Anarchism and Terrorism

[n0thing]

Doesn't sound like they achieved an awful lot. Sounds more like petty vandalism than an act of insurrection.

If there's one thing to hate about the militant anarchist groups, it's that they always have such low standards regarding what constitutes forceful resistance. More than once I've heard someone boast in hushed tones about breaking a single, lone window at a police station in the dead of night. Or gluing a lock shut.

If you're going to damage state property, please do it properly.

[Ohnoatard]

Yes.. Wonderful Anarchists in action....

[The Bear]

well i also thought it had a very little or no effect

still what worries me more is how the hell didnt they throw that shit into building properly so it would actually catch fire... shame , they have to master those cocktails better... i would prefer seeing the whole building burning in flames

but i guess it's "do it yourself smartpants"

[Jorge Miguel]

Oh aye, but the IRA and INLA are terrorists, etc, etc,.

[n0thing]

Oh aye, but the IRA and INLA are terrorists, etc, etc,.
You think any of us would have a problem with the IRA if they focused on the cops? These anarchists start killing civilians, we'll have a problem with them.

[cb9's_unity]

Are these anarchists trying to destroy their public image. Throwing bombs in the street is useless and makes you look like a pure vandal instead of a revolutionary.

[mosfeld]

You think any of us would have a problem with the IRA if they focused on the cops? These anarchists start killing civilians, we'll have a problem with them. There was never any IRA policy to induce civilian deaths, in fact, they went to great lengths to avoid them, such as calling in warnings before they bombed shit. My good friends dad lost his finger in an IRA pub boming, however, instead of blaming the IRA for his misfortune he simply blamed it on his own stupidity since the IRA had warned about the bombing earlier. I really hope you and similarly minded people will abandon your puritan vision of war and face up to the reality of conflict which is that innocent people will die. If material conditions will ever allow anarchists to further their struggle, there will be civilian deaths, wether you like it or not. This is the reality of war.

[Jorge Miguel]

There was never any IRA policy to induce civilian deaths, in fact, they went to great lengths to avoid them, such as calling in warnings before they bombed shit. My good friends dad lost his finger in an IRA pub boming, however, instead of blaming the IRA for his misfortune he simply blamed it on his own stupidity since the IRA had warned about the bombing earlier. I really hope you and similarly minded people will abandon your puritan vision of war and face up to the reality of conflict which is that innocent people will die. If material conditions will ever allow anarchists to further their struggle, there will be civilian deaths, wether you like it or not. This is the reality of war.
You're forgetting something.

According to the balloons posting in this thread, a disciplined guerilla organisation with a rigid and centralised command structure which executes those who go against standing orders - such as those involved in criminality and sectarian murder - is undesirable because it's authoritarian. Despite the fact it is coupled with a political struggle which had a mass base.

Despite the fact the tactics and methods of the IRA may have been in line with "individual terrorism" in many regards, Trot / Anarchist dogmatists dont take into consideration that the IRA had a base - relatively few of those propagada of the deed groups which Lenin and Trotsky wrote about did. Nor did the IRA's "contempories" in Europe, Prima Linea, Red Brigades, Direct Action, etc.

Civilains die in war. It's a fact. If only the IRA and INLA could have sat around smoking weed, fixing up bikes and eating vegan food as these life-stylists do. Sure, we'd get national liberation and socialism then.

But sure, we'll get socialism by Easyjetting it around Europe to participate in black blocs. :rolleyes:

[F9]

Split the anarchism and terrorism posts here, continue your "discussion" in here, and please keep the other thread clean

[Jorge Miguel]

http://osanimals2.homestead.com/Dogs/1/Angry_puppy.jpg

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Doesn't sound like they achieved an awful lot. Sounds more like petty vandalism than an act of insurrection.

If there's one thing to hate about the militant anarchist groups, it's that they always have such low standards regarding what constitutes forceful resistance. More than once I've heard someone boast in hushed tones about breaking a single, lone window at a police station in the dead of night. Or gluing a lock shut.

If you're going to damage state property, please do it properly.

And go to jail or be killed? Because that's tons better..

I have nothing against vandalism if targeted against the right people which in this case it was. Surely any small amount of money you are forcing a bourgeois to pay is some kind of a victory. "From each according to their ability" after all... Do what you can.

[Charles Xavier]

Split the anarchism and terrorism posts here, continue your "discussion" in here, and please keep the other thread clean


Why the hell was it split? This is entirely on topic.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Why the hell was it split? This is entirely on topic.

Not really. Terrorism and vandalism are two pretty different things. What does smashing a window in solidarity have to do with killing civilians to create fear?

[n0thing]

There was never any IRA policy to induce civilian deaths, in fact, they went to great lengths to avoid them, such as calling in warnings before they bombed shit. My good friends dad lost his finger in an IRA pub boming, however, instead of blaming the IRA for his misfortune he simply blamed it on his own stupidity since the IRA had warned about the bombing earlier. I really hope you and similarly minded people will abandon your puritan vision of war and face up to the reality of conflict which is that innocent people will die. If material conditions will ever allow anarchists to further their struggle, there will be civilian deaths, wether you like it or not. This is the reality of war.
That's a load of shit. Brighton hotel bombing anyone? No warnings before that. Or is all the collateral damage justified because they were trying to kill politicians?

[khad]

That's a load of shit. Brighton hotel bombing anyone? No warnings before that. Or is all the collateral damage justified because they were trying to kill politicians?
You are a fucking idiot. The records state that the 2/3 of the deaths caused by republican paramilitaries were British military or constabulary.

They DID focus on killing occupation forces, no matter how much you try to spread your pernicious slander.

