Terrorism is a Colonial Construct to Suppress Dissent

[Dans La Lune]

The coloniality of the religious terrorism thesis | Review of International Studies | Cambridge Core

The coloniality of the religious terrorism thesis

www.cambridge.org

The rise and rise of global anti-terrorism law | LSE Research

Conor Gearty traces the legal history of anti-terrorism law, showing its origins in attempts by imperial powers to suppress resistance by colonial subjects.

www.lse.ac.uk

Terrorism as a Weapon of the Strong? A Postcolonial Analysis of Terrorism

A postcolonial perspective offers a greater understanding of terrorism than the traditional approach, as it integrates the colonial context into the analysis.

www.e-ir.info

More broadly, terrorism labels are usually applied by the strong to suppress and delegitimize movements of the weak (French revolutionaries vs. Monarchy). However, modern notions of terrorism relate almost entirely to colonial rule and the victims of that rule. Such that any terrorists are automatically seen as subhuman and therefore rightful targets to eliminate at all costs, even at the expense of civilians. And there's a strong connection to racism and class hierarchy.

 

[NatMorton]

The coloniality of the religious terrorism thesis | Review of International Studies | Cambridge Core

The coloniality of the religious terrorism thesis

www.cambridge.org

The rise and rise of global anti-terrorism law | LSE Research

Conor Gearty traces the legal history of anti-terrorism law, showing its origins in attempts by imperial powers to suppress resistance by colonial subjects.

www.lse.ac.uk

Terrorism as a Weapon of the Strong? A Postcolonial Analysis of Terrorism

A postcolonial perspective offers a greater understanding of terrorism than the traditional approach, as it integrates the colonial context into the analysis.

www.e-ir.info

More broadly, terrorism labels are usually applied by the strong to suppress and delegitimize movements of the weak (French revolutionaries vs. Monarchy). However, modern notions of terrorism relate almost entirely to colonial rule and the victims of that rule. Such that any terrorists are automatically seen as subhuman and therefore rightful targets to eliminate at all costs, even at the expense of civilians. And there's a strong connection to racism and class hierarchy.

You really need to read a bit more about the Roman Empire.

 

[Dans La Lune]

You really need to read a bit more about the Roman Empire.

Most acts of humanity were not invented, they were discovered. Socialism predates figures like Marx, for example. Jesus would have been considered a Socialist or Communist in modern terms, and specifically said there is no salvation for the rich.

The important thing relating to this topic is that terrorism is a term used by the strong to delegitimize the weak. Thus it's not a black or white issue, there is nuance. Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum, and not all terrorism is illegitimate. Certainly Israelis feel this way, as Israel was founded on terrorism against the British, and terrorist groups became their government. Igrun is the precursor to Likud.

Those of affluence will always see those lower on the hierarchy as a threat to their affluence and thus demonize them. It may be in the form of a militant uprising against a violent colonial oppressor, or it may be in the form of citizens demanding a government that serves them instead of the rich and powerful. Or in the case of Igrun, it could be a right-wing extremist group looking to drive out colonizers so they themselves can colonize.

There is also a Libertarian aspect to terrorism, wouldn't you agree? If property rights and human rights are immutable and not a function of government, then you are justified in defending those rights with violence. Even under US law, you are justified in saving yourself even at the cost of an innocent person (i.e. you're able to take someone's life preserver to prevent yourself from drowning).

 

[JMB1911A1]

You really need to read a bit more about the Roman Empire.

Heck, the Romans learned how to do it from the ancient Greeks and Persians.

 

[Cosmo]

Most acts of humanity were not invented, they were discovered. Socialism predates figures like Marx, for example. Jesus would have been considered a Socialist or Communist in modern terms, and specifically said there is no salvation for the rich.

That's the smoking gun? Sounds like charity at best. Perhaps advice against worshiping money. But Communist? Really?

 

[Tigerace117]

That's the smoking gun? Sounds like charity at best. Perhaps advice against worshiping money. But Communist? Really?

Liberation theology not ringing a bell?

 

[Dans La Lune]

I'll leave this here:

 

[Dans La Lune]

That's the smoking gun? Sounds like charity at best. Perhaps advice against worshiping money. But Communist? Really?

"I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Yes, I tell you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." - Jesus

 

[Cosmo]

"I tell you the truth, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Yes, I tell you that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." - Jesus

Still see no connection to Communism.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Still see no connection to Communism.

Christian communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian communism is a theological view that the teachings of Jesus compel Christians to support religious communism. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact dates when communistic ideas and practices in Christianity began, many Christian communists argue that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles in the New Testament, established their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection.[1] Many advocates of Christian communism and other communists, including Karl Kautsky, argue that it was taught by Jesus and practised by the apostles themselves.[2] This position is also held by some historians.[3]

There are those who hold the view that the early Christian Church, such as the one described in the Acts of the Apostles, was an early form of communism or Christian socialism. The view is that communism was just Christianity in practice and Jesus was the first communist.​

 

[Cosmo]

@Dans La Lune
someone thinks some Christians did something (maybe), so therefore that's what Jesus professed? That's your argument? So why did the commies suppress Christianity? You'd think they'd make it the state religion!

