acquaint her and others with the facts:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/palestinians/9.html

I'm fascinated by Paddy Garcia's earnest insistence on calling Palestinian suicide bombers 'martyrs'. Are you a Muslim? Do you believe these people are now enjoying themselves in an afterlife? Do you believe that killing Israeli civilians (whether Jew, Arab, right-wing, left-wing, etc) is actually helping to improve the situation of the Palestinian people, or are you simply more interested in defending the rights of these people to take others' lives because they are 'oppressed'? What do you think of British Muslims who find you as weird and cranky as I do and who don't feel in any way oppressed or persecuted by the British state? Do they suffer from false consciousness?

"I'm fascinated by Paddy Garcia's earnest insistence on calling Palestinian suicide bombers 'martyrs'."

Why are so fascinated? It is what they and their communities wish them to be known as. If its good enough for them its good enough for me.

In reply to Lobby Lund the attitude of the various Trotskyist groups in France to the resistance variedfrom group to group. But all of them opposed the indiscriminate killing of German soldiers. Indeed effoorts were made by all the groups to recruit German soldiers sometimes succesfully and in Germany itself!

As for taking part in armed actions against the Nazi occuying forces, something entirely principled, the small groups in question had no militias of their own and took no part in such activities. What they did do was take part in the paris rising and at least one leadeing comrade, Testu (Henri Molinier), was lost fighting the Nazis. but they fought as members of the working class and based their activity on the workplaces.

These statistics dispel the common myth propogated by some here that all "suicide attacks" are carried out by Islamists:

"Suicide attacks are usually carried out by militant organizations acting independently of each other. But recently an increasing number of these attacks have been claimed by the collaborative efforts of two or more Palestinian militant groups. From 1993 through April 2004, 46 percent of all suicide bombings were carried out by Hamas, 29 percent by PIJ (Palestine Islamic Jihad), and 22 percent by Fatah (Figure 2); the remainder were by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) or were claimed by two or more groups."

Source:
http://www.ecaar.org/Newsletter/Nov04/saleh.htm

One can hardly describe Fatah and PFLP as Islamist organisations.

Again from same source, this explains some of the reasons for them:
Religious reasons don't really feature:

"Revenge and Unemployment
As Table 1 shows, there is evidence that many suicide attackers included a large number of Palestinians who had a prior history violent encounters with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that resulted in an immediate family member being killed or in some cases the attacker him/herself was injured or arrested (due to space limitations only a sample of this data is included in this table). Revenge may be a significant factor in motivating Palestinians youth to volunteer; in our preliminary search we found 44 (and counting) attacks where the operators had been exposed in the past to IDF force. 11 of the 44 suicide attackers with grievances had a relative killed by the IDF; almost all were previously arrested or had had a family member arrested or injured. Combined with deteriorating economic prospects, such personal injuries may seed volunteerism among youths, making them relatively easy targets for organizational recruiters. From October 2000 through March 2004, over 2,800 Palestinian fatalities and 25,600 non-lethal injuries were attributed to the IDF. By the end of 2002, some 1,600 homes were destroyed, 14,000 damaged, and $650 million of damage done towards public infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, suicide bombers often experience personal trauma related to the Israeli force prior to their volunteering, such as the death or injury of a family member.

Table 1: Partial List of Suicide Attackers
with Prior History of Injury or Arrest
SSA=Suicide Shooting Attacks. SBA=Suicide Bombing Attacks. FI=First Intifada.
Date of attack Grievance noted in bios posted on official websites of Hamas, PIJ, and al-Aqsa Brigades.
11/7/2002 (SSA) Cousin killed in gunfight with IDF.
10/10/2002 (SBA) Arrested in FI.
5/13/2002 (SSA) Arrested in 1995, held for one year.
4/23/2002 (SSA) Left note to family informing of intention to carry out attack in revenge for actions of IDF in Jenin Camp during incursion.
3/31/2002 (SBA) (i) Cousin assassinated, car bomb by Israeli Mossad.
(ii) Older brother arrested by IDF.
(iii) Arrested in 1997 by IDF.
7/9/2001 (SBA) (i) Injured in the eye by IDF during FI.
(ii) IDF killed one brothers in 1987.
(iii) IDF shot and fully paralyzed other brothers.
5/25/2001 (SBA) IDF killed older brother in FI.
5/24/2001 (SBA) IDF killed older brother in FI.
5/24/2001 (SBA) Older brother beaten to death by IDF during FI.
1/1/2001 (SBA) Arrested twice before.
11/7/2000 (SBA) with a boat (i) Arrested once before.
(ii) Lost three fingers in FI after the IDF shot him in the hand.
(iii) IDF shot and injured three brothers, had two arrested.
10/19/1994 (SBA) (i) IDF killed brother in 1988.
(ii) Arrested by IDF.
12/13/1993
(First Suicide Bomber) (i) Arrested twice and spent 2 ½ years in Israeli jail.
(ii) Orphaned at age 10.

My point is can we condemn these people for doing what they do after what they and their families have been through?
I think not.

Um, I think so. Some people choose not to condemn Israel's actions in the occupied territories because of how the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Infact a more frequent reason for defending the actions of the Israeli state is that Israelis need to defend themselves from the terrorist attacks you don't want to condemn. The cycle of self-justification for violence begets further violence.

Your defense of suicide bombings appears to be based on an emotive need for revenge, which is not rational in terms of advancing the Palestinian cause. Infact I would say there is plenty of evidence that suicide bombing is counterproductive. I also have no problem condemning indiscriminate attacks against civilians wherever they're coming from. Upon what moral or political basis can suicide bombers justify killing people who may well be anti-occupation activists?

To clarify my position on these matters I will say that my views on IRA violence are in no way an endorsement of their methods and certainly not an endorsement of their political ideology. I am not actually qualified to comment much on the specifics of their politics. It is clear however that the provisional IRA was an expression of a popular resistance of an oppressed minority against the oppressive British imperialism.
Condemning IRA methods and the details of their ideology OUTSIDE OF THAT WIDER CONTEXT only serves the interests of imperialism. The IRA existed as a response to British imperialism and gained popularity as a movement for freedom. That doesn't excuse them of any charges about their methods or flawed ideology. Still, anyone who would concentrate entirely on the ugly facts of terrorist violence without explaining its cause in the ugly fact of the MOST violent and destructive system in modern world history (ie. Imperialism) is actually taking the "nihilist" position, if not being downright pro-imperialist.

Pie-in-the-sky moral ideals and the adulation of non-violence are all well and good as a demonstration of our inner human potential. I remain optimistic that one day perhaps war and oppression can be abolished.

But in the here-and-now, in the world we live in, with its systems in place and people imperfect as they are, opposition to Imperialism and on the side of the oppressed is the only place I can stand.

Expecting the struggle of the oppressed against such a cold and colossal enemy to be waged non-violently or by methods so pristine and saintly would be expecting too much.

Far from being "disgraced women" as you put it they are true heroes in the finest tradition of Leila Khalid and others:

http://www.aztlan.net/women_martyrs.htm

So sue, they are forced to do it are they?

Maybe some of you here should take a look at this, some examples of what the Palestinian people have to go through every day of their lives:

http://www.aztlan.net/el_dolor_es_palestino.htm

Do you really feel you have the right to condemn them for fighting back by any means they see fit?

You know, Paddy, I think you've convinced me.

You're right. Terrorism is fun fun fun. But here's the question for you. Why not live up to your romantic ideals, since you believe in them so strongly.

Plane fares are pretty regular between London and Tel Aviv. Once there it should be a fairly simple to download some instructions on making home-made explosive from the internet. Pop over to an agricultural supplier for some fertilizer, and bang's your uncle.

Or, if you get airsick, why not restart the Northern Ireland conflict? There's plenty of pubs in the East End of London you could blow up. Imagine your sense of satisfaction when you see the faces of sobbing relatives on BBC News 24.

