US Imperialist Troops posed with body parts of Afghanistan People. What a sick Army

[TrotskistMarx]

US Imperialist troops posed on pictures, with body parts of Afghanistan citizens. What a sick Armed Forces, the US military are. THE USA: THE HOME OF FREE, THE BEACON OF LIGHT AND MORALITY (WHAT A B.S. !!)


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/la-afghan-soldier-story-1.jpg

An American soldier says he released the photos to the Los Angeles Times to draw attention to the safety risk of a breakdown in leadership and discipline. The Army has started a criminal investigation.

By David Zucchino

April 18, 2012 " Los Angeles Times" -- The paratroopers had their assignment: Check out reports that Afghan police had recovered the mangled remains of an insurgent suicide bomber. Try to get iris scans and fingerprints for identification. The 82nd Airborne Division soldiers arrived at the police station in Afghanistan's Zabol province in February 2010. They inspected the body parts. Then the mission turned macabre: The paratroopers posed for photos next to Afghan police, grinning while some held — and others squatted beside — the corpse's severed legs. A few months later, the same platoon was dispatched to investigate the remains of three insurgents who Afghan police said had accidentally blown themselves up. After obtaining a few fingerprints, they posed next to the remains, again grinning and mugging for photographs. Two soldiers posed holding a dead man's hand with the middle finger raised. A soldier leaned over the bearded corpse while clutching the man's hand. Someone placed an unofficial platoon patch reading "Zombie Hunter" next to other remains and took a picture.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/la-69455350.jpg

The Army launched a criminal investigation after the Los Angeles Times showed officials copies of the photos, which recently were given to the paper by a soldier from the division. "It is a violation of Army standards to pose with corpses for photographs outside of officially sanctioned purposes," said George Wright, an Army spokesman. "Such actions fall short of what we expect of our uniformed service members in deployed areas." Wright said that after the investigation, the Army would "take appropriate action" against those involved. Most of the soldiers in the photos have been identified, said Lt. Col. Margaret Kageleiry, an Army spokeswoman. The photos have emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for U.S.-Afghan relations. In January, a video appeared on the Internet showing four U.S. Marines urinating on Afghan corpses. In February, the inadvertent burning of copies of the Koran at a U.S. base triggered riots that left 30 dead and led to the deaths of six Americans. In March, a U.S. Army sergeant went on a nighttime shooting rampage in two Afghan villages, killing 17.

The soldier who provided The Times with a series of 18 photos of soldiers posing with corpses did so on condition of anonymity. He served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne's 4th Brigade Combat Team from Ft. Bragg, N.C. He said the photos point to a breakdown in leadership and discipline that he believed compromised the safety of the troops. He expressed the hope that publication would help ensure that alleged security shortcomings at two U.S. bases in Afghanistan in 2010 were not repeated. The brigade, under new command but with some of the same paratroopers who served in 2010, began another tour in Afghanistan in February.

U.S. military officials asked The Times not to publish any of the pictures. Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said the conduct depicted "most certainly does not represent the character and the professionalism of the great majority of our troops in Afghanistan.... Nevertheless, this imagery — more than two years old — now has the potential to indict them all in the minds of local Afghans, inciting violence and perhaps causing needless casualties." Kirby added, "We have taken the necessary precautions to protect our troops in the event of any backlash." Times Editor Davan Maharaj said, "After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan, including the allegation that the images reflect a breakdown in unit discipline that was endangering U.S. troops."

The photos were taken during a yearlong deployment of the 3,500-member brigade, which lost 35 men during that time, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks casualties. At least 23 were killed by homemade bombs or suicide bombers. Suicide attacks on two bases of the brigade's 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment killed six U.S. soldiers and four Afghan interpreters. The platoon whose soldiers posed for the photos was part of the battalion. The soldier who provided the photos, and two other former members of the battalion, said in separate interviews that they and others had complained of inadequate security at the two bases. An Army investigation into a July 2010 suicide attack in Kandahar that killed four U.S. soldiers found that senior members of the battalion had complained about security. But it concluded that force protection measures were "reasonable and prudent" in the face of limited resources.

Virtually all of the men depicted in the photos had friends who were killed or wounded by homemade bombs or suicide attacks, according to the soldier who provided the images. One paratrooper on the mission wore a bracelet bearing the name of a fallen comrade. On the first mission, to the police station in the provincial capital of Qalat, Afghan police told the platoon that the severed legs belonged to a suicide bomber whose explosives detonated as he tried to attack a police unit, according to the soldier who provided the photos. On the second mission, to the morgue in Qalat in late April or early May 2010, Afghan police told the platoon that explosives had detonated as three insurgents were preparing a roadside bomb.

