seems someone is shooting french soldiers in southern france

[Sasha]

Two French paratroopers shot dead

A gunman on a motorbike has opened fire on three French paratroopers at a bank machine in southern France, killing two and critically wounding one, officials said.It was the second such attack in a week targeting French soldiers in a public place.
Earlier, the Defence Ministry had issued a statement saying all three paratroopers had died, but a local police official and a Defence Ministry official later said one of them was in critical condition.
The three uniformed soldiers had been standing at a bank machine in the town of Montauban when a helmeted attacker arrived on a motorbike and opened fire, then fled.
Defence Minister Gerard Longuet expressed his condolences to the soldiers, their families and their regiment in a statement. They all three served with the 17th paratrooper combat engineering regiment, based nearby.
On Sunday, a 30-year-old soldier was fatally shot near a gym in the southern city of Toulouse by an unidentified attacker.
Neither the defence minister nor police announced any link between the two attacks, and the motives remain unclear.
The police official said the two soldiers killed were 24 and 26 years old.


Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/three-french-soldiers-shot-dead-16131680.html#ixzz1pDJGHwVe



pointless action, wonder who's behind it, not south enough for ETA and would be completly illogical since they just gave up armed struggle. Maybe a fundi muslim or a "non pollitical" serial...

[Ocean Seal]

pointless action, wonder who's behind it, not south enough for ETA and would be completly illogical since they just gave up armed struggle. Maybe a fundi muslim or a "non pollitical" serial...
I highly doubt its not political. Maybe its a leftist who finally lost his nut. Who knows really, its not like France has committed any of the most recent atrocities in the Middle East but then again their anti-Muslim discrimination laws could spur much hatred.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Sounds like a militant anti-war liberal who lost his marbles. Until we know more not much to really say aside from idle speculation.

[NewLeft]

Sounds like a militant anti-war liberal who lost his marbles. Until we know more not much to really say aside from idle speculation.
haha I KNEW someone would say this.

[milkmiku]

A damn shame, The french tend top be well mannered and behaved soldiers. These guys were paratroopers as well, which means they put in a lot more effort than the typical grunt. I suppose the gunman thinks he'll make a difference with his actions.

[Princess Luna]

I highly doubt its not political. Maybe its a leftist who finally lost his nut. Who knows really, its not like France has committed any of the most recent atrocities in the Middle East but then again their anti-Muslim discrimination laws could spur much hatred.
They did lead the intervention in Liyba

[Joseph S.]

TBH it could be anny one afterall everyone hate's the Fransch just as much as the Germans.
thinking the whole god dam'n world parlevous France.
:p

[Orlov]

Cheers, one dead French soldier is a good French soldier. In fact I'll go even farther, France has continually been responsible for the repression of the Basque Country, Arabs with their involvement in NATO and has aided in various other imperialist endeavors such as their actions in the Ivory Coast. The militant responsible for this was extremely brave and set aside the potential to go on and live his life within the bourgeois context instead to take up arms against the French soldiers. Hopefully this will send a message to new 'want-to-be' French soldiers that if they do decide to join the French military and play European mercenary that they will not be safe, not even in France.

[gorillafuck]

Sounds like a militant anti-war liberal who lost his marbles. Until we know more not much to really say aside from idle speculation.when people who shoot soldiers are called liberals with no indication of it being their ideology, that's when you know that a word has lost all meaning.

[#FF0000]

neat

[Tifosi]

Are the FLNC still active?

[Os Cangaceiros]

A damn shame, The french tend top be well mannered and behaved soldiers.

They were so well-behaved in Algeria!

[The Douche]

A damn shame, The french tend top be well mannered and behaved soldiers. These guys were paratroopers as well, which means they put in a lot more effort than the typical grunt. I suppose the gunman thinks he'll make a difference with his actions.

Nationalist politics are really popular with the French police and military, especially paratroopers.

[milkmiku]

Nationalist politics are really popular with the French police and military, especially paratroopers.
This mean what? That they are worthy of death? So they love their nation, doesn't make their death any less pointless. I'm sure french paratroopers have their nation under a tight and controlled grip of totalitarianism and need to die in order for it to fall.

If the gunman did have a political motive, killing troops won't do a damn thing, he'd have to aim higher than that. Anything less is just piss in the ocean. I hope the french government offers it's support to their families.

[Kitty_Paine]

I think if anything, this was counter productive to anything positive. This only pisses people off towards the killers, especially when the reasoning behind it isn't known. Killing a couple of lowly privates or even a sergeant isn't going to mean shit to anyone (except to their families, who's lives have been put on hold for an idefinite period of time), the french imperial machine will keep moving just as it has and hell, it might even gain strength because of this.

Random acts of violence only defeat your cause. You need to have purpose and appeal to the masses, you need to have a meaning, a symbol. This random shit is disgusting, trivial and ultimately self defeating. Nothing is being done here...

[Ocean Seal]

when people who shoot soldiers are called liberals with no indication of it being their ideology, that's when you know that a word has lost all meaning.
I don't think it was being used as a pejorative. Rather referring to the fact that he was anti-war and that many liberals in the United States are also pretty militant anti-war activists.

[Tim Cornelis]

My cousin joined the army because of Call of Duty (I suspect). I don't think idiocy is worth being killed over.

[Leftsolidarity]

Imperialist troops die -> Revolutionary Leftists cry for them

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think if anything, this was counter productive to anything positive. This only pisses people off towards the killers, especially when the reasoning behind it isn't known. Killing a couple of lowly privates or even a sergeant isn't going to mean shit to anyone (except to their families, who's lives have been put on hold for an idefinite period of time), the french imperial machine will keep moving just as it has and hell, it might even gain strength because of this.

Random acts of violence only defeat your cause. You need to have purpose and appeal to the masses, you need to have a meaning, a symbol. This random shit is disgusting, trivial and ultimately self defeating. Nothing is being done here...

I don't think it aids "The Cause", but at the same time I'm not going to denounce it. No sympathy from me, none at all.

[The Douche]

This mean what? That they are worthy of death? So they love their nation, doesn't make their death any less pointless. I'm sure french paratroopers have their nation under a tight and controlled grip of totalitarianism and need to die in order for it to fall.

