User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: From the partisan to the ‘global’ terrorist

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 117,435, Level: 83
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 2,215
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class1 year registeredOverdrive50000 Experience Points
    Mister D's Avatar Unenlightened
    Karma
    16932
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    36,552
    Points
    117,435
    Level
    83
    Thanks Given
    4,177
    Thanked 5,155x in 4,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208

    From the partisan to the ‘global’ terrorist

    http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/ca..._terrorism.pdf

    I just started reading this recently. It's some of Alain de Benoist's work. He is one of my favorite members of what is called the "New Right".

    ----

    Snip

    Today, terrorism is obviously no longer a new phenomenon. However, what is new is the central
    place it now occupies (or which it has been accorded) on the international scene. But here, weare struck by the contrast between the omnipresence of the denunciation of ‘terrorism’, and thesemantic haze which is attached to the concept, a haze which allows for different interpretationsof the word. One of the main problems concerns, of course, the legitimacy of terrorist action, alegitimacy that terrorists affirm constantly, but which is strongly denied them by theiradversaries. Actually, the problematic of the classic partisan raises already issues related to thepair legality-legitimacy. Because he is an illegal fighter, the partisan can only claim to have asuperior legitimacy than the positive law upheld by the authority he is fighting, which illustratesthat legality and legitimacy are not identical and, therefore, should not be confused. This is
    another Schmittian thematic par excellence (Schmitt 1932/2004b).


    It is undeniable that certain forms of ‘terrorism’ have been recognized as legitimate in the recentpast, firstly in World War II, during which the members of the Resistance were invariablydenounced as ‘terrorists’ by the German occupying forces, and then, at the time ofdecolonization, when many terrorist groups presented themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ hoping towrest independence from their colonial powers through armed uprisings. After 1945,innumerable armed minorities, liberation movements or guerillas all presented themselveseffectively as resistance organizations confronting state systems that condemned them as‘subversive’ groups and ‘terrorists’. When their struggles ended and they obtained internationalrecognition, the methods that they had used seemed to be retrospectively justified. This lends
    credit to the idea that in certain cases, terrorism can be legitimate. Of course, it is often said that
    terrorism can never be justified in situations or countries where social and political claims can be
    expressed otherwise. However, opinions have remained divided as to what constitutes ‘good’ and‘evil’ terrorism and, to a certain degree, the assessment about its moral or immoral character has
    been, de facto, left to propaganda or plain subjectivity.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  2. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 103,941, Level: 78
    Level completed: 52%, Points required for next Level: 1,309
    Overall activity: 99.4%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registeredRecommendation Second Class50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Captain Obvious's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    42974
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    18,179
    Points
    103,941
    Level
    78
    Thanks Given
    4,482
    Thanked 5,373x in 3,971 Posts
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    450
    Another example would be the bushwhackers during the Civil War.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kabuki Joe View Post
    ...if it wasn't for the jew thing, hitler would have a different place in history...

  3. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 117,435, Level: 83
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 2,215
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second Class1 year registeredOverdrive50000 Experience Points
    Mister D's Avatar Unenlightened
    Karma
    16932
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    36,552
    Points
    117,435
    Level
    83
    Thanks Given
    4,177
    Thanked 5,155x in 4,251 Posts
    Mentioned
    199 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
    Another example would be the bushwhackers during the Civil War.
    True.
    Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.


    ~Alain de Benoist


  4. #4
    Points: 25,433, Level: 38
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 217
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first GroupCreated Album picturesTagger First ClassRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Deadwood's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6488
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC - dual citizen
    Posts
    3,472
    Points
    25,433
    Level
    38
    Thanks Given
    2,585
    Thanked 1,750x in 1,197 Posts
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister D View Post
    http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/ca..._terrorism.pdf

    I just started reading this recently. It's some of Alain de Benoist's work. He is one of my favorite members of what is called the "New Right".

    ----

    Snip

    Today, terrorism is obviously no longer a new phenomenon. However, what is new is the central
    place it now occupies (or which it has been accorded) on the international scene. But here, weare struck by the contrast between the omnipresence of the denunciation of ‘terrorism’, and thesemantic haze which is attached to the concept, a haze which allows for different interpretationsof the word. One of the main problems concerns, of course, the legitimacy of terrorist action, alegitimacy that terrorists affirm constantly, but which is strongly denied them by theiradversaries. Actually, the problematic of the classic partisan raises already issues related to thepair legality-legitimacy. Because he is an illegal fighter, the partisan can only claim to have asuperior legitimacy than the positive law upheld by the authority he is fighting, which illustratesthat legality and legitimacy are not identical and, therefore, should not be confused. This is
    another Schmittian thematic par excellence (Schmitt 1932/2004b).