The platoon was able to obtain some fingerprints from the corpses for a database maintained by U.S. forces, the soldier said. The soldiers felt a sense of triumph and satisfaction, especially after learning that the insurgents had been killed by their own explosives, he said. "They were frustrated, just pissed off — their buddies had been blown up by IEDs" — improvised explosive devices — the soldier said. "So they sort of just celebrated." The Qalat photos were circulated among several members of the platoon, the soldier said, and soldiers often joked about them. Most of the soldiers in the photos were low-ranking — including six specialists or privates.

Col. Brian Drinkwine, then-commander of the 4th Brigade, and Lt. Col. David Oclander, then-commander of the 1st Battalion, said they were not authorized to comment on the photos. The Pentagon declined a Times request that Army officials contact all active-duty soldiers in the photos to provide an opportunity to comment. The Times sent requests for comment by email and Facebook to seven soldiers in the photos. One, now serving in Afghanistan, declined to comment. The others did not respond. The photos were taken during a tumultuous period in the brigade's deployment. In January 2010, the commander of the brigade's 2nd Battalion and the battalion's top noncommissioned officer were relieved of duty and ordered home after slides with racial and sexist overtones were shown during daily PowerPoint briefings.

Separately, an Army investigation criticized Drinkwine for failing to prevent his wife from threatening and harassing some unit officers and their spouses during the deployment. Ft. Bragg's commanding general, Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick, told the Fayetteville Observer in June 2010 that Drinkwine had created "a dysfunctional situation" in the unit. Drinkwine remained in command until after the deployment ended that August.

SOURCE: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31108.htm


.

[Mista Commie]

Those guys are sick bastards. Too bad they probably won't get convicted...

[Left Leanings]

Here is another link to the same story, in which an expected backlash against American personnel in Afghanistan is expected:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131516/US-troops-posing-corpses-Afghanistan-photos-2010-cause-outrage.html

And yeah, as has been noted above, the bastards will be cleared of it, no doubt.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Scandals like this were happening in Vietnam as well. Total breakdown of discipline. Their CO's either didn't know, or (most likely) didn't care.

I hope the Taliban decapitates them...

[gorillafuck]

US Imperialist troops posed on pictures, with body parts of Afghanistan citizens. What a sick Armed Forces, the US military are. THE USA: THE HOME OF FREE, THE BEACON OF LIGHT AND MORALITY (WHAT A B.S. !!)this is misleading. you worded that in a way where it seems that they killed or found the bodies of average citizens and posed with them. there's an obvious difference between taking photos with the bodies of regular Afghanistan citizens and suicide bombers.

[Mr. Natural]

I'm shocked that comrades are shocked. Just what did you expect war to be like? Look at that first photo in which a kid with a tatoo on his neck is goofing on a corpse. This is a kid--a kid that imperialism has turned into a professional killer.

Capitalism has turned us all into killers: killlers of the human species. We are all goofing off while capitalism cashes us in. I am especially taken aback by the lack of any real radical thinking on the left. There is a conservative resistance to new ideas--despite being stuck in capitalism's place--that I find most disturbing, albeit understandable. It is understandable in that capitalism has triumphed, and the left has become mentally captive within The System.

I just finished W. Bruce Lincoln's Red Victory, a tale of the Russian Civil War. Are comrades aware of the horrendous conduct of the Red Army in the Civil War? Yes, these were the most desperate of times, but the list of tortures I read through--whether at the hands of the military or the Cheka .... The innocents and loyal Bolsheviks who were swept up in dragnets, tortured and shot ....

I'm no fucking pacifist, but there is a line of barbarism and degeneracy that Reds cannot cross. Meanwhile, my next door neighbor (who was Special Forces in Viet Nam, Laos, Southeast Asia) and I will be discussing the left's tidy outrage at the conduct of American imperialism.

You want clean, sanitized war? We're there! How bout them predator drones? The guys and gals who pilot these Orwellian nightmares from air-conditioned trailers in the Nevada desert won't be posing with any body parts. This is the new, improved, sanitary imperialism that doesn't come into personal contact with its mass-murdered victims.

The left can do much, much better and must.

[Alfonso Cano]

I just finished W. Bruce Lincoln's Red Victory, a tale of the Russian Civil War. Are comrades aware of the horrendous conduct of the Red Army in the Civil War? Yes, these were the most desperate of times, but the list of tortures I read through--whether at the hands of the military or the Cheka .... The innocents and loyal Bolsheviks who were swept up in dragnets, tortured and shot ....


Whatever mistakes were made by the Bolsheviks during the civil war, some facts need to be taken into account:

-the White "army" commited far bloodier and much larger crimes

-the Bolshevik "Red Terror" was a response to the White one. Until the summer of 1918 and beginning of civil war (or, better described, invasion of Soviet Russia by more than a dozen foreign intervention forces supported by domestic reactionary butchers, armed and supplied by foreign capitalists) there was no mass violence targeted against political opponents and total number of people executed until that time was 22. When the reaction tried to take power from the workers by violence, Revolution struck them with just and historically progressive terror.