 

[Dans La Lune]

@Dans La Lune
someone thinks some Christians did something (maybe), so therefore that's what Jesus professed?

Um, yes, that's why he professed if you're using a literal interpretation and not doing mental gymnastics to obfuscate his message. The reason Christians get a bad rep is because they seldom adhere to the actual moral teachings of Jesus.

That's your argument? So why did the commies suppress Christianity? You'd think they'd make it the state religion!

State religions are enormous concentrations of unchecked power, and are antithetical to progressive left-leaning ideology.

 

[Cosmo]

Um, yes, that's why he professed if you're using a literal interpretation and not doing mental gymnastics to obfuscate his message. The reason Christians get a bad rep is because they seldom adhere to the actual moral teachings of Jesus.

So the Christian behavior you cherrypicked that may or may not have happened and which represents just a minority of Christian behavior is the correct behavior, but all other Christian behavior is wrong?

State religions are enormous concentrations of unchecked power,

You mean like the entire Soviet government?

and are antithetical to progressive left-leaning ideology.

 

[Craig234]

Big crimes don't count, far smaller acts of resistance do. It's always seen. Nazis were the victims. Putin's Russia is the victim. trump is the victim of persecution - the worst persecution in history.

 

[Dans La Lune]

So the Christian behavior you cherrypicked that may or may not have happened and which represents just a minority of Christian behavior is the correct behavior, but all other Christian behavior is wrong?

Well, Christian behavior which is antithetical to Christian teaching would be wrong as it relates to Christianity, I assume.

You mean like the entire Soviet government?

Even the Soviet's realized that Soviet Union was a bastardization of socialism.

 

[Cosmo]

Well, Christian behavior which is antithetical to Christian teaching would be wrong as it relates to Christianity, I assume.

I didn't realize Christian teachings were primarily written by Karl Marx.

Even the Soviet's realized that Soviet Union was a bastardization of socialism.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I didn't realize Christian teachings were primarily written by Karl Marx.

Jesus Anti-Capitalist Teachings​

• Jesus demonstrated a radical commitment to sharing resources, exemplified by the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where he took a single person's food and distributed it to feed a large crowd, rejecting the capitalist notion that individuals should retain their "bounty" even when others are hungry.
• He taught that wealth should not be hoarded, stating that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, and explicitly commanded followers to sell all their possessions and give to the poor.
• Jesus' teachings emphasize that the mere act of being in need is sufficient reason for receiving care, as he did not require proof of belief, obedience, or doctrinal agreement before feeding or healing people.
• The early Christian community, following Jesus' example, practiced a form of communal ownership, holding all possessions in common and distributing resources to each according to their need, a model described in Acts 2–45.
• Jesus condemned the exploitation of the poor, as seen in his actions against money-lenders in the Temple, and taught that one cannot serve both God and wealth, directly opposing the core capitalist principle of prioritizing profit.
• He criticized the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, viewing the pursuit of endless wealth as fundamentally opposed to the Christian call to love one's neighbor as oneself, which capitalism can undermine by reducing people to mere factors of production.
• Jesus' teachings on giving advocate for sacrificial giving to those in need, particularly those unable to repay, rather than giving for personal gain or security, challenging the capitalist incentive structure.

 

[Cosmo]

Jesus Anti-Capitalist Teachings​

• Jesus demonstrated a radical commitment to sharing resources, exemplified by the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where he took a single person's food and distributed it to feed a large crowd, rejecting the capitalist notion that individuals should retain their "bounty" even when others are hungry.
• He taught that wealth should not be hoarded, stating that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, and explicitly commanded followers to sell all their possessions and give to the poor.
• Jesus' teachings emphasize that the mere act of being in need is sufficient reason for receiving care, as he did not require proof of belief, obedience, or doctrinal agreement before feeding or healing people.
• The early Christian community, following Jesus' example, practiced a form of communal ownership, holding all possessions in common and distributing resources to each according to their need, a model described in Acts 2–45.
• Jesus condemned the exploitation of the poor, as seen in his actions against money-lenders in the Temple, and taught that one cannot serve both God and wealth, directly opposing the core capitalist principle of prioritizing profit.
• He criticized the accumulation of wealth for its own sake, viewing the pursuit of endless wealth as fundamentally opposed to the Christian call to love one's neighbor as oneself, which capitalism can undermine by reducing people to mere factors of production.
• Jesus' teachings on giving advocate for sacrificial giving to those in need, particularly those unable to repay, rather than giving for personal gain or security, challenging the capitalist incentive structure.

These sound like charity.

 

[Dans La Lune]

These sound like charity.

It sounds like the foundations of an ideology to me.