If the gunman did have a political motive, killing troops won't do a damn thing, he'd have to aim higher than that. Anything less is just piss in the ocean. I hope the french government offers it's support to their families.

I'm not supporting the actions of the gunman, I didn't even allude to that. I'm just pointing out that French soldiers aren't like "good guys" or "heroes" or whatever.

I'm not particularly upset at the death of imperialist soldiers. It sucks that people die and it fucks up people's lives, but I mean. Its just weird what you said about French soldiers.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Imperialist troops die -> Revolutionary Leftists cry for them

Yeah it's not like they're victims of the modern socioeconomic model too or anything, right? :rolleyes:

You can have solidarity with the soldiers and still oppose the warmonger leadership.

[milkmiku]

I'm not supporting the actions of the gunman, I didn't even allude to that. I'm just pointing out that French soldiers aren't like "good guys" or "heroes" or whatever.

I'm not particularly upset at the death of imperialist soldiers. It sucks that people die and it fucks up people's lives, but I mean. Its just weird what you said about French soldiers.

Not every soldier comes from the same mold, sure some sign up to support their nation, but many enlist for tuition, the benefits ect, ect.

I just cannot empathize with people who would celebrate pointless murder, now if this gunman had actually killed someone who mattered, then I'd likely change my tune, but as it is, this was nothing but 3 totally pointless murders of men of an unknown quality by an unknown individual.

If the suspect is apprehended, he'll likely be labeled something politically appropriate to the French government, so we'll never know.

[Kitty_Paine]

Imperialist troops die -> Revolutionary Leftists cry for them


I don't think it aids "The Cause", but at the same time I'm not going to denounce it. No sympathy from me, none at all.

I don't know if you were refering to me but I wouldn't say I'm crying over them. I'm denouncing their act/s as counter productive to any cause the gunmen are trying to press (whether "good" or "bad").

It's funny to me how many of you here respond to death in such a detached and "whatever" attitude, like you're a hardened warrior or like you've killed your enemies with your bare hands before. I'm not simply talking about this specific thread but many of them. A thread opens up about the deaths of soldiers/police/any "political enemy" for that matter and people no older than 16/17 chime in with, "Fuck 'um" and "good, all soldiers should die". Like they know what death is, like they've murdered in cold blood before or watched a friend die.

I'd like to see you respond so calming and confidently to death when someone has a gun to your head.

So shit! Quit acting so damn inhuman, like if that soldier was your best friend you wouldn't be crying and wishing him back, cause you would.

Sorry about that rant status.... :D

[The Douche]

Not every soldier comes from the same mold, sure some sign up to support their nation, but many enlist for tuition, the benefits ect, ect.

I just cannot empathize with people who would celebrate pointless murder, now if this gunman had actually killed someone who mattered, then I'd likely change my tune, but as it is, this was nothing but 3 totally pointless murders of men of an unknown quality by an unknown individual.

If the suspect is apprehended, he'll likely be labeled something politically appropriate to the French government, so we'll never know.

But nobody is celebrating this act.

And I know all about where soldiers come from, I was one for 6 years.

[gorillafuck]

I think if anything, this was counter productive to anything positive. This only pisses people off towards the killers, especially when the reasoning behind it isn't known. Killing a couple of lowly privates or even a sergeant isn't going to mean shit to anyone (except to their families, who's lives have been put on hold for an idefinite period of time), the french imperial machine will keep moving just as it has and hell, it might even gain strength because of this.

Random acts of violence only defeat your cause. You need to have purpose and appeal to the masses, you need to have a meaning, a symbol. This random shit is disgusting, trivial and ultimately self defeating. Nothing is being done here...for one, it's a bit presumptuous to assume this was done because someone wanted to build a movement. they could just be pissed off. and for two, there's no way that the french government will gain strength because of this.

[gorillafuck]

I don't know if you were refering to me but I wouldn't say I'm crying over them. I'm denouncing their act/s as counter productive to any cause the gunmen are trying to press (whether "good" or "bad").

It's funny to me how many of you here respond to death in such a detached and "whatever" attitude, like you're a hardened warrior or like you've killed your enemies with your bare hands before. I'm not simply talking about this specific thread but many of them. A thread opens up about the deaths of soldiers/police/any "political enemy" for that matter and people no older than 16/17 chime in with, "Fuck 'um" and "good, all soldiers should die". Like they know what death is, like they've murdered in cold blood before or watched a friend die.do you mourn every individual death you hear about?


I'd like to see you respond so calming and confidently to death when someone has a gun to your head.why is that at all relevant?


So shit! Quit acting so damn inhuman, like if that soldier was your best friend you wouldn't be crying and wishing him back, cause you would.once again, do you mourn every person who you hear about who dies in the world? because if not then there's no reason for you to be lecturing people on their attitude towards death, especially deaths in a military that has recently been upping it's aggression in the middle east/Africa.

[Kitty_Paine]

for one, it's a bit presumptuous to assume this was done because someone wanted to build a movement.


Okay, I never meant to imply that there may have been some 'movement', my bad. When I said cause I was more broadly saying for any cause they might have done it for. Whether that be because they disagree with french foreign involvement personally or within a greater group or cause, or for whatever other reason. I was just saying for whatever reason they're doing it, it's probably only counter productive to that reason... I mean unless they just wanted to kill some people I guess :blink:



they could just be pissed off. and for two, there's no way that the french government will gain strength because of this.

I meant strengthen the french army more specifically, as in more people might join. Maybe not by a notable amount but terrorist acts usually only serve to increase nationalism in the population and solidarity among them. Think 911 but on a much smaller scale.

[Kitty_Paine]

why is that at all relevant?


I was refering to the confident and 'whatever' style of responses people sometimes post about the deaths of others. Like death is no big deal to them. I was simply stating that that person in a life or death situation would view death very differently.



do you mourn every individual death you hear about?

once again, do you mourn every person who you hear about who dies in the world? because if not then there's no reason for you to be lecturing people on their attitude towards death, especially deaths in a military that has recently been upping it's aggression in the middle east/Africa.

I do not mourn ever person's death, some people do need to be 'removed' in my opinion. I never stated that killing is always bad either. And I never said anyone should be mourning everyone that dies. A touch of humanity and sensibility would be nice and that was all that I was asking for.