-there is a difference beetwen violence of the oppressed and the oppressors, no matter how much that could sound incredible and unacceptable to moralists and pacifists. But we are neither of that. We are Marxists, materialists and revolutionaries and as such we need to look at violence from a perspective of human progress and liberation. In Russian civil war the Bolsheviks were using the violence to promote the worker's conquest of political power, social liberation and the right to work, education, healthcare, dignified life, as well as national equality, women's rights and solidarity with oppressed people's of the world, while the Whites used it to impose a burgeous class dictatorship, not in the form of Western liberal democracy, but as a unlimited despotism of White butcher Kolchak who wiped out entire cities populated with workers and Lav Kornilov who, giving example to Hitler, slaughtered 150 000 "Judeo-Bolsheviks" trying to preserve private property. Yes, both sides used violence as a means, but it is their goals which matter the most in our evaluation. We cannot compare and equal the violence of slaves and slave-owners in Spartacus uprising, Robespierre and Louis XVI terror (there were like less than 10 prisoners in the famous Bastille before the Revolution, while Robespierre's terror killed tens of thousands), despite the former being immeasurably greater than the later, the same way the comparisions beetwen Stalin and capitalist mass murderers are nothing more than idiotic ramblings of deranged people, considering that, despite its flaws, Soviet Union was still the embodiment of progress during Stalin's time and it used the violence to protect those ideals, while those that opposed it were guardians of a system that has been overrun by the time and condemned to the dustbin of history. So, when we are looking at violence, we need to see it from a class perspective, not a moralistic one. Only when we had understood whether a particular movement is fighting for the establishment of a more just and free social relations and for the advancement of human race, can we tell whether their violence was "good" or "bad"...

[Alfonso Cano]

I hope the Taliban decapitates them...


Taliban, a reactionary, feudal, mysoginist, anti-Communist movement, product of the chaos and turmoil in the Afghanistan following the fall of the PDPA government and funded in their quest for power by Pakistan and their intelligence service ISI in order to expand the influence of Pakistani bourgeois towards Central Asia and consolidate Afghanistan in the single market open to their exploitation, is according to you a force for liberation of Afghanistan and not an agent of Pakistani imperialism and domestic quasi-feudal class?

I believe you should be decapitated! :D (joke)

[Misanthrope]

Scandals like this were happening in Vietnam as well. Total breakdown of discipline. Their CO's either didn't know, or (most likely) didn't care.

I hope the Taliban decapitates them...

I'm sorry but what the fuck? To support the Taliban and call yourself a leftist? The Taliban have committed atrocities as well. It's war, these men are demented and psychologically sick. They are victims of imperialism; of capitalism.

[The Douche]

The effect war can have on individuals is really depressing.

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed suicide bombers are not only evil, but anti-scientific, anti-rational, suicidal and do not lead to the overthrow of capitalism and any oppressive tyranny !! We as leftists and moralists should be against weapons, against death against violence. Indeed I wish there were guns that put people to sleep instead of killing them.

We need a world without guns, without weapons, or at least with guns that would put people to sleep, instead of killing them. Thanks !!


.


this is misleading. you worded that in a way where it seems that they killed or found the bodies of average citizens and posed with them. there's an obvious difference between taking photos with the bodies of regular Afghanistan citizens and suicide bombers.

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed, this world is full of crimes, chaos, violence, hatred, verbal violence, psychologic violence and all other forms of violence. Humans need to evolve into an altruism and more rational human beings. Of course Marx said that the economic conditions and material conditions of a person like their income, like if their basic needs are fulfilled or not fulfilled. All that leads a person to behave better. I think that's why socialism is needed in order to decrease the psychologic, physical and spiritual violence in this world. Thanks

.


The effect war can have on individuals is really depressing.

[The Machine]

not for nothing but im pretty sure that neck tats out of regs too.

shitbirds gonna shit

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Poor people killing other poor people for the benefit of the rich. It's mind-boggling how they take pride in their occupations.

[kashkin]

While I mostly agree that soldiers are also victims of war and capitalism. I do think this article is really good: http://buffalobeast.com/?p=10792

[ВАЛТЕР]

I'm sorry but what the fuck? To support the Taliban and call yourself a leftist? The Taliban have committed atrocities as well. It's war, these men are demented and psychologically sick. They are victims of imperialism; of capitalism.

Supporting the Taliban? Bahaha no I don't support the Taliban. However, since I don't give a shit about NATO soldiers and since the two groups are already killing each other. Then I hope these fuckers end up being casualties. In the most horrid way possible.



