That's a premise older than Che. That's what made Lenin a "special" Marxist.

Didn't a 19th century Russian invent the terrorist cell concept? I can't remember the guys name. I'll try to find it tomarrow.

Also, can anyone recommend 3 books on this threads subject?

Regards,
Mark

Are you thinking of Bakunin?

Are you talking about the series on Discovery Times channel called Age of Terror? The program that had the Baader-Meinhoff guy was the first show. There's been 3 more since. Good program.

With Che it seems to be a cult of personality. Same with Abimael Guzman. Without them the movement doesn't work. The same can probably be said of Castro.

Terrorism as a means pf controlling people to get your own way is completely different than insurgents using acts of terrorism as part of their arsenal.

http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/booksloan.htm

I kind of like Dr Stephen Sloan.

N. Chernyshevsky was most influential. It is rumored that after seeing his brother hanged in the town square for revolutionary activities, V Lenin looked up and the spine of the first book that caught his eye was one by Chernyshevsky. That was the moment, according to Lenin's own recollection, that crystallized his revolutionary spirit.

If you want to understand the onset of communism, 50% of it is understanding Marx - the other 50% is understanding the 19th c. Russian revolutionaries, Chernyshevsky foremost among them.

Sergei Nechayev was who I was thinking of, though Bakunin was co- author on Catechism of the Revolutionist . Here is a link I found on a google search that pretty much lays out the cell concept.

http://spectrum332034.tripod.com/Texte/1.htm




D9 said
'If you want to understand the onset of communism, 50% of it is understanding Marx - the other 50% is understanding the 19th c. Russian revolutionaries, Chernyshevsky foremost among them.'

I don't think I agree with that exactly, but I understand where you are coming from. I find it interesting that of the many revolutions that occured in Eurpoe during that era, communism took hold in Russia. It is a fascinating place. When I studied there after the Yeltsin Coup, a taxi driver was telling me how he wished Stalin would come back and make things right.

BTW what do you think about Musharraf granting a full pardon to Abdul Qadeer Khan selling nuclear secrets to the bad guys?

Thanks for the info. Of these which would be the best starter?

Regards,
Mark

Beating International Terrorism is short, sweet and to the point. It's a little dated, but he addresses that in the epilogue. The bibliography has a list of articles, books, speeches, documents that will give you more than enough info to keep you busy for years.

I read in the New York Times today that the educated and professional class in Iraq are being assassinated. The following is an excerpt from the article.


"They are going after our brains," said Lt. Col. Jabbar Abu Natiha, head of the organized crime unit of the Baghdad police. "It is a big operation. Maybe even a movement."

These white-collar killings, American and Iraqi officials say, are separate from — and in some ways more insidious than — the settling of scores with former Baath Party officials, or the singling-out of police officers and others thought to be collaborating with the occupation. Hundreds of them have been attacked as well in an effort to sow insecurity and chaos.

But by silencing urban professionals, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a spokesman for the occupation forces, the guerrillas are waging war on Iraq's fledgling institutions and progress itself. The dead include doctors, lawyers and judges.....

The American authorities say foreign terrorists may be behind the attacks. "There is a huge incentive for foreign terrorists to create chaos here," General Kimmitt said.

Question:
Is Iraq both an insurrection and a terrorist movement? and
Is this situation unique, I know you can draw parallels to other movements, maybe it is better to ask what is unique about Iraq in a historical context?

Regards,
Mark

Why do you think they are assassinating the intellectuals?

To promote instability. If a moderate infrastructure can take hold, half the battle to Iraqi democracy is won.

But I do not understand why the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting against stability. Then again maybe they are not behind this.

Might want to spell check democracy. I make a lot of typos and can't hardly spell my self, but that's one I try to get right.

How about the Islamists want to promote instability because before they can found an Islamic State, they have to destroy the present form of government. Afghanistan's Taliban rule for exampe came out of the aftermath of the Soviet occupation and the defeat of the Marxist puppet government in the country.

Easier to offer a radical solution in the midst of chaos. People will accept almost any form of order over anarchy when things are bad enough.

Do you think there might be more than one faction at play here?

Usually is