I was just stating that the way in which some people view and think of killing and death here is very unrealistic and ignorant. Well.... in reality, it's how a lot of people view it... in a very detached manner. But anyway... I wasn't calling for the mourning of the dead at all, just sensibility and a little humanity.

[Leftsolidarity]

Yeah it's not like they're victims of the modern socioeconomic model too or anything, right? :rolleyes:

You can have solidarity with the soldiers and still oppose the warmonger leadership.

I know about that and I sympathize with that. I have even had a number of posts on here about it.

But when it comes down to it, they are in a social role as the oppresser. They stop being an individual member of the working class when they put on the uniform and become a tool of the bourgeoisie. I do think it is more sensible and more productive to target the bourgeoisie instead of their foot soldiers but that doesn't mean I shed any tears over them. We shouldn't denounce attacks against our enemies.

[Prometeo liberado]

I heard from a guy at the track that excessive use of the word milieux by French soldiers in an around the area of the shooting may have played a part in this.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't know if you were refering to me but I wouldn't say I'm crying over them. I'm denouncing their act/s as counter productive to any cause the gunmen are trying to press (whether "good" or "bad").

It's funny to me how many of you here respond to death in such a detached and "whatever" attitude, like you're a hardened warrior or like you've killed your enemies with your bare hands before. I'm not simply talking about this specific thread but many of them. A thread opens up about the deaths of soldiers/police/any "political enemy" for that matter and people no older than 16/17 chime in with, "Fuck 'um" and "good, all soldiers should die". Like they know what death is, like they've murdered in cold blood before or watched a friend die.

I'd like to see you respond so calming and confidently to death when someone has a gun to your head.

So shit! Quit acting so damn inhuman, like if that soldier was your best friend you wouldn't be crying and wishing him back, cause you would.

Sorry about that rant status.... :D

This is stupid. No one is acting like they are some hardass killer. We are trying to debate about the topic and you turn it into personal attacks. Just like the old right-wing arguments, "You probably haven't worked a day in your life so you can't talk bad about capitalism."

Shit like this annoys the fuck out of me. This is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Also, people can have a cold unsensitive view of death even if they haven't killed someone. I feel sad when normal people die. I don't feel said when our enemies die.

[Kitty_Paine]

This is stupid. No one is acting like they are some hardass killer. We are trying to debate about the topic and you turn it into personal attacks. Just like the old right-wing arguments, "You probably haven't worked a day in your life so you can't talk bad about capitalism."

Shit like this annoys the fuck out of me. This is completely irrelevant to the conversation. Also, people can have a cold unsensitive view of death even if they haven't killed someone. I feel sad when normal people die. I don't feel said when our enemies die.

I was refering in general to more than just this thread, but my bad I guess if it became a little irrelevant because of that. I also wasn't personally attacking anyone, again, my bad if it seemed like I was.

And I don't see how my comment was any less relevant than: "Imperialist troops die -> Revolutionary Leftists cry for them"

We were both commenting on people's responses to the story.

I realize that people can have a cold attitude towards death regardless of their circumstances, all I was saying is that this stance is more or less ignorant in that respect. Of course everyone has an opinion, but to talk out of your ass (no one specific) at the death's of "enemies", when you know nothing of them or what they've done is ignorant to say the least. Hell, they may have hated being in the french army... or they could've been like cmoney, who knows. They weren't shot while raping a woman or invading a country.

But anyway, I didn't mean to come off as hostile if I did.

[Orlov]

Imperialist troops die -> Revolutionary Leftists cry for them

It's because most of the forum isn't made up of revolutionary leftists. It's made up of liberal pacifistic faux-Marxists that are waiting for the 'good revolution' to come that will liberate the entire world. Many of these people aren't willing to support bloodshed out of cowardism and the fact that they'll have to give up bourgeois privillages and the reality that in the revolutionary action people will die. As well, they have this unrealistic ultra-leftist belief of a single world revolution and if that fails it's game over no protecting socialism in one country, none of that just back to the drawing boards and sitting around waiting for nothing. Then you have the Anarchists who are so withdrawn from classical Anarchism and action in the interest of the revolution that they'd rather go around organizing indefinitely getting nothing done that matters. In fact they've been so infested with the bourgeois disease that they're just cowards who would rather focus on small time squatting and campaigns that will get nothing done.

You know you have to give it to whoever did this and hopefully the organization behind this as they're directly targeting the imperialists at the front lines with a gun in hand. They're not just sitting around soaking it up being bourgeois. Cheers to them. And to the posters replying 'stupidity isn't enough to die for' anti-imperialism is a global struggle and the imperialists need to die in order for the anti-imperialists to succeed. If they don't die and if they go on with their imperialist gang they're going to kill. It's typical reformist dribble that values the white imperialists more than the resistance and the civilians.

Hopefully this sends a message to French troops that they will no longer be safe at home in the same way that the people whom they aggress are not safe in their home countries.

[Hermes]

I'd just like to say that regardless of whether or not I agree with what the gunman did, you can't say that these won't have an effect. Kill enough soldiers and people start becoming frightened.

You won't win anyone to your side, but you sure as hell will stop some people from joining the military, yeah?

[Leftsolidarity]

when you know nothing of them or what they've done is ignorant to say the least. Hell, they may have hated being in the french army... or they could've been like cmoney, who knows. They weren't shot while raping a woman or invading a country.



I was cool with the rest of your post but I disagree with this. We do know what they've done. They have become imperialist foot soldiers and the tools of the bourgeoisie. That is enough to become our class enemy.

Still not advocating that this was the best method or anything like that but this is not a sad event and these are not innocent people.

[Ele'ill]

Mob related.

[gorillafuck]

I was refering to the confident and 'whatever' style of responses people sometimes post about the deaths of others. Like death is no big deal to them. I was simply stating that that person in a life or death situation would view death very differently.people here aren't even saying that death isn't a serious topic. they're just not making a big deal out of these specific deaths.


I do not mourn ever person's death, some people do need to be 'removed' in my opinion. I never stated that killing is always bad either. And I never said anyone should be mourning everyone that dies. A touch of humanity and sensibility would be nice and that was all that I was asking for.what do you mean by a touch of humanity other than mourning?

nothing inhumane is going on here unless you were expecting a bunch of R.I.P.'s

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd like to see you respond so calming and confidently to death when someone has a gun to your head.


whoa, so what you're telling me is that I value my own life over the lives of three anonymous French paratroopers? :ohmy:

[Luc]

Mob related.

eh? Is it? Gotta link:) sharing is caring

[Ele'ill]

eh? Is it? Gotta link:) sharing is caring

Speculation.

[Luc]

Speculation.

aw :( thought you read an article and told us and forgot to link or somthing:lol:

[The Douche]

Of course everyone has an opinion, but to talk out of your ass (no one specific) at the death's of "enemies", when you know nothing of them or what they've done is ignorant to say the least. Hell, they may have hated being in the french army... or they could've been like cmoney, who knows. They weren't shot while raping a woman or invading a country.

Well imperialist soldiers are the enemies of the working class internationally. (Though that position is not particularly static.) But even if they were "like me", that doesn't excuse their position in relation to capital.

When I was still a soldier I was an enemy of the working class, and as such, a potential target. While I don't think individual assassinations of soldiers at home is a particularly intelligent or effective tactic, I think it is at least valid or understandable in certain contexts. If I was killed in Iraq would posters on here have condemned the event? Ought the position to be "defeat imperialism and capitalism, but don't hurt Chris"? The death of soldiers is an unfortunate reality of class warfare, just a reality, not something to be celebrated or condemned in my mind.

[hatzel]

Ought the position to be "defeat imperialism and capitalism, but don't hurt Chris"?

Well to be honest if you died or whatever I'd probably be "man that sucks he was a pretty good poster." If there were a memorial thread in chit chat I'd post in it. But I doubt I'd go so far as to vow to avenge you or anything like that. Soz...

(Yeah this is kind of on topic it's just hidden in some hypothetical anecdote thing but behind that there's a serious comment)

[The Machine]

Well imperialist soldiers are the enemies of the working class internationally.

Just "imperialist" soldiers? I would argue that an Iranian or Taliban soldier is just as much of an enemy to the international working class as a US soldier.

Before the New Left and the height of the Cold War communists didn't tend to take sides in bourgeois wars, or at least they didn't just reflexively root for the underdog like some bad sports movie. Now granted I haven't read a lot of Marx but the only time I've seen him take sides in wars was in support of imperialism to expand capital, during the American Civil War and the Mexican American War. Now that capitalism is fully developed though, I don't see a reason for communists to support one side of the bourgeois over the other.

Soldiers, imperialist or otherwise, aren't enemies of the working class because they threaten the sovereignty of nations or a nations right to national determination, concepts that communists should reject as completely bourgeois, but because of their relationship to capital. There is something to be said about the old Bolshevik line of soldiers being workers in uniform, but at the same time the increasing professionalization of the military is turning their class position more something like cops. I'm not really sure, but that's probably an argument for a different thread.

[The Douche]

Just "imperialist" soldiers? I would argue that an Iranian or Taliban soldier is just as much of an enemy to the international working class as a US soldier.

Before the New Left and the height of the Cold War communists didn't tend to take sides in bourgeois wars, or at least they didn't just reflexively root for the underdog like some bad sports movie. Now granted I haven't read a lot of Marx but the only time I've seen him take sides in wars was in support of imperialism to expand capital, during the American Civil War and the Mexican American War. Now that capitalism is fully developed though, I don't see a reason for communists to support one side of the bourgeois over the other.

Soldiers, imperialist or otherwise, aren't enemies of the working class because they threaten the sovereignty of nations or a nations right to national determination, concepts that communists should reject as completely bourgeois, but because of their relationship to capital. There is something to be said about the old Bolshevik line of soldiers being workers in uniform, but at the same time the increasing professionalization of the military is turning their class position more something like cops. I'm not really sure, but that's probably an argument for a different thread.

Agreed, thank you for elaborating.


Well to be honest if you died or whatever I'd probably be "man that sucks he was a pretty good poster." If there were a memorial thread in chit chat I'd post in it. But I doubt I'd go so far as to vow to avenge you or anything like that. Soz...

Word. That's the thing, it sucks when people die, it sucks because it effects so many people, and it just in general is shitty when a human life ends. But the reality of the situation is that part of the struggle for communism will inevitably include military action, and the death of reactionaries and individuals who side with reaction.

I didn't want to die while I was in Iraq, but I understood that it would not be wrong for me to be killed.

[Triple A]

There are reports that all three of the dead soldiers were of North African origin, and that the injured man is black.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17397354
Now revlefters will be unsure wheter to cricticise or not

[NoPasaran1936]

A damn shame, The french tend top be well mannered and behaved soldiers. These guys were paratroopers as well, which means they put in a lot more effort than the typical grunt. I suppose the gunman thinks he'll make a difference with his actions.

Oh hi, I'm Bob Krenco, I'm a British paratrooper. As Brits are renowned polite, well-mannered as a stereotype, that must mean, I, a trained killer who participates in either atrocities, either directly or indirectly.

You're a liberal, own up.

[the last donut of the night]

don't care. not celebrating over corpses but then again i'm not gonna shed any tears for people who choose to fight imperialist wars

[Blake's Baby]

Well, as they're now saying all these French paratroopers seem to have been black, and the same MO (including the same gun it seems) was used in the shooting of two children and an adult at the Jewish school, it now looks like they might be looking not for a muslim terrorist who's targeting French soldiers because of France's imperialist adventures (Libya, Afghanistan etc) and Jews because of the Middle East situation, but potentially an extreme racist who's killing blacks and Jews.

Does that change how anyone is perceiving all this?

[Zealot]

Not particularly effective but soldiers in the service of imperialism are fair game as far as I'm concerned.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Imperialist troops die -> Revolutionary Leftists cry for themFirst I don't think anyone posting here is literally crying over this.

Second, the random death of a soldier does exactly jack shit for the working class or just opposition to imperialism in general. By definition most regular soldiers are sent to die, they are replaceable that's the whole point of modern armies!

If this was politically motivated by things I agree with then this action still means jack shit to the struggle since some lone shooter doesn't help workers to learn how to self-organize or fight in their own interests.

If people in a town being invaded by an imperialist army were able to shoot enough paratroopers that a planned advance was forced back to defeat, then guess what, that actually is a small tactical victory which could help build a resistance struggle against imperialism in the invading country, a struggle that could also develop a working class component with people organizing in the cities while the imperialist troops are busy trying to hold rural areas.

If people had been protesting in Tahrir and the police and armed thugs couldn't stop the protests, so the military was sent in and actually obeyed the command to stop the protest, then if people got into a conflict with the military and had to fight, then it would also be a potential victory if the military was shot at and couldn't repress the movement.

[Leftsolidarity]

First I don't think anyone posting here is literally crying over this.



Figure of speech



Second, the random death of a soldier does exactly jack shit for the working class or just opposition to imperialism in general. By definition most regular soldiers are sent to die, they are replaceable that's the whole point of modern armies!

If this was politically motivated by things I agree with then this action still means jack shit to the struggle since some lone shooter doesn't help workers to learn how to self-organize or fight in their own interests.


I'm pretty sure we already established that it doesn't really progress our movement but that doesn't mean we need to denounce it. There are better options for us but this most likely was not "us" (as a revolutionary leftist movement) and these soldiers our still our class enemies.



If people in a town being invaded by an imperialist army were able to shoot enough paratroopers that a planned advance was forced back to defeat, then guess what, that actually is a small tactical victory which could help build a resistance struggle against imperialism in the invading country, a struggle that could also develop a working class component with people organizing in the cities while the imperialist troops are busy trying to hold rural areas.

If people had been protesting in Tahrir and the police and armed thugs couldn't stop the protests, so the military was sent in and actually obeyed the command to stop the protest, then if people got into a conflict with the military and had to fight, then it would also be a potential victory if the military was shot at and couldn't repress the movement.

So are you saying that the working class should always be on the defensive? Why can't we take the fight to them? Why do we have to sit and hope that they don't kill us all?

[Leftsolidarity]

Well, as they're now saying all these French paratroopers seem to have been black, and the same MO (including the same gun it seems) was used in the shooting of two children and an adult at the Jewish school, it now looks like they might be looking not for a muslim terrorist who's targeting French soldiers because of France's imperialist adventures (Libya, Afghanistan etc) and Jews because of the Middle East situation, but potentially an extreme racist who's killing blacks and Jews.

Does that change how anyone is perceiving all this?

This got me thinking all day since I read this when I woke up.

I think my answer is no. Despite whatever reasonings behind the killings of these soldiers it was pretty clear that it did not progress our cause. If it turns out that they are racially based killings it is still possible to denounce the motive but not nessecarilly the action. Just as it seems that some here viewed it as this was some anti-capitalist killing soldiers for "our" cause but denouncing the action. They supported the motive but not the action.

These soldiers still played a class role as our oppressers despite their race. Whether they were killed because of their race our class role does not really make a difference because the end result is the same; they are dead.

Though, if they were killed because of their race this shooter is our enemy also. No friend of ours at all. We should wish they get theirs in return.

I am open to other options against this stance because I am still thinking this through and wondering if this is a correct stance our not. I just wanted to put my thoughts out there and was hoping to see other people's.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So are you saying that the working class should always be on the defensive? Why can't we take the fight to them? Why do we have to sit and hope that they don't kill us all?Obviously not from the examples I showed. And how is this example an instance of the "working class fighting back"? It's an individual act is not a "working class action" - I am arguing that collective struggle is the way the working class can organize itself which will allow for us to have successful class struggle.

Some guy individually shooting a CEO (let alone a soldier) doesn't advance working class struggle; it doesn't give workers more power and it doesn't harm ruling class's collective power.

[lombas]

Nationalist politics are really popular with the French police and military, especially paratroopers.

Nationalist tendencies in the military and the police?

Impossible to believe!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

A damn shame, The french tend top be well mannered and behaved soldiers. These guys were paratroopers as well, which means they put in a lot more effort than the typical grunt. I suppose the gunman thinks he'll make a difference with his actions.

Yes, put a lot more effort into killing for imperialist governments, great...

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Some guy individually shooting a CEO (let alone a soldier) doesn't advance working class struggle; it doesn't give workers more power and it doesn't harm ruling class's collective power.

The point of terrorism is to break the capitalist state's monopoly on violence. Terrorism is childish so long the working class' consciousness is that of the ruling class; news, t.v. and capitalist state. A good example of this was Hans-Martin Schleyer, an ex-SS man, Industrialist speaker and CEO killed by the RAF and got a street and stadium named after him with no public reaction. We cannot forget that we live in "The Dictatorship of Capital" and so long this is the case, left-wing communist terrorism is absolutely useless, besides morally difficult.

[Leftsolidarity]

Obviously not from the examples I showed.

The examples you gave were defensive.


And how is this example an instance of the "working class fighting back"? It's an individual act is not a "working class action" - I am arguing that collective struggle is the way the working class can organize itself which will allow for us to have successful class struggle.

Some guy individually shooting a CEO (let alone a soldier) doesn't advance working class struggle; it doesn't give workers more power and it doesn't harm ruling class's collective power.

I never said it was an example of the "working class fighting back". Never said that. In fact, it seems as if it is a person who stands against the majority of the working class.

I also never promoted propaganda of the deed as a tactic. I said that even if this was an action by "one of us" it wasn't a great way to push the struggle forward.

I don't know who you are arguing against because it doesn't seem like you disagree with me all that much. My bottom line of all my posts have been that even though this might not have progressed a communist revolution or that it may even be by someone we oppose, we shouldn't mourn or denounce the death of troops who are our class enemies.

[lombas]

In latest events, a suspect has promised to surrender later this day. The authorities apparently have him cornered. Newsflash said he has ties with Al Qaida and is of Algerian descent.

For those of you who speak/understand (some) French: http://www.humanite.fr/societe/toulouse-un-suspect-se-reclamant-dal-qaida-cerne-par-le-raid-492762

[Anarchrusty]

A jihadist right? Than I am going to speculate that he killed those soldiers of North African descent because he believed them to be traitors to his creed. As soldiers, they represented the French army while they should have been supporting his own cause.

[lombas]

Than I am going to speculate that he killed those soldiers of North African descent because he believed them to be traitors to his creed.

That could very well be the case.

[Anarchrusty]

I find that a lot of these Jihadi types have the same black and white worldview as white nationalists. Look at Breivik, a hater of muslims but he decided to shoot up the youth division of Norway's leading party. He accused them of selling out his country to foreigners, and I see an anology of that to this guy's probable motives.

Also, what the fuck is going on lately in France? A salafist beats a guy to death in a Shiíte mosque in some Northern town (forgot which one) with a baseball bat, these shootings in the Toulouse area, an explosion this morning at the Indonesian embassy in Paris.
Anyone having any idea where these sudden tensions are coming from?

[hatzel]

Anyone having any idea where these sudden tensions are coming from?

There are no 'sudden tensions.' It's been a decade since the 2002 presidential elections, eight years since the arson attack of the mosque in Annecy, eight since the religious symbol ban in schools, seven since the 2005 unrest (not saying this was an ethno-religious event, though the fall-out certainly had such implications), six since Ilan Halimi, five since the 2007 unrest (nor saying this was an ethno-religious event, but again it's certainly relevant), four since the defacing of Muslim graves in Arras, two since the so-called 'burqa ban,' and that's only mentioning a few more prominent examples from the countless events I could have highlighted, and of course I've totally ignored anything that happened more than 10 years ago, such as the various events in the 80's and 90's that brought Le Pen to such a position of prominence in time for 2002...seriously there's nothing 'sudden' about any of this, it's been bubbling away pretty consistently for years now...

[Franz Fanonipants]

I find that a lot of these Jihadi types have the same black and white worldview as white nationalists.

is an anarchist.

uses jihadi unironically.

restrict all anarchists pls.

[Franz Fanonipants]

In latest events, a suspect has promised to surrender later this day. The authorities apparently have him cornered. Newsflash said he has ties with Al Qaida and is of Algerian descent.

le pen gonna win the election

france is going to own for a decade

[Anarchrusty]

I worded it wrong, Hatzel. I know shit's been brewing for longer, I was just wondering why the many incidents in the last 14 days? Things seem to be building up in quite a short amount of time.

[lombas]

le pen gonna win the election

france is going to own for a decade

I would think this is Sarko's chance of tackling Hollande. If he plays his game "well", Le Pen shouldn't come out stronger after this.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I worded it wrong, Hatzel. I know shit's been brewing for longer, I was just wondering why the many incidents in the last 14 days? Things seem to be building up in quite a short amount of time.

well u see jihadis just are engines of jihadi hate and do jihadi things in jihadi ways

jihadi tribalism jihad

[Anarchrusty]

is an anarchist.

uses jihadi unironically.

restrict all anarchists pls.

What are you on about? Why should anarchists be restricted? And what did I say that was so offensive to you anyway?

[Franz Fanonipants]

I would think this is Sarko's chance of tackling Hollande. If he plays his game "well", Le Pen shouldn't come out stronger after this.

yeah, you're right.

sarko is probably going to ring some bells and get that shit handed to him.

he's already trying to eat into le pen's base anyways, right?

[bricolage]

urgh, state of emergency and an enemy within, it's a sarkozy/len pen wet dream. expect continued deportations, border controls, expect pogroms, etc.
this world is so bleak.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What are you on about? Why should anarchists be restricted? And what did I say that was so offensive to you anyway?

you used war on terror terminology to refer to a mass of people who are on the receiving end of imperialism. if that shit isn't reactionary idk what is.

[Anarchrusty]

Jihadi refers to mujahideen, a term a whole lot older than anything War on Terror related. And by that I was referring to just that, not '' a mass of people on the receiving'' end of it.
Are you that bigoted that you think Jihadi and muslim are interchangeable? FYI, a muslim is nothing more than an adherent of Islam, which is a religion, and not all of them are terrorists.
I hope I have informed you sufficiently, so you won't make the mistake of thinking they are all one and the same again.

[lombas]

yeah, you're right.

sarko is probably going to ring some bells and get that shit handed to him.

he's already trying to eat into le pen's base anyways, right?

Well, there doesn't seem to be too many difference between the ponds Le Pen and Sarkozy are fishing in...

[Franz Fanonipants]

I hope I have informed you sufficiently, so you won't make the mistake of thinking they are all one and the same again.

idk i wouldn't go around calling people jihadi in the first place so

[hatzel]

To be fair Hakim Bey kept going on about doing jihad in 'Millennium' and the like and there was nothing wrong with that from an anarchist perspective but then that was, what, 15 years ago and he wasn't dissing jihadis so maybe that wasn't quite the same actually I dunno...

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well, there doesn't seem to be too many difference between the ponds Le Pen and Sarkozy are fishing in...

when i was in france someone from a trotskyite party told me there were too many foreigners for their comfort

i was amazed

[Franz Fanonipants]

To be fair Hakim Bey kept going on about doing jihad in 'Millennium' and there was nothing wrong with that from an anarchist perspective but then that was, what, 15 years ago and he wasn't dissing jihadis so maybe that wasn't quite the same actually I dunno...

no, i think its a question of anarchism not having any imperialist critique in it

[Anarchrusty]

when i was in france someone from a trotskyite party told me there were too many foreigners for their comfort

i was amazed

I cannot judge French trots, but I have seen the same attitude with British ones. Mostly middle class students in the UAF but when talking to them, they find the Northern towns ''eery'' because of the Asian population.
I guess that is maybe for they have never experienced it in their sheltered lives and what they don't know, scares 'em. As opposed to anarchists, who work with local communities on a daily base so we are aqquinted to it and know they are not scary at all. We see everyday they are people like everyone who just want to be treated with some dignity.

Seriously, some of the English Trots make me retch with their hypocrasy.

[hatzel]

In the 90's a whole bunch of French commies joined the FN. Some clearly slower than others. That's probably how it got all big and stuff...


As opposed to anarchists, who work with local communities on a daily base

Heh.

[ed miliband]

I cannot judge French trots, but I have seen the same attitude with British ones. Mostly middle class students in the UAF but when talking to them, they find the Northern towns ''eery'' because of the Asian population.
I guess that is maybe for they have never experienced it in their sheltered lives and what they don't know, scares 'em. As opposed to anarchists, who work with local communities on a daily base so we are aqquinted to it and know they are not scary at all. We see everyday they are people like everyone who just want to be treated with some dignity.

Seriously, some of the English Trots make me retch with their hypocrasy.

uh

i'm a british anarchist (or at least come from that tradition) and i don't recognise any of this to be even vaguely true

i mean if anything the swp have been criticised for the past half decade for having politics that have eschewed class in favour of identity issues. i'm not saying that's true or not but i've never met a racist swp member - always very much the opposite

socialist party of england and wales tends to have a more old school membership (rather than middle class students as you seem to suggest all trotskyists are) and i seem to recall some dodgy positions re: supporting immigration controls but again i find it hard to believe there are actual racists amongst them

[bricolage]

yeah, I mean if anything it's the old guard class war (the group not the idea) type anarchists that could be said to veer into racism more than anyone else.

[Anarchrusty]

Michel, I'm not saying they were racist, the ones I talk about (which is NOT ALL Trots), I guess it was just an experience out of their league. You have to remember that UAF ers in a lot of cases are really just momma's boys fresh out of the nest, new at university and only beginning to see the world around them. I am not bashing them, I do acknowledge they will probably grow into their politics with time.

[Anarchrusty]

yeah, I mean if anything it's the old guard class war (the group not the idea) type anarchists that could be said to veer into racism more than anyone else.

That is ridiculous. Class War were an upstanding bunch of people. If you are referring to their anti islamist stance, you have to remember how much they opposed fundamentalist christianity as well.

[bricolage]

That is ridiculous. Class War were an upstanding bunch of people.
ha! I don't think they'd like being called 'upstanding'.
I didn't particularly mean the group but the people associated with that old school anarchist style.


If you are referring to their anti islamist stance, you have to remember how much they opposed fundamentalist christianity as well.
man, they burnt a mohammad effigy which just looked like an anonymous muslim at a time when governments are using 'anti-islamist stance[s]' to crack down on all asians. at best that was stupid, at worst it was racist.
that's just one example. tbh I'm sceptical of anyone that harps on about 'islamism' as a top concern.

[human strike]

I find that a lot of these Jihadi types have the same black and white worldview as white nationalists. Look at Breivik, a hater of muslims but he decided to shoot up the youth division of Norway's leading party. He accused them of selling out his country to foreigners, and I see an anology of that to this guy's probable motives.

Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms are very similar. Hardt and Negri talk about this in Empire, pp. 146-50, if you're interested.

[Leftsolidarity]

the fuck? how did this turn into tendency shit? what about discussion about the shooting in France and all the updates about it?

[bricolage]

Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms are very similar.
not in this context. these shooting will be followed by fresh politicians upping to rhetoric against 'muslim' (read: non-white) minority groups, increased police crackdowns, border controls, further deportations of roma communities, incursions in migrant camps like those at calais etc etc. you think the same thing would have happened if an 'extremist' christian had been on the rampage? likewise class war burnt and effigy of mohammad at a time when muslims (read: asians) were under attack by the state in the post-9/11, post 7/7 (I'm not actually sure of the date it happened) world. they burnt one of jesus at the same time, but considering the different ways in which the two communities were and are treated, they are not comparable.


Hardt and Negri talk about this in Empire, pp. 146-50, if you're interested.
aside from the fact that purely theoretical definitions are pretty irrelevant considering what I outlined above, empire is a terrible book.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So I guess the perp isn't a Nazi, after all.

[bcbm]

To be fair Hakim Bey kept going on about doing jihad in 'Millennium' and the like and there was nothing wrong with that from an anarchist perspective but then that was, what, 15 years ago and he wasn't dissing jihadis so maybe that wasn't quite the same actually I dunno...

hakim bey is wrong from an anarchist perspective

[hatzel]

hakim bey is wrong from an anarchist perspective

Ooh, haaarsh brah :lol:

But point is I still maintain that an anarchist (or anybody else, in fact) can use the word 'jihadi' unironically without necessarily being a massive tool. I think (by which I mean I know :cool:) the likes of Veneuse and other Muslim anarchists / anarchist Muslims use it, too...I don't think there's really a distinction between jihad and insurrection in this case, it's little but a translation of terms, the implementation of revolutionary concepts into an Islamic framework. Particularly given the fact that these people openly advocate jihadi - by which they mean revolutionary anarchist - struggle, that's their whole shtick. But of course that's very different from the use of jihad/i in this case, in this thread. I was just...suggesting that an anarchist can use the word jihadi unironically in given situations or circumstances, even if...whoever it was who said it here...wasn't in that situation or circumstance, and wasn't using jihad/i in that way.

Really it was me making an entirely unimportant point largely in agreement with Franz, whilst also pointing out that the European aversion towards the term 'jihad' is unfounded, given the range of possible applications and nuances of the term, and calling somebody a 'jihadi' should not be considered a valid means of discrediting an individual, nor should their (self-declared) commitment to 'jihad' discredit them. This, as Franz suggested, being a popular western colonialist-minded phenomenon, the word 'jihad' being considered dirty and unapproachable (whilst a word like 'crusade' is often seen as having no implicit negative connotations). Hence the issue with what's-his-face using it to imply that those associated with it are necessarily dirty and unapproachable. Problematic usage.

The above is all irrelevant, actually. Move on, people!

[bcbm]

shooter is dead (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/france-standoff.html)


French Interior Minister Claude Guéan said the suspect was hiding in the bathroom when an elite police squad raided the apartment in which he had been holed up. After quietly sitting in the bathtub while the officers searched the apartment, officials said, Merah came out with guns blazing and engaged the armed officers in a shootout.

Some officers said the gunfight was unlike any they had ever encountered.

Authorities said Merah then jumped out of a window of the apartment building, still shooting while falling to his death. Two police officers were injured in the gunfight but should recover, officials said.


Ooh, haaarsh brah

no i am serious hakim bey is a scum bag not an anarchist

[lombas]

There still are so much unclearities... I don't think we'll get the true version...

Apparently he was killed by a headshot, so he fell out of the window --- I don't see how anyone can jump out of a window shooting after that. I also don't consider headshots the result of 'self defence' if you're a fully armed, fully protected elite police officer.

Next to that - did he have explosives or not? Now they're talking about grenades and molotov cocktails found, first they said they didn't find any explosives...

[hatzel]

no i am serious hakim bey is a scum bag not an anarchist

That may very well be the case, but the issue at hand is less to do with whether or not he's coolio and more to do with whether his use of the word 'jihad' plays into the 'jihad = 'evil' stuff Muslims do; 'evil' stuff Muslims do = jihad'-inferences of its use in War on Terror(c)-rhetoric, and whether it is intended to delegitimise and stigmatise Islam and Muslims in an Islamophobic fashion, in light of its use in such a capacity in this thread. Though admittedly such a discussion is wildly off-topic...

[bcbm]

That may very well be the case, but the issue at hand is less to do with whether or not he's coolio and more to do with whether his use of the word 'jihad' plays into the 'jihad = 'evil' stuff Muslims do; 'evil' stuff Muslims do = jihad'-inferences of its use in War on Terror(c)-rhetoric, and whether it is intended to delegitimise and stigmatise Islam and Muslims in an Islamophobic fashion, in light of its use in such a capacity in this thread. Though admittedly such a discussion is wildly off-topic...

in this instance the issue raised was over the word 'jihadi' not 'jihad' and then lumping into a homogenous clump. hakim bey, or lets be real, peter lamborn wilson's use of the word is basically orientalism in my view, still playing on the otherness of islam, but as 'exotic and mystical' instead of 'scary and dangerous' as 'jihadi' alludes to.

[Anarchrusty]

So I guess everyone's heard that he's dead.
A group linked to Al Quida is claiming they have something to do with it. How much is true of that, I don't know.

Here's the article:

http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=379020

[Anarchrusty]

ha! I don't think they'd like being called 'upstanding'.
I didn't particularly mean the group but the people associated with that old school anarchist style.


man, they burnt a mohammad effigy which just looked like an anonymous muslim at a time when governments are using 'anti-islamist stance[s]' to crack down on all asians. at best that was stupid, at worst it was racist.
that's just one example. tbh I'm sceptical of anyone that harps on about 'islamism' as a top concern.


Too bad a little irony is lost on you, when I used the word ''upstanding''. Luckily, everyone else here is smart enough the see that.

Yeah, the effigy burning was in bad taste, I will be the first to acknowledge that. However, they didn't mean to cause what you claim they did. Most members regretted that afterwards. That doesn't make it right, but they are not bigots.

I harp on about Islamism as a top concern? I invite everyone to read all my posts here, so they can see I have never uttered a word about it. You are just trying to make me look bad when there is no such concern for that.

The topic is a sicko who has killed seven people, and I am the bad guy for thinking that is shitty? Get a fucking life, mate.

[hatzel]

in this instance the issue raised was over the word 'jihadi' not 'jihad' and then lumping into a homogenous clump.

I don't think there's so much of a distinction in popular parlance, if we are to assume that a 'jihadi' is simply one who is committed to 'jihad' as the term is understood; I think both would have to be addressed simultaneously. Most Muslims would certainly admit supporting jihad, though - importantly - would point out that their 'jihad' differs from the typical western understanding of the term. As it stands, though, both terms come with negative connotations, and connotations which seek to undermine a fundamental tenant of Islam and support the claim that all Muslims are 'terrorists' through a shared commitment to 'jihad' broadly defined.

Though if you're arguing that the term is used in order to subsume all radical Islamic activity - such as anti-imperialist struggle - under the umbrella of exclusively religiously-motivated violence and Islamism, rather than concrete political concerns, in order to discredit it then I tend to agree. Though this cannot be entirely disconnected from the other thing, in my opinion, as it presupposes 'Islamic' concerns are inherently illegitimate...


hakim bey, or lets be real, peter lamborn wilson's use of the word is basically orientalism in my view, still playing on the otherness of islam, but as 'exotic and mystical' instead of 'scary and dangerous' as 'jihadi' alludes to.

That could certainly be suggested, as I'm not entirely convinced of his commitment to Islam and engagement with the culture of...wherever he was, Iran or somewhere, I forget. Despite that, his writings have certainly proven somewhat influential amongst undeniably 'authentic' Muslim anarchists who definitely don't succumb to orientalist conceptions of Islam. In particular his understanding of jihad, which is alluded to in many such writings, though admittedly developed further. But of course I'm a massive hipster and assume all these anarcho-Muslims I find myself reading are insanely obscure which is why I picked a more 'mainstream' name...great excuse, I think you'll find...

[l'Enfermé]

Good thing they killed him.

[bcbm]

Though if you're arguing

i wasn't really. i don't care that much.



That could certainly be suggested, as I'm not entirely convinced of his commitment to Islam and engagement with the culture of...wherever he was, Iran or somewhere, I forget. Despite that, his writings have certainly proven somewhat influential amongst undeniably 'authentic' Muslim anarchists who definitely don't succumb to orientalist conceptions of Islam. In particular his understanding of jihad, which is alluded to in many such writings, though admittedly developed further. But of course I'm a massive hipster and assume all these anarcho-Muslims I find myself reading are insanely obscure which is why I picked a more 'mainstream' name...great excuse, I think you'll find...

its too bad he has caught on he is a pedo creep

[KlassWar]

Disclaimer: I do not support that bastard: Islamism is reactionary and stupid, and you just can't go 'round killin' kids, that's atrocious. Still, some posters have raised more general points about random violence that I feel need to be adressed... :p



Isolated acts of violence only defeat your cause. You need to have purpose and appeal to the masses, you need to have a meaning, a symbol. This random shit is disgusting, trivial and ultimately self defeating. Nothing is being done here...

There. Fixed it for ya. For furter 'splaining...



If one sets a car on fire, that is a criminal offence. If one sets hundreds of cars on fire, that is political action.

[bcbm]

didn't exactly turn out well for ulrike meinhof either though did it

[sithsaber]

Sarkosy approval ratings probably just shot up 10 points

[lombas]

Mélenchon beats Le Pen in yesterday's poll 14% to 13%!

Sarkozy is within margin of error of Hollande - 28% to 29,5%.

But all candidates' reaction to this will probably determine the rest of the race, with one month to go. I'm curious to see next week's poll.