Another thing, what bothers me isn't the images, or the actions that take place in war. What bothers me is the hypocrisy of the west. They have the audacity to say they are doing all of these things for freedom and democracy and whatnot, yet they are willing to allow this sort of thing to happen. If you are going to be a baby murdering terror state, then at least come out and say "I don't give a shit about ethics and the rules of war." Don't insult everyone's collective intelligence by claiming you represent democracy.

So yes I repeat, I hope the Taliban captures them, and decapitates them with a dull knife. Why? Because fuck them that's why. Fuck the Taliban too. It would be even better if a militia of the Afghan people was formed, and they took action against both the Taliban fundamentalist maniacs, and the NATO animals that call themselves "human beings". However, we all know that isn't happening any time soon.

So since two enemies are fighting each other, your best course of action is to root that they both kill each other off.

[The Douche]

not for nothing but im pretty sure that neck tats out of regs too.

shitbirds gonna shit

It is now, but it probably wasn't when that kid enlisted. They only recently changed the tattoo regulations for the army back to the previous standards. When I joined you couldn't have tattoos on your face/neck/hands/head, then about a year after that they changed to allow neck/hands/head, now with the downsizing they went back to the old standards.


Sorry, sergeant major...

[The Douche]

Poor people killing other poor people for the benefit of the rich. It's mind-boggling how they take pride in their occupations.

Think for a second about the sort of lies you would emotionally, need, to tell yourself in order to not put a bullet in your brain if you were fighting in an imperialist war.

[Mr. Natural]

Alfonso Cano, Yes, White terror during the Russian Civil War somehow managed to exceed the massive terrorism and torture by the Reds, but the extent and nature of Red terrorism was absolutely unacceptable. The demoralization, degeneracy and degradation of communism this terrorism represented then became institutionalized as Stalinism.

I can make a lot of semi-valid excuses for this mass, calculated Red terrorism. Indeed, Marx himself advocated a directed but limited violent, terroristic suppression of the workers' class enemies to prevent counterrevolution: "Far from opposing so-called excesses, instances of popular revenge against hated individuals or public buildings that are associated only with hateful recollections, such instances must not only be tolerated but the leadership of them taken in hand .... If the democracy from the outset comes out resolutely and terroristically against the reaction, the influence of the latter in the elections will be destroyed in advance." ("Address to the Communist League," 1848)

And of course, the Russian Revolution immediately found itself in the most desperate of circumstances. As a systems theorist, I know that communism could not have possibly have survived such a hostile environment.

Alfonso Cano, I see you are a supporter of the FARC-EP, and I'm afraid that says you are addicted to violent visions of "revolution." Here's a couple of questions for you and other comrades. Would your Red terror include immobilizing someone and placing a cage around his head into which you toss a couple of starved rats? This was Cheka practice. And would you authorize military units to wipe out villages suspected of supporting the Whites or Greens or Makhno?

That tattooed kid and the guy holding the severed legs are innocent naifs in comparison with the conduct of the Cheka and the Red Army in the Civil War. I'm a Red, and it is painful for me to post this.

The purpose of communist revolution is not to break eggs, but to make an omelette.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

I don't know how people still support them.

[Anderson]

What else can we expect from soldiers of an imperialist army invading and plundering the lives of people with whom they have no affection and no obligation to serve or protect.:(

[Alfonso Cano]

Alfonso Cano, Yes, White terror during the Russian Civil War somehow managed to exceed the massive terrorism and torture by the Reds, but the extent and nature of Red terrorism was absolutely unacceptable.

Again, look at French Revolution. There were less then a dozen people imprisoned in the Bastille, yet somehow Robespierre's terror killed tens of thousands. Is that acceptable? According to me, it is. At that time, the
bourgeois was playing a historically progressive role, and no matter what violence it used, it was justified in order to replace feudal tiranny which was hampering the development of productive forces. The same goes with Russian Revolution. Marxists are not moralists. They see the violence as "good or bad" depending on whether it plays a historically progressive role or not. Marx himself saw colonialism as progressive force and he supported it critically believing that, despite the massive violence equalled only by Nazi barbarities, it would lead to spreading of capitalism in Asia and destruction of the historically backward Asiatic mode of production, which would backfire for capitalism itself by creating conditions for its own destruction by the working classes of those countries. Which actually happened. The revolutions in China, Vietnam and Korea would not have been possible if this countries have not been before that penetrated by western capital, though at a horrendous cost. So, to conclude. Violence is justified only when it is used to change relations of production in a historically progressive way. Were Whites trying to do that?


Alfonso Cano, I see you are a supporter of the FARC-EP, and I'm afraid that says you are addicted to violent visions of "revolution."