    It is undeniable that certain forms of ‘terrorism’ have been recognized as legitimate in the recentpast, firstly in World War II, during which the members of the Resistance were invariablydenounced as ‘terrorists’ by the German occupying forces, and then, at the time ofdecolonization, when many terrorist groups presented themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ hoping towrest independence from their colonial powers through armed uprisings. After 1945,innumerable armed minorities, liberation movements or guerillas all presented themselveseffectively as resistance organizations confronting state systems that condemned them as‘subversive’ groups and ‘terrorists’. When their struggles ended and they obtained internationalrecognition, the methods that they had used seemed to be retrospectively justified. This lends
    credit to the idea that in certain cases, terrorism can be legitimate. Of course, it is often said that
    terrorism can never be justified in situations or countries where social and political claims can be
    expressed otherwise. However, opinions have remained divided as to what constitutes ‘good’ and‘evil’ terrorism and, to a certain degree, the assessment about its moral or immoral character has
    been, de facto, left to propaganda or plain subjectivity.


    I have seen these comparisons before. What strikes me about the difference in today's terrorism is the involvement of innocents, civilians, women and children.

    I do not recall ever reading about any resistance movement, and I have studied a lot of it about Poland, where "resistance" fighters attacked and killed or took hostage civilians.

    For me that is what separates terrorism from freedom fighting. Whether it be the Entebe hostage affair, the Twin Towers attack or subway bombings in Europe.

    Having said that, the US was dead wrong in terming the attack on the USS Cole as terrorism just as the administration was dead wrong in insisting for two weeks the Benghazi attack was a "spontaneous demonstration".

    Now, here is a question. Is Gitmo terrorism? The people being held there have never been charged nor convicted of anything so, technically are they not hostages?


  5. #5
    tPF Moderator
    Original Ranter
    V.I.P
    Points: 139,777, Level: 90
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 3,273
    Overall activity: 99.7%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registeredCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Peter1469's Avatar Moderator Representative
    Karma
    31340
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    31,826
    Points
    139,777
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    11,759
    Thanked 8,287x in 6,265 Posts
    Mentioned
    576 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    347
    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    I have seen these comparisons before. What strikes me about the difference in today's terrorism is the involvement of innocents, civilians, women and children.

    I do not recall ever reading about any resistance movement, and I have studied a lot of it about Poland, where "resistance" fighters attacked and killed or took hostage civilians.

    For me that is what separates terrorism from freedom fighting. Whether it be the Entebe hostage affair, the Twin Towers attack or subway bombings in Europe.

    Having said that, the US was dead wrong in terming the attack on the USS Cole as terrorism just as the administration was dead wrong in insisting for two weeks the Benghazi attack was a "spontaneous demonstration".

    Now, here is a question. Is Gitmo terrorism? The people being held there have never been charged nor convicted of anything so, technically are they not hostages?
    Now, here is a question. Is Gitmo terrorism? The people being held there have never been charged nor convicted of anything so, technically are they not hostages?
    No, GITMO is not "terrorism." GITMO suffers from an inconsistent policy. Under international law, enemy combatants can be held for the duration of the war. It isn't a question of criminal behavior- combatants have "combatant immunity" so long as they follow the laws of land warfare. So an infantry soldier can kill 100 enemy soldiers, get captured, and not be guilty of anything so long as he adhered to the laws of land warfare. He can be held until peace is made, or until a prisoner swap is arraigned.

    The problem in the US with GITMO was policy crap. Under current international law of war there are only two types of people: combatants and civilians. We didn't want to call al Qaeda terrorists either one of those. This is where you get the problems that you identify. IMO, since international law is always evolving we should have pushed for a new third category- unlawful enemy combatant. Bush started to use the term, but when someone told him the term doesn't exist in international law he stopped using it. Big mistake. It got so bad that we couldn't even use "Article V Tribunals" with captured enemy to determine their status. Then they brought them back, but told us that we couldn't use the term Article V tribunals.... It was a case of serious dumb-ass. Another technical problem with GITMO. Under established laws of war, GITMO should have been set up in the theater of combat. I guess if we consider the "War of Terror" to be global, we could argue the GITMO is fine where it is.....

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    KC (11-08-2012),Mister D (11-08-2012)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Linksgrower Forum Topsite Critical Acclaim
Top Ron Paul Sites - Ranking the best Ron Paul related Freedom and Liberty Websites
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO