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