I'm not addicted to anything. I'm a Marxist, which means that I have a materialist perception of history. All "revolutions" :rolleyes: are violent, some more, some less, because the law of historical development is that not a single ruling class has relinquished its power peacefully. Everyone who doesn't approve this is either a reactionary or a misguided and confused person. And the consequences of this kind of idealism are disastrous. When workers in Paris Commune refused to utilise revolutionary terror effectively, the bourgeois used this to organise themselves and stage a counter-revolution which costed tens of thousands of workers lives. In Germany, workers were weakly organised and were not led by "bloody" Bolsheviks, but by "civilised" Social-Democrats, so they were all slaughtered; leading to the rise of Nazism which wiped out tens of millions. If they had just utilized that damn terror... Same story happened in Iran in 1953, in Guatemala in 1954, in Iraq in 1963, in Brazil in 1964, in Indonesia in 1965, in Chile in 1973, in Nicaragua during the 80's, and the list goes on...

Oh, and as to the FARC... I don't recall FARC ever using mass revolutionary terror to suppress its opponents. FARC was founded as a response to the institutionalised violence of the rulling class against the workers and peasants of Colombia. It never had a "violent vision of the revolution" and it always worked for the establishment of peace, not war. They even tried to win power through the institutional road, participating in the elections in the 80's; just as you would have liked. As to what happened to them, google the Patriotic Union.


Would your Red terror include immobilizing someone and placing a cage around his head into which you toss a couple of starved rats? This was Cheka practice.

Never heard for such a practice. Source? Possibly, unbiased one.


And would you authorize military units to wipe out villages suspected of supporting the Whites or Greens or Makhno


That tattooed kid and the guy holding the severed legs are innocent naifs in comparison with the conduct of the Cheka and the Red Army in the Civil War. I'm a Red, and it is painful for me to post this.

Yes, Robespierre utilized horrendous means to achieve progressive goals. It was reverse for the Louis XVI. Yes, the Bolsheviks utilized horrendous means to achieve progressive goals, while the US Army utilizes horrendous means for horrendous goals. That's the difference and you seem unable to grasp it. These two things, although on surface they may look the same, are in fact totally incomparable. I believe this answers your questions.


The purpose of communist revolution is not to break eggs, but to make an omelette.

No, the purpose of communist revolution is to break as much capitalist eggs as necessary in order to make an omelette for the hungry working class.

[Misanthrope]

Supporting the Taliban? Bahaha no I don't support the Taliban. However, since I don't give a shit about NATO soldiers and since the two groups are already killing each other. Then I hope these fuckers end up being casualties. In the most horrid way possible.

You're making a mockery of war. Wouldn't a leftist take a... y'know...take a leftist approach to war? Other then wishing the soldiers dead. It seems you have forgotten that soldiers are not the perpetrators of war but the capitalist is. What's more is that you show no regard or mention of the civilians that would be affected by those "fuckers" becoming casualties in "the most horrid way possible." Leftists oppose imperialism . They do not mock it nor do they belittle the victims.



Another thing, what bothers me isn't the images, or the actions that take place in war. What bothers me is the hypocrisy of the west. They have the audacity to say they are doing all of these things for freedom and democracy and whatnot, yet they are willing to allow this sort of thing to happen. If you are going to be a baby murdering terror state, then at least come out and say "I don't give a shit about ethics and the rules of war." Don't insult everyone's collective intelligence by claiming you represent democracy.

They aren't insulting everyone's intelligence because "everyone" does see America as the "good guy". It's shocking that you view hypocrisy as a worse crime than imperialist occupation.




So yes I repeat, I hope the Taliban captures them, and decapitates them with a dull knife. Why? Because fuck them that's why. Fuck the Taliban too. It would be even better if a militia of the Afghan people was formed, and they took action against both the Taliban fundamentalist maniacs, and the NATO animals that call themselves "human beings". However, we all know that isn't happening any time soon.

So since two enemies are fighting each other, your best course of action is to root that they both kill each other off.

So let me get this straight... you oppose the war but just want the most brutal, sadistic warfare possible?

Soldiers in the Taliban and United States are predominantly lower class, uneducated with proletariat background. They are victims to the nationalist propaganda machine which is military recruitment and their own material conditions. Beating the drums of war and thinking the war will end because they "will all kill each other off" is completely absurd, immature and down right inhumane.

[bcbm]

i don't know why people get surprised/shocked/outrage when these things happen, stuff like this has been a part of warfare since like i don't know 8000 years ago? maybe longer who knows. sure its sick but i can't imagine what people think is going to happen when you turn young people into hardened killers and train them to not view their enemies as human beings


Indeed suicide bombers are not only evil, but anti-scientific, anti-rational, suicidal

actually they tend to be perfectly rational altruists and their actions make tactical sense.