Of course, you might well have to spend the following 30 years in prison, and there's a distinct possibility that SO19 might unload some automatic weaponry into your cranium, but I think these are the sacrifices you should be willing to make. After all, these are your ideals, and you need to be it, not just dream it.

Doesn't Leila Khalid live in Paris or somewhere now? ie not Palestine. And doesn't she think individualistic armed struggle is a dead end? I seem to remember she was on telly recently. I said that very few women are permitted to be walking bombs, those that are are generally in line to be killed anyway, and rather than waste a good resource they are offered a chance to redeem themselves by blowing up other people. The woman in Syria claimed to have been co-erced. I don't know what happened in that trial; perhaps you do. But, Mr Garcia, you do sound rather stupid and brainwashed. I imagine you are fascinated by what you believe to be the romance of it all. More fool you. I'd have a lot more sympathy with the Palestinian cause if they were actually CONSTRUCTIVE and showed they could run a country. I've raised it before, with all the money being chucked at them by the International Aid Agencies, why don't they have a first class hospital? Why do they rely so heavily on Israel? And shouldn't they ask Egypt to offer more help for the people?

House rules, Paddy and everybody else; no apolitical 'you smell of wee' stuff, please.

Right, I think the main protagonists in this thread have all made their main points. Repeatedly.

Anybody got anything to say that takes us further, or shall I close the thread?

Paddy,

why don't you engage with the arguments advanced by Exasperated, etc.

sadly, you seem to be talking past people and not looking at other people's points of view or the ideas that they advance:

"Your defense of suicide bombings appears to be based on an emotive need for revenge, which is not rational in terms of advancing the Palestinian cause. Infact I would say there is plenty of evidence that suicide bombing is counterproductive."

I would rather be a stupid brainwashed romantic than a racist bigot like you.

The above comment is directed at sue not you modernity.
Whether suicide attacks are counter productive or not is not really the issue with me, it is one of the few means of fighting back that the Palestinians have at their disposal. Until something better comes along am prepared to give it my unconditional support, if its good enough for them who know the situation on the ground an d what to do about it, its good enough for me.
Any condemnation plays right into the hands of the enemy and quite frankly smacks of western patronising imperialist attitudes. That is my position.
The nature of the resistance is determined by nature of the occupation, meaning as the occupation of Palestine, Iraq, Afganistan is extremely brutal the resistance can at times be brutal and indiscriminate, that's just the way it is and if people feel a need for revenge by any means necessary I don't have a problem with that.

Sue R,

Let's not argue the point over whether or not white public schoolboys read military manuals and magazines. The point is, would a white Christian conservative public school boy, FOR EXAMPLE, have been investigated, arrested and convicted for writing racist or morbid poetry, possessing a few military manuals and having posted silly fantasist messages on a website ?

The answer of course is NO.

I'm wondering if it would be illegal now for a novelist to write a novel from the point of view of a suicide terrorist, or for an actor to play a terrorist in a film. I guess if the novelist was a muslim she might be in trouble.

I know some people would like to ban all forms of art or expression that have a subversive tinge. Everything from gangsta rap to marilyn manson and quentin taratino should go in the bin according to these censorship freaks. OF course, for those types the idea of a muslim writing a poem about suicide bombing on the back of a receipt has always been cause for punishment. Personally I believe in retaining the freedoms and equality we have gained in the UK over the years.

As for your views on military training manuals and civilians not having a legitimate right to have an interest in nor a right to possess them, I don't buy it. Knowing the specifics of an AK47 or the ingredients of dynamite for example has been in the public domain for years and a fascination with such things is part of our culture. It's all part of the toy soldiers and airfix airplane scene. I'm sure many non-muslims have articles on mujahadeen warriors and weapons that they have kept for years. An interest in Afghan history, military equipment and political Islam would be tolerated in a University professor. A muslim girl who wears a headscarf and writes morbid poetry is not be afforded the same freedoms.
You may agree with that policy of double-standards. I don't.

It is perfectly true that boys are interested in violence and warfare but not girls usually. Ms Malik is very unusual in that respect. As for the point about writing a novel about a terrorist, a Turkish Muslim friend of mine wrote a play about that very subject and it was put on in London. As a young man he had become involved in fundamentalist Islamic groups and was being pushed in the direction of jehad. He turned away, but years later he used the experience to write a play. No doubt the police took a slight interest in him for that, but they certainly didn't arrest him. Let's see if other plays, poems etc are produced examining the phenomena. I see in the Times today, Malik's defence compared her scribblings to Wilfred Owen. Let's see what marvellous works of poetry materialise, after all the Arabs pride themselves on their poetry.

Somebody mentioned that Al Qaeda were very different to the IRA because they make no concrete demands and merely want to "destroy the west" or something to that effect.

This is the regular government rhetoric but is it true?

Hasn't Osama bin Laden made numerous statements (as reported by the mainstream media) requesting that western troops withdraw from muslim lands?

Didn't bin Laden's official campaign against the USA begin with (according to the western media) his outrage against western troops being stationed in holy land in Saudi Arabia ?

Hasn't he demanded that the USA stop arming the state of Israel ?

Didn't he once use the example of Norway as an example of a western country that was not facing attack for the very reason that Norway was not engaged in the aggression/occupation/stationing of troops in muslim lands ?

These were the statements being reported by the BBC as I remember them. This isn't something I'm making up. It is of course something that has been drowned out in Orwellian fashion by the rhetoric of the powers that be and their ideologues in the media.

The idea that Al Qaeda dont make demands and are only about a fanatical mission to destroy the western world just doesn't ring true, however many people say it.

The video of the London 7/7 bomber has him talking about the invasion of Iraq and contains the usual "stop killing muslims" stuff. Then the government says it has NOTHING to do with foreign policy and is simply a massacre based on a twisted interpretation of a religious text.

The government uses the BIG BLATANT LIE method, and repeats over and over. People swallow it.

Al Qaeda are certainly operating with some severely malign methods and a thoroughly twisted and evil ideology but it would be irrational to believe they attack because they "hate our freedom". The root cause seems to be western miltary incursions into muslim lands in recent decades, along with the orchestration of western-backed coups and regimes and western support of Israel, all part of the imperialist thirst for natural resources.

Paddy - do you think the members of my Catholic family in Northern Ireland were traitors and pawns of imperialism for not supporting IRA bombings?

Do you think my Muslim friends who don't feel persecuted by the British state and feel no empathy for Jihadists suffer from false consciousness?

Things are so easy in your black and white world. You're either with the Israeli imperialists or you're with the Palestinians who blow themselves up. You're with the IRA or you're with the British army. You're with the fanatics who plant bombs in Baghdad or you're with George W. No subtleties, no complexities, no shades of grey.

"You're either with the Israeli imperialists or you're with the Palestinians who blow themselves up. You're with the IRA or you're with the British army. You're with the fanatics who plant bombs in Baghdad or you're with George W. No subtleties, no complexities, no shades of grey.'

I don't have a problem with that its you who has.

As far as your familiy and friends are concerned there is a difference between not supporting a particular organisation because they disagree with their methods and ideology and actively supporting and collaborating with the enemy.

paddy garcia wrote:

there is a difference between not supporting a particular organisation because they disagree with their methods

methods? I thought we'd clarified that? http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/open-thread-on-the-middle-east/#comments

you have stated that your happy to support pub bombings, if they are against your particular "opponents", so the question is not one of method but that subjective grievance behind the particular bombing of a pub, a shoe shop or restaurant

you seem oblivious to the reason why others might be repelled by the very idea of bombing a pub, etc?

Paddy there is a world of difference between cheerleading suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians, your position, and recognition of the right of the oppressed to struggle against their oppressors. And the latter position does not involve the uncritical applauding of dumb shit tactics such as suicide bombings which damage the interests of the oppressed.

Copeland was a crazed nazi, who targeted ethnic minorities and gays. There is a difference.
So do you support Israeli terrorism or the resistance to it? Did you support the bombing of Lebanon or the resistance against it?

Posted by paddy garcia

The crazed Nazi is U.. paddy-waggy.. 'israeli terrorism'.. that's islamic turnspeak to me.. taqiyya of the finest.. back to da bogs..

Upon what moral or political basis can suicide bombers justify killing people who may well be anti-occupation activists?

Posted by Exasperated

Let me explain.. they're JOOOZZ... and moslems are under direct mandate from the KKKoran to murder Jews. Capisce?

Read the MeinKKKoran and it will make you understand clearly WHY these people do what they do.

They not only want the Jews dead but everyone else as well.. see murders of Buddhists in Thailand.. the way they treat non-Mos in SOWdi Barbaria and on and ad nauseam..

They want YOUR LAND, sheeple!!

Jeeesh.. get it already.. the mahometans CANNOT be bargained or negotiated with nor can you reason with them in any way.

They understand only the language of the sword.

I don't condone it - I am merely the messenger to enlighten y'all.

I bet the bravest thing Paddy's ever done is push the on-button to power up his computer.

Most Irish people would laugh out loud at reading your tough-guy bollocks.

Sue R,

Yes, I remember the stage play about the suicide bombing you refer to.
You seem to imply that such freedom of expression is not under threat.
I also suspect that some individuals will retain the privelege to explore those subjects, and that's partly my point about the apparent injustice of this case.

You point out that boys not girls usually have a fascination with military literature. But does that reasoning really constitute a proof that her possession of those materials should be deemed "criminal" or even "terrorist" ?
Guilty of possessing material that only a boy should be allowed ?!
Or should all diagrams of guns or pictures of guerilla fighters be illegal across the board ?

This is what it boils down to. Where is the crime ?

I don't believe we should live in a society where being an "odd girl" with a morbid fascination should be enough to be convicted of terrorism.

Explain how the evidence against her proved that she was any more of a danger than a producer of "gore films" or a white guy who collects Third Reich paraphenalia and laughs at racist jokes. Such weirdos are common, and usually relatively harmless.

There seems to be no rational argument for this young woman being called a real terrorist or even a real criminal other than SUSPICION.
You SUSPECT her poems etc. expressed real dangerous sentiments, that's all.

The jury had probably made up their minds as soon as they heard the words "Terror Act" and saw a girl in a headscarf. The ongoing media hysteria against muslims is enough to prejudice every case brought to trial.

It is getting to the point ehere I'd advise all UK muslims to wear union jacks or stars-and-stripes lest they picked up for being unpatriotic enemies of the state. White non-muslim men like myself can afford to be "radical" (for the time being at least) but being MUSLIM and RADICAL is already a crime. Being weird or different is no safe place for a muslim either.
Of course, if you are from the "Lock them all up" or "Send them all back" schools of thought just say so. I believe the British legal system has central tenets concerning equal treatment, fair trials, freedom of expression and the burden of proof. Supposedly. Locking people up on weak and prejudiced suspicions is police state stuff that the British legal system has always purported to be above.
Maybe it's always been this way.

Of course I expect the majority of the poulation to cheer when the state convicts someone under the "terror laws" whatever the dodgy details of the case evidence are. Just as the majority of the population will support the government next time it goes to war against a country that poses no threat to us whatsoever.

Mike is correct in his comments about the attitude of some French Trotskyists to occupying Germans in WW2. More can be found at http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/france/france01.htm

This includes the tale of German Trotskyist hero Paul Widelin who was behind a paper aimed at German soldiers, Arbeiter und Soldat (Worker and Soldier), that was distributed in Paris and especially in Brest. In 1943 the Gestapo discovered a meeting in Brest and seventeen German soldiers and a French Trotskyist, Robert Cruau, were shot. In July 1944 Widelin was arrested by the Gestapo, tortured and left for dead; he was found and taken to hospital, but the Gestapo discovered him and this time succeeded in killing him.