 

[Cosmo]

It sounds like the foundations of an ideology to me.

Did Jesus go around with a group of armed men seizing the means of production?

 

[Michael Cole]

The coloniality of the religious terrorism thesis | Review of International Studies | Cambridge Core

The coloniality of the religious terrorism thesis

www.cambridge.org

The rise and rise of global anti-terrorism law | LSE Research

Conor Gearty traces the legal history of anti-terrorism law, showing its origins in attempts by imperial powers to suppress resistance by colonial subjects.

www.lse.ac.uk

Terrorism as a Weapon of the Strong? A Postcolonial Analysis of Terrorism

A postcolonial perspective offers a greater understanding of terrorism than the traditional approach, as it integrates the colonial context into the analysis.

www.e-ir.info

More broadly, terrorism labels are usually applied by the strong to suppress and delegitimize movements of the weak (French revolutionaries vs. Monarchy). However, modern notions of terrorism relate almost entirely to colonial rule and the victims of that rule. Such that any terrorists are automatically seen as subhuman and therefore rightful targets to eliminate at all costs, even at the expense of civilians. And there's a strong connection to racism and class hierarchy.

Look up the Battle of Megiddo, 1457 BCE.

 

[upsideguy]

Most acts of humanity were not invented, they were discovered. Socialism predates figures like Marx, for example. Jesus would have been considered a Socialist or Communist in modern terms, and specifically said there is no salvation for the rich.

That is not exactly what Christ said. I believe you may be misinterpreting Matthew 19:23-24

"23Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God....”

Christ was largely warning about the perils of money, that you can not serve two masters, God and Money, for you will love one and hate the other.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."

The issue with being rich not that you are rich, but where your heart is. When Christ commanded the rich man to sell everything he had, give it to the poor and follow him, the rich man could not do it.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

He preferred his status as a rich man than as a follower of Christ.

A rich man can indeed enter the kingdom, but just as Abraham had to be willing to sacrifice his son, the rich man must chose God over money willingly.

I would not agree that Christ would be considered a communist in current terms, but he absolutely had many messages, almost to a theme, that would be considered socialist; we are our brother's keeper.

His message was substantially antithetical to capitalism, as capitalism is by nature a selfish pursuit and largely about money.

The important thing relating to this topic is that terrorism is a term used by the strong to delegitimize the weak. Thus it's not a black or white issue, there is nuance. Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum, and not all terrorism is illegitimate. Certainly Israelis feel this way, as Israel was founded on terrorism against the British, and terrorist groups became their government. Igrun is the precursor to Likud.

Those of affluence will always see those lower on the hierarchy as a threat to their affluence and thus demonize them. It may be in the form of a militant uprising against a violent colonial oppressor, or it may be in the form of citizens demanding a government that serves them instead of the rich and powerful. Or in the case of Igrun, it could be a right-wing extremist group looking to drive out colonizers so they themselves can colonize.

There is also a Libertarian aspect to terrorism, wouldn't you agree? If property rights and human rights are immutable and not a function of government, then you are justified in defending those rights with violence. Even under US law, you are justified in saving yourself even at the cost of an innocent person (i.e. you're able to take someone's life preserver to prevent yourself from drowning).

Sorry, no comments on above

 

[Dans La Lune]

Did Jesus go around with a group of armed men seizing the means of production?

You're conflating socialism and communism with authoritarianism.

 

[Dans La Lune]

That is not exactly what Christ said. I believe you may be misinterpreting Matthew 19:23-24

No, I'm not misinterpreting it. People see what they want to see, or don't want to see.

Christ was largely warning about the perils of money, that you can not serve two masters, God and Money, for you will love one and hate the other.

He also said that it's impossible for rich people to get into Heaven.

The issue with being rich not that you are rich, but where your heart is. When Christ commanded the rich man to sell everything he had, give it to the poor and follow him, the rich man could not do it.

He preferred his status as a rich man than as a follower of Christ.

A rich man can indeed enter the kingdom, but just as Abraham had to be willing to sacrifice his son, the rich man must chose God over money willingly.

Following Jesus also means following the lessons of Jesus, and that meant selling his material possessions and helping the poor. Thus, the dichotomy remains and rich people cannot get into Heaven, because they are not following the moral philosophy required. There is no getting around this with mental gymnastics.

I would not agree that Christ would be considered a communist in current terms, but he absolutely had many messages, almost to a theme, that would be considered socialist; we are our brother's keeper.

His message was substantially antithetical to capitalism, as capitalism is by nature a selfish pursuit and largely about money.

The coercion for Jesus was salvation, so yes it's perfectly reasonable to align his moral philosophy with socialism and/or communism. God is ultimately a dictator and authoritarian, so you could go a step further.

Sorry, no comments on above

That's unfortunate.

 

[Cosmo]

You're conflating socialism and communism with authoritarianism.

"Socialism" without government enforcement is charity.