[Mr. Natural]

Alfonso Cano, We live in very different parts of the world. I live in the belly of the beast among the people most captured and tamed by capitalism, and I'm looking for means to organize. In my part of the world, the initial organizing, at least, can only be non-violent, although we both know that revolutions will always contain violence. In the US, though, the ruling class/government has an increasing monopoly of violent means, and cannot be overthrown violently, imo.

The source for the starved rats feeding on Cheka prisoners? It was a large book I read a few years ago that traced this practice to ancient China, I believe. I am embarassed that I cannot give you the exact source, but such practices are rife in works from Evan Mawdsley, W. Bruce Lincoln, Timothy Snyder, Alexander Rabinowitch, etc.

I find your tacit acceptance of wiping out villages to further the cause to be near-monstrous. Are you putting in your claim to be Milosevic's heir? Come on, Alfonso Cano, communist revolution is about human liberation, and must be conducted with this firmly in mind. "Red terror" is almost an oxymoron. I'm not interested in killing capitalists but in killing capitalism and class divisions of the human species.

As for the FARC, well, the situation in Colombia is really, really fucked up, isn't it? I see the FARC as becoming as sort of Khmer Rouge or Sendero Luminoso, and doubt any of its founding leftist principles survive.

My red-green, revolution-as-human-liberation best.

[Bostana]

Disgusting.

Your enemies body parts aren't trophies to be held.

[ВАЛТЕР]

You're making a mockery of war. Wouldn't a leftist take a... y'know...take a leftist approach to war? Other then wishing the soldiers dead. It seems you have forgotten that soldiers are not the perpetrators of war but the capitalist is. What's more is that you show no regard or mention of the civilians that would be affected by those "fuckers" becoming casualties in "the most horrid way possible." Leftists oppose imperialism . They do not mock it nor do they belittle the victims.

The soldiers are the ones doing the fighting. They are the ones physically doing all of the harm. Why would I bring civilians into this? The fact is I want the soldiers dead. All of them, dead. They are war criminals. Just like in WW2 I won't shed a single tear for any of the axis troops. I view the NATO war machine the same way I view the axis one of ww2. An imperialist weapon of terror.




They aren't insulting everyone's intelligence because "everyone" does see America as the "good guy". It's shocking that you view hypocrisy as a worse crime than imperialist occupation.

I don't view it as a worse crime, I view it as adding insult to injury. It puts the icing on the cake. You go off and commit war crimes, and occupy nations, then have the audacity to say it is for "freedom". It is what frustrates me. The war crimes are horrible, the invasion is horrible, the war itself is horrible. The propaganda just adds fuel to the fire.





So let me get this straight... you oppose the war but just want the most brutal, sadistic warfare possible?

I want the most dead, maimed, and wounded reactionaries as possible. That includes the NATO troops carrying out their actions, and the Taliban carrying out their actions. Doesn't have to be in combat. Maybe on leave they crash their car and die.



Soldiers in the Taliban and United States are predominantly lower class, uneducated with proletariat background. They are victims to the nationalist propaganda machine which is military recruitment and their own material conditions. Beating the drums of war and thinking the war will end because they "will all kill each other off" is completely absurd, immature and down right inhumane.

These aren't conscripted soldiers where I can say "oh well they a were forced". These are people who willingly signed up to go and "kill brown people in a far away land". I have friends in the US who are soldiers in the military. Most of them joined talking about some bullshit sense of "patriotism" and "duty". I sincerely hope they get a bullet in their ass. The ones I knew who were sincerely poor and needed money for college, or had no alternate due to personal problems, all chose to work in some logistics department where they wouldn't face combat, or even carry a gun. Several of my friends are mechanics in the military who work regular hours at a base. This decision I can understand and will even support given their circumstances. However, to decide that you want to go to the front line is nothing short of willingly supporting imperialism and capitalism.

The second they pick up a gun and march into another nation they stop being "working class" and become tools of imperialism. These same soldiers would gladly take aim and shoot at you or me if they were given the order. These soldiers are our enemies, and the less of our enemies the better. They are tools of capitalism and imperialism. Nothing working class about them. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill me or you in the name "democracy and freedom".

"Inhumane" good, they aren't humans, they are occupiers and oppressors. Let them die if they wish to serve the capitalist state. Nothing of value will be lost.

Until they come around and develop some kind of class consciousness, and refuse to fight. They have no sympathy from me. Simply because they are NOT our friends, they are NOT on our side, they are NOT working class. They are the very people that defend capital. They are capitals vanguard, they are what backs up every capitalist policy and action. They are who we will fight in the streets. Not the bankers themselves, but these very same men and women will be shooting at me and you. So logically I want less of them around.

[black magick hustla]

i don't know why people get surprised/shocked/outrage when these things happen, stuff like this has been a part of warfare since like i don't know 8000 years ago? maybe longer who knows. sure its sick but i can't imagine what people think is going to happen when you turn young people into hardened killers and train them to not view their enemies as human beings
.

i think this is obv. but i think the media/state/whatever always try to stress the professionalism and "humanity" of american soldiers and this shit stands starkly opposite.

[Alfonso Cano]

Alfonso Cano, We live in very different parts of the world. I live in the belly of the beast among the people most captured and tamed by capitalism, and I'm looking for means to organize. In my part of the world, the initial organizing, at least, can only be non-violent, although we both know that revolutions will always contain violence. In the US, though, the ruling class/government has an increasing monopoly of violent means, and cannot be overthrown violently, imo.

I agree with that. Where have I claimed opposite?


The source for the starved rats feeding on Cheka prisoners? It was a large book I read a few years ago that traced this practice to ancient China, I believe. I am embarassed that I cannot give you the exact source, but such practices are rife in works from Evan Mawdsley, W. Bruce Lincoln, Timothy Snyder, Alexander Rabinowitch, etc.


OK. Irrelevant. Robespierre did far worst things, still French Revolution was a gigantic leap forward.


I find your tacit acceptance of wiping out villages to further the cause to be near-monstrous. Are you putting in your claim to be Milosevic's heir?

I accept violence as necessary only when it is used for progressive goals. When French "Whites" rebelled in Vendee, the Republic responded in a genocidal way. And, they were totally right in doing it. When Whites tried to topple the Soviets, the Bolsheviks responded in the same way. And, they were justified in doing so. Was Milosevic regime in any way progressive? No, it was not. Would I support revolutionaries in violently overthrowing it? Wholeheartedly, I would. I find your tacit acceptance of using such empty "arguments" as calling in Milosevic in order to discredit me to be near-monstrous. The fact that I'm from Montenegro doesn't mean that you have the right to call me a supporter of genocidal quasi-fascist regimes!!! OK??? :thumbdown: :rolleyes:


Come on, Alfonso Cano, communist revolution is about human liberation, and must be conducted with this firmly in mind. "Red terror" is almost an oxymoron. I'm not interested in killing capitalists but in killing capitalism and class divisions of the human species.

Revolutions are a violent overthrow of one ruling class by another. Which, implies that violence will be necessary, even if not wanted, outcome. For those that defyed this rule and consequences of this, see Chile 1973.


As for the FARC, well, the situation in Colombia is really, really fucked up, isn't it? I see the FARC as becoming as sort of Khmer Rouge or Sendero Luminoso, and doubt any of its founding leftist principles survive.

First you compare me with Milosevic, than you compare FARC with the Khmer Rouge. Your statement is just a baseless accusation unsupported by any historical fact whatsoever and its only purpose is to demonise a movement which, according to many, is the most potent anti-imperialist force in the western hemisphere. Instead of throwing baseless insults, why don't you actually present any proof that FARC is even remotely close to SL, not to mention KR. It is estimated that during its rule at least 400 000 people were killed by Khmer Rouge, while the greatest crime attributted to FARC is Bojaya massacre in 2002 in which around 100 people were accidentally killed by a mortar grenade that has lost its course. Oh, yeah. FARC also has a habit of carrying out a "justicia revolucionaria" in its areas, in which government spies, the sapos, are killed for their activities. Which is basically done by every normal government in times of war. Could you name me any alleged FARC crimes that in any measure equal anything done by KR, or should I just take this as a attempt of appeal to emotions by linking widely despised KR with FARC in order to demonise the latter?


and doubt any of its founding leftist principles survive.

FARC is a revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist organisation with such a history and tradition, that this which you said, is an example of utter and worst kind of ignorance comparable only to that of George W. Bush. During almost half a century of its existence it has consistently fought for peace, socialism, land reform, workers rights, democracy, while probably tens of thousands of its members have perished trying to achieve that noble goal. 10 000 of them are currently being tortured in Colombia's horrendous prisons for trying to achieve social change. Some of them were born in affluent families, and yet they have sacrificed everything for emancipation of the working class. Simon Trinidad, currently serving 60-year sentence in US, was educated at Harvard. Joaquin Gomez, member of FARC Secretariat, was schooled in the Soviet Union and was university professor before he sacrificed everything for his ideals. Alfonso Cano, fought until the last drop of his blood with 6 000 Colombian Special Forces trained by US Green Berets, supported by dozens of US supplied Black Hawk helicopters. Totally surrounded, he refused to surrender and perished after 40 years of revolutionary struggle, majority of which he spent in jungles and mountains, sleeping without bed, without fancy food and any luxury. He originated from upper-middle class family in Bogota, studying anthroplogy in youth and dedicating his entire life to the emancipation of workers and peasants, while his organisation is being criticised by western "revolutionaries" sitting in their chairs, typing on their computers and fantacising about perfect revolutions. Have you ever stood up to your principles in times of danger, and if not, where did you get the right to criticize people who gave their life for "abandoning" their founding leftist principles?


