the terrorism of the Beruit baracks bombing got us out of Lebanon in the 1980's

09/11 got our installations removed from Saudi territory which was one of Al Qaeda's top demands

Terrorism made Yasser Arafat the voice of the Palestinian people

Terrorism is a tactic -- not to be confused with any specific movement or idiology.Terrorism sends a message that "we're serious" and "we're capable" --- fear us, respect us, acknowlege us.

Gilles Keppel has a new book out that I haven't seen but have read some reviews of (amazon link on my name). His theses a few years ago was that the influence of Jihad and Radical Islamic Fundamentalism were waning and would continue to wane UNLESS they succeeded somewhere, anywhere, to match or exceed their success in Afghanistan with the Taliban. That the popular appetite for terrorism and martydom would wane without tangible broader "results."

Keppel, who is French, writes from a European/French perspective. He believe the "war on terror" is subtefuge for more mundane American global ambitions and that Al-Qaeda's terrorist act are intended to promote their greater ambition of unifying and strengthening global Islam (against the infidel), unfortunately Islam remains factionalized and in internal war.

The anarchists could not unify sufficiently to create a broader movement/mandate either.

Trivializing or scoffing at terrorism as a tactic is a big mistake ... As various American militias are being called back into being and Hannity polls opinions on "revolution" ... Remember Oklahoma City, remember Waco and remember the Weatherman, the Symbionese Liberation Army ... and even Rev. Jim Jones and Jonestown. Remember the Haymarket Riots, the Pinkertons and the Ludlow Massacre ...oh, and COINTELPRO.

The tactic of terrorism is hardly confined to "insurgent factions" -- the establishment uses it often enough.

Keppel's book sounds fascinating -- link on my name

The following letter, from the World Trade Center bombers, appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News, March 28, 1993:

"The American people must know, that their civilians who got killed are not better than those who are getting killed by the American weapons and support. ... The American people are responsible for the actions of their government and they must question all of the crimes that their government is committing against other people, or they--Americans--will be the targets of our operations that could diminish them."

In 1986, 4 veterans fasted on the Capital steps in opposition to President Reagan's brutal war against the peasants of Nicaragua. Their slogan: "We are not worth more; they are not worth less."

Have we waked up to the fact that we Americans are not history's ultimate achievement? It's too early to tell. The neocons are still out there.

Ravachol was acting against his own government in order to change it from within. For that reason, only the comparison to McVeigh is apt. Lindh was not acting against the US from within. For all intents and purposes, he had renounced his loyalty to the US. For that reason, he should not be considered a terrorist but rather an enemy combatant.

Comparisons to bin Laden made implicitly by the letters section are even more off the mark. Bin Laden's aim is not to change the US government (although he may benefit from certain changes) but to expel US forces from Islamic countries.

I think Peter Ustinov’s remark sums up that situation best: “Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.”

through = thought.

In 9/11, we lost 3,000 lives, a significant chunk of GDP and the dissolution of the farce of security Americans through they enjoyed.

In Guantanamo, we lost America's reputation overseas while engaged in two difficult wars.

9/11 set us back two years. Guantanamo set us back a decade or more. I speak as a NYer.

What a brilliant article, neatly tying together the seemingly loose strings that time forgot. This should be a must read for any American -- espcially those who pander and those who otherwise read "all sources" of popular news.

...Blandon began selling high-powered weapons to Ross and his friends in 1984, courtesy of his spooky friend Ronald Lister, the ex-cop..."Ollie started buying guns...one day, he tells me that Danilo was gonna get him a grenade launcher. I said to him, 'Man, what the fuck do we need with a grenade launcher?'"...

Gary Webb, Dark Alliance, p.190

Link through Google books--

http://books.google.com/books?id=CwijfdYbkC0C&dq=%22dark+alliance%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=SDCoSd3xC4nKtQOut5z2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA190,M1

[URL linked at my signature, "cabdriver"]

A new one every few years, with a lot of fear in-between that tars all dissidents with the stigma of real murderers.

I wonder if Obama isn't the worst case scenario for anarchism.

Not really, "anarchism" is no more or less a worn-out upper-middle-class cliche now than it was under Bush.

A nice multicultural facade for wage slavery,

Actually, "slavery", which exists in many places now and existed in America for centuries, means working without wages.

If you think people deserve higher wages, Obama is not the worst case scenario.

If you have some obsessive principle against earning wages, subsistence farming is perfectly legal. You can also deliberately injure yourself and qualify for disability payments.

class domination,

Can explain specifically what this means?

global banking hijinx

True, this won't be eliminated by Obama.

and blind militarism.

Hopefully this will be reduced by the Obama administration. Again, I have to hand it to you, this won't be going away any time soon.

Would not be surprised if there came to be surprises from Anarchy in the next few.

I would be very, very, very surprised, whatever time unit you intended to put after "few".

... are more fond of their heads, than taking off others. Not that they don't think it. Regularly.

This Cafe bomb is actually far different from most anarchist violence, which IS directed at the state, politicians and the rich. Same can be said for Communist guerillas, etc., who's main targets are also not civilians.

Islamic and fascist violence is far more oriented towards general targets. Witness the Jihadist train bombings in Spain and the fascist train bombings in Italy, which no leftist would ever do. O'Hehir tries to conflate the two, but as a petit-bourgeois himself, he only fools people of his own stamp.

The middle class and its wallets have historically allied themselves with the status quo - the 'strong' - the government, or European fascism. Of course, you cannot wean them from their love by bombing them. From what I've seen, nationalist 'terrorists' fall between these two camps.

O'Hehir's supposition that capitalism no longer produces it's own grave diggers is a little premature, or wishful, or blind. I actually hear the shovels being sharpened right now. Don't you?