However, and I say this in full knowledge of my own extent of exposure to physical danger having been just a few run-ins with Nazis and with the cops, that heroic and principled that Widelin was, his actions did not reflect the full range of policies available to Trots then.

It certainly would have been correct to engage militarily in the national liberation struggle and against fascism by killing (brother) German soliders.

The Trotskyist movement was split between those who thought WW2 was just inter-imperialist conflict and those who thought the democratic (sic) states could be supported against fascism.

The relevance of this is that some Trots do see the necessity of violent resistance and consider this completely to be part of communist tactics.

Mike castigates suicide bombers. I'd much rather Palestinian resistance groups had an air force with which to bomb e.g. Israeli army bases (and unlike the terror bombings that the Israeli air forces undertakes) but you fight with what you have - and in the case of e.g. the Afghani resistance, the only way to get in close is with a person - they don't have long-range artillery.

The usual comment in reply to such comments is that 'you're all mouth, and no trousers' 'do you even know how to strip down a AK47, huh? and the like.

In many circumstances Lefts have suddenly found themselves be posed with the question of picking up a rifle instead of just a book, such as in Dublin in 1916.

A generation of northern Irish who may have found themselves 'just' reading Lenin in the mid 60s in Sinn Fein, whilst undertaking arms practice with sticks, will have actually moved to bearing arms in the Officials and INLA (and the Provos) in the 70s.

So despite the mocking, in practice many Lefts actually do put theory into practice and commit themselves physically although I'm sure some just run away. Who can say what a particular person would do.

And that's the rub with no end of commentators above in the many and different ways arguing against the necessity and correctness of revolutionary violence in certain circumstances.

It would be excellent if Iraqis could convince US soliders to at least refuse to serve in Iraq if not actually to chnage sides but it's hard to do that to someone comintg towards you in Bradley vehicle opening fire on you.

In such circumstances it's understandable (British
censorship laws preclude me from saying more) that some support this resistance.

And being communists we have no country or national chauvinisms so if it's right for someone at Baghdad airport to think like that then someone at Heathrow airport should think the same.

All those of you who don't support this are siding with your 'own' violent side.

Malik has been persecuted for backing the 'wrong' side in the war. Despite being an Islamist and so a believer, like all the religious, in superstitious nonsense she actually has a better idea of internationalism than many Lefts here.

She has ignored national boundaries and chauvinisms to decide which side deserves her support. She deserves our support as a political prisoner.

* Free Malik and all British political prisoners * Supporting armed resistance against imperialism is no offence *

Southpawpunch wrote "The Trotskyist movement was split between those who thought WW2 was just inter-imperialist conflict and those who thought the democratic (sic) states could be supported against fascism."

I disagree and would argue that you seriously misrepresent the division in the ranks of the Fourth during the Second Imperialist World War. Though I suspect that your error was not deliberate as there most of the literature of the topic is not easily located in print.

It is true, as you say, that Bolshevik Leninists fully support the use of armed force against the armies of a state occupying another nations territory against their will. That should go without saying. But revolutionaries oppose terrorist actions such as the murder of individual soldiers as being counter-productive to our aims.

The real division within the French movement was not as you suggest but between those who believed France had become an oppressed nation after being occupied by the Nazis and those who thought nothing substantial had changed. The first group of comrades later revised their positions to some considerable degree, the revolutionary martyr Testu being in the fore in this befittingly as he had largely developed the position in the first place, but the second group of comrades were unconvinced by this self criticism and held that it did not go far enough. That second group eventuqally eveolved into Lutte Ouvriere.

In those countries that were not occupied the debate took another turn with most groups adhering to trotskys position that a Proletarian Military Policy had to be put into place. This policy was based on the idea that fascism could only be totally overthrown by the revolutionary wave which the International held in its founding theses would emerge from the war. It was neccesary then for workers to join the military in order to fight the fascists but that they were then to turn their weapons on their own officers and the boss class.

Some elements in the International, notably the small group around Munis, held the PMP would lead to the International providing the democratic states with political support. The majority, including the RCP here in Britain, rejected this view. The PMP it cannot be denied differentiated between political and military support which concept is rejected by the Left Communist currents both in 39-45 and today.

I disagree.

I'll be brief because this will get off topic.

I maintain my description (which is a simplified version) is correct.

"The Trotskyist movement was split between those who thought WW2 was just inter-imperialist conflict and those who thought the democratic (sic) states could be supported against fascism."

That pretty much equals "between those who believed France had become an oppressed nation after being occupied by the Nazis (i.e. supporting the 'democratic' state against fascism - Southpawpunch) and those who thought nothing substantial had changed (i.e. in the latter case, remained an imperialist country - Southpawpunch)

Using "armed force against the armies of a state occupying another nations territory against their will." includes the "'murder' of individual soldiers" e.g. shooting German soldiers who are sat outside a cafe, as per the Resistance did.

And despite the myth there is little continuity of organisation between WW2 Trots and LO.

I'll pass on further comment on this here as it will get very obscure and removed from the case of Malik.

Well my friend, you can maintain what you please but what you cannot do is draw upon the record to support your case. The fact of the matter is that none of the Trotskyist groups in France argued that there was a case for supporting the bourgeois state against the Nazi occupation.

The leadership tendency of one group did describe France as an oppressed nation but later made a self criticism when fusing to form the PCI in 1944. All of the French Trotskyist groups held that France remained an imperialist power and ran articles demanding independence for the colonies during or immediately after the war (my file of La Verite are not to hand so I cannot check this). Moreover all the groups held that the occupation was best fought by using working class methods of struggle - strikes, occupations, finally insurrections - and therefore refused to join the resistance.

Such a set of positions, one might say program, hardly constitutes political support of the bourgeois democratic state does it? Nor does it confirm your slur on the Bolshevik Leninists that they supported the indiscriminate murder of German soldiers. My reading of both La Verite and the documents of the Barta group, in rather bad translations in the case of the latter, suggests to me that they opposed such actions, as does my reading of many of the secondary materials. A source for your accusation would be of interest.

Finally I agree that there is no direct continuity between the Barta group and Lutte Ouvriere. As you may know Barta refused to cooperate with Voix Ouvriere a number of times on the grounds that the group lacked a Marxist culture. But it cannot be denied that LO did evolve, as I indicated, from a regroupment of several former cadre drawn from the Barta group, which was my point I believe.

Dave
Perhaps we should all wear our Brigate Rosse T-shirts for a day in solidarity with those oppressed for a bit a rebellion.
Maybe the fifth anniversary of Joe Strummer's death (December 22) would be a good day.
For those who don't know Joe wore one at the big anti-nazi carnival in '77 - creating a south sea bubble style boom for T shirt manufacturers.

Southpawpunch: When's the first picket of the 'Free Malik' campaign? Are you going to canvas trade union and labour party branches for support?

You could raise funds for the campaign by selling her collected poems. No doubt they deserve a wider audience.

Well I think the biggest question has been the loss of freedom to say what we think , this young girl thinks the Muslim faith are right and they should rule the world. So what i think I should be PM.

The fact is we have stopped being free, when an 86 year old bloke is arrested under the Terrorism act for shouting out rubbish at the Party conferences shows how much New Labour is worried about people saying what they think.

I have my thoughts on the Muslim faith, Id like to debate what I think, but these days i be locked up.

I wish to reiterate, this girl was not just writing 'poetry', she also possessed manuals on poisoning and weapons training. Neither was I aware that the ability to discuss Islam or anything was seriously compromised in this country. I don't think Ms Malik was debating theological issues anyway. Robert, please put your thoughts on Islam onto this wevsite and allow us an opportunity to debate with you. I am sure many of us would welcome that. (Is that ok with you, Dave?).

If Samina Malik's self-delusion had been merely excretable poetry and a few fantasy tags, then I would totally agree with you. Young people (and old ones too) are entitled to indulge themselves in 'harmless' fantasy; however, she possessed two manuals on weaponss training and poisons, both al-Quaeda issue.... Yeah, she's been a sillybilly, but she did possess terrorist information. Interesting question, where did she get it from?

The publications in question were The al-Qaeda Manual and The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook. She got them from here and here.

There's an excellent post by Inayat Bunglawala on Comment is Free, by the way.

Anybody want to post a defence of those convicted of posessing child pornography?

How about this.

Sure, for some people, the use of child pornography normalises the sexual abuse of children. Child pornography may even be used by some paedophiles as part of the process by which children are coerced into sexual activity.

But there are loads and loads of people who use child pornography because they're crazy and mixed up. Perhaps they're interested in masturbating to images of children being abused because they were abused themselves. For some, the thought of sexually engaging with children is liberating, and allows them to break free from the bounds a society which represses sexual thoughts about children.

And in any case, who is harmed by child pornography? If somebody downloads child pornography for free, there is no causal link between that act, and the prior abuse of children.

Sure, Parliament may have criminalised possession of child pornography because it concluded that enjoying images of abuse is a disgusting thing, worthy of punishment, as well as a good way to stop some children subsequently being abused.

But, hey. We're talking about something which is a thought crime here, guys.

Convinced?

No, I'm not either.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy to see people prosecuted if they are using jihadist material to radicalise themselves, to learn techniques from, and to work themselves up to the point at which they carry out a bombing.
This is precisely what the 21/7 (and I would have thought, most UK jihadists) have done prior to committing their crimes.

David T,

I'd be happy to post a defence, albeit qualified, of those convicted of possessing child pornography.

In fact, despite being meant sarcastically (?) by you, I suspect "Perhaps they're interested in masturbating to images of children being abused because they were abused themselves" is often, in fact, correct. But I won't go further off the subject here.

I presume, to be consistent, you'd be in favour of, say RAF instructors being prosecuted for doing things "to learn techniques from, and to work themselves up to the point at which they carry out a bombing." Or at least where you think they don't think such a war they are engaged in is legitimate.

There are at least two reasons why Malik should be supported: -

- 1. It is 'thought' crime. There is no evidence whatsoever she did anything with the book, encouraged others, made plans, etc.

A relative of mine has a 'SAS' ripoff type book that details stuff like living off your own urine but also how to break free from being taken prisoner, overcome a stronger force etc.

It's the sort of book sold to saddo 'hardmen' fantasists. But no one is going to prosecute him for having this material, that could be useful for terrorism, anymore than I am will be done for the same for having had a hunting knife, a set of walkie talkies, duct tape, baking soda and also fertiliser - all for the usual purposes for which they are sold.

2. It's victimisation of Islamists. Do you think Irish republicans or even Lefts are going to get done for having material celebrating/explaining/analysing etc. the actions of the IRA (or even Loyalists?).

3. Some would argue that she should not have been prosecuted because if she did do as claimed (i.e. not exaggerated, as it was) her actions would have been justified - Islamists should (and are justified) in fighting back, asymetrically or by any means, against imperialism and its atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lefts should support them.

If you like, this is the same argument as those true patriots who would say it is perfectly legitimate for RAF instructors to teach how to bomb - they need to bomb.

Of course, anyone making such an argument would a also be a thought criminal and a terrorist supporter and would need to be liquidated, so that is why I am just reporting here on how I think these unperson traitors may think.

Free Samina Malik

http://www.petitiononline.com/poetess/petition.html

http://freesaminamalik.blogspot.com/

Interesting post. I can see her becoming a hero although I hate to say it. Have linked to this on a post of my own on this http://rupahuq.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/dubious-distinction/

Please, please, won't somebody publish her poetry. And, when's the defence campaign going to be inaugurated? Or, don't Islamacists go in for that sort of thing?

And yet again David Toube proves what an absolute wanker he is.
'Child pornography' invariably involves the actual sexual abuse of children, which is photographed or videoed.
To compare that to the 'poetry' of a sadly misguided young woman exposes Toube as the provocateur that he is.