[n0thing]

You are a fucking idiot. The records state that the 2/3 of the deaths caused by republican paramilitaries were British military or constabulary.

They DID focus on killing occupation forces, no matter how much you try to spread your pernicious slander.
2/3 is not something to be proud of. Of course they focused on killing occupational forces, but evidently they didn't care about killing civilians either.

[manic expression]

2/3 is not something to be proud of.

War isn't something to be proud of, but then again the IRA didn't ask for it. All things considered, it isn't a stretch to say that they performed admirably under extraordinary circumstances. I would love to see a military force fight such a demanding war (in mostly urban areas) without causing civilian deaths, but it's just not that likely. Again, the IRA didn't ask for the British to occupy Ireland, so they did what they could to change that.

[mosfeld]

2/3 is not something to be proud of. Of course they focused on killing occupational forces, but evidently they didn't care about killing civilians either.

This flawed logic has been dealt with before in previous threads. If they didn't care about killing civilians, they would've gone bombed a kindergarten or something and they wouldn't have gone such great lengths to try and avoid civilian deaths, my prime example being the one I mentioned in my last post in this thread.

[Bitter Ashes]

*opens her mouth ready to comment about the molotov incident*
...
*notices that this has turned into another IRA thread*
... on second thoughts. Nevermind.

[Hoggy_RS]

2/3 is not something to be proud of. Of course they focused on killing occupational forces, but evidently they didn't care about killing civilians either.
The reality of war is that civilians will be killed so 2/3 is quite a good record(far better than what the British Army or loyalists groups managed). Calling in warnings before bombings showed that they cared about avoiding killing civilians so don't talk shit.

[n0thing]

War isn't something to be proud of, but then again the IRA didn't ask for it. All things considered, it isn't a stretch to say that they performed admirably under extraordinary circumstances. I would love to see a military force fight such a demanding war (in mostly urban areas) without causing civilian deaths, but it's just not that likely. Again, the IRA didn't ask for the British to occupy Ireland, so they did what they could to change that.
I know. I'm not totally unsympathetic to the IRA, but to think that they went to lengths to avoid killing civilians, and still ended up killing more than one civilian for every two soldiers or policemen, is pretty hard to comprehend. That's either a lack of morals, or really terrible aiming.

The Brighton hotel bombing is a great example of them using tactics that they knew would lead to numerous civilian deaths, to kill a politician.

[n0thing]

The reality of war is that civilians will be killed so 2/3 is quite a good record(far better than what the British Army or loyalists groups managed). Calling in warnings before bombings showed that they cared about avoiding killing civilians so don't talk shit.
Except they didn't always call in the bombings did they? I'm going to use the Brighton hotel bombing for the third time.

[Jorge Miguel]

That's either a lack of morals, or really terrible aiming.Or an urban based, volunteer guerilla organisation which lacked appropiate facilities to train.

They were products of their time. Of course, a situation other than this would have been preferable but they had to work in the conditions in which they existed.

[politics student]

I'm going to use the Brighton hotel bombing for the third time.

Considering the targets, a warning would have made the bombing pointless.

[ev]

The government likes to affiliate anarchism with terrorism so they can put a curb on political dissidence and infringe upon our political freedom..

Terrorism is just a slogan the government throws out there when it needs to become more authoritarian and crack down on political dissidence, they need to resort to this because more and more of the working class are getting educated on leftist theory and aren't happy about being fucked in the ass on a daily basis by people who just don't give a shit about them.. - So to speak.

[The Something]

All I gotta say is the "Weathermen" group blew up quite a few government buildings and had no civilian causalities.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

Here's the way I look at it- both in discussing the legacy of the Provos and Anarchism:

My definition of terrorism is the intentional or indiscriminate killing of civilians for political or military gains. That is the criteria we should gauge on whether or not a group is looking for revolution and national liberation, or if they are simply attacking the masses for their own selfish gains. You make the call.

[respectful87]

2/3 is not something to be proud of. Of course they focused on killing occupational forces, but evidently they didn't care about killing civilians either.

I think you have been put in your place by other posters but let me point out that the Provisional IRA did care about not harming civilians. As another poster pointed out, in war there is bound to be civilian deaths. I don't see too many "terrorist" group calling in warning today.

Also note that the Provos have decommissioned while many of loyalist group have not. This shows they are not simply looking for bloodshed but rather making progress towards achieving solidarity for north ireland. If they didn't care about killing civilians I highly doubt they would be doing something like this.

[respectful87]

Also as another psoter stated the government like to paint anarchist as animals with no rules and thus anarchist become no different than terrorist in the eyes of the public due to disinformation. However I have noticed some anarchists almost tend to embrace this image.

[bcbm]

They intend to make us appear dreadful. We intend to be far worse.

[respectful87]

They intend to make us appear dreadful. We intend to be far worse.

Haha I like that. :laugh:

Although it is best to carry out your goals in silence rather than draw attention to yourself until you have a strong base. This is were I think most anarchist go wrong. You accomplish nothing by breaking windows and throwing molotov cocktails (well except be a pain in the ass to the capitalists which I have nothing against).

Inform the people for knowledge is more powerful than any weapon. Once you do that organize and well you know the rest.

[Muzk]

You'll never know everything about something if you havn't been there for yourself. What if those civilians had guns and tried to kill them?

[ls]

Anarchism has always been associated with terrorism, pretty much. If you take a look at the met police's 'history archive', they bang on for a bit about the angry brigade blowing up Tory homes, Russian anarchists and the Tottenham ourage, Bakunin preaching his doctrine of murdering all heads of state, plus many more besides. In other countries that regard it with even deeper suspicion.

It's pretty funny really. Terrorism is not what any of that is, it's just to be expected from countries' working-classes who have been shattered and splintered.