My red-green, revolution-as-human-liberation best.

Cheers from me, as well. Let's hope we will cure bourgeous pacifism for your own good. ;)

[Proteus]

The US is al-Qaeda's one indispensable ally.

[Princess Luna]

The Los Angeles Times deserves a shit load of respect for actually having the guts publish this story and photos even after being told by the Pentagon not to. It is nice to see that there is at least one major news-source in the US that still has a shred of journalistic integrity.

[Misanthrope]

The soldiers are the ones doing the fighting. They are the ones physically doing all of the harm. Why would I bring civilians into this? The fact is I want the soldiers dead. All of them, dead. They are war criminals. Just like in WW2 I won't shed a single tear for any of the axis troops. I view the NATO war machine the same way I view the axis one of ww2. An imperialist weapon of terror.


Because civilians are the copious innocent victims of war. You mind telling me how a revolution can be successful without any military experience? I find it hypocritical that you leave on the Allies when talking about WWII. It was an imperialist state conflict but that's neither here nor there. The fact is, a worker's revolution will not be successful without soldiers.



I don't view it as a worse crime, I view it as adding insult to injury. It puts the icing on the cake. You go off and commit war crimes, and occupy nations, then have the audacity to say it is for "freedom". It is what frustrates me. The war crimes are horrible, the invasion is horrible, the war itself is horrible. The propaganda just adds fuel to the fire.

Every militarized state has had war propaganda with extreme nationalism, what the fuck is your point? You're preaching to the choir.





I want the most dead, maimed, and wounded reactionaries as possible. That includes the NATO troops carrying out their actions, and the Taliban carrying out their actions. Doesn't have to be in combat. Maybe on leave they crash their car and die.

The law of unintended consequences. This is not an anti-war approach. The more deaths; the more violence; the more destruction. The countries are already torn to dust. What will both armies fighting a war of attrition prove? Read: The Vietnam War.





These aren't conscripted soldiers where I can say "oh well they a were forced". These are people who willingly signed up to go and "kill brown people in a far away land". I have friends in the US who are soldiers in the military. Most of them joined talking about some bullshit sense of "patriotism" and "duty". I sincerely hope they get a bullet in their ass. The ones I knew who were sincerely poor and needed money for college, or had no alternate due to personal problems, all chose to work in some logistics department where they wouldn't face combat, or even carry a gun. Several of my friends are mechanics in the military who work regular hours at a base. This decision I can understand and will even support given their circumstances. However, to decide that you want to go to the front line is nothing short of willingly supporting imperialism and capitalism. The second they pick up a gun and march into another nation they stop being "working class" and become tools of imperialism. These same soldiers would gladly take aim and shoot at you or me if they were given the order. These soldiers are our enemies, and the less of our enemies the better. They are tools of capitalism and imperialism. Nothing working class about them. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill me or you in the name "democracy and freedom".

Your friends still assist the military machine. Moreover your vague and hasty generalization of a soldier is completely ill founded. Who are "these" people? Your analysis is not marxian in the very least. You go on to wish death on your so called friends who are components of the imperialist machine you apparently despise.

Military, like all institutions, is a prominent member of society as we know it. It is necessary to manipulate said institution to successfully fulfill a revolution. I find it astounding that you believe the best approach to armies is to let them kill each other off. The military must be infiltrated and manipulated for proletariat interests. Your evidence, or lack thereof, is experiences with friends and your argument is constant death wishes riddled with the hasty generalization of "soldiers". How is that productive at all? Leftists should appeal to the predominant working class roots of soldiers not wish death upon them. Does that mean that the atrocities of imperialist occupations should not be noted? No. Imperialism is and has been a threat to the working class internationally.

The soldiers may not be conscripted but material circumstances coerce youth into enlisting. Is that not a direct result of poverty and success of opulent propaganda campaigns? Also, you cannot make these hasty generalizations on what soldiers would do in any given hypothetical situation that you create. That's not an argument.







"Inhumane" good, they aren't humans, they are occupiers and oppressors. Let them die if they wish to serve the capitalist state. Nothing of value will be lost. Yes, they are humans. They are occupiers and oppressors, that's fair. Another death wish though. Do you not serve your capitalist state through taxes, are you not funding the war machine? Everyone is serving the capitalist state. The proletariat is servile. The servility cannot be broken without military experience.









Until they come around and develop some kind of class consciousness, and refuse to fight. They have no sympathy from me. Simply because they are NOT our friends, they are NOT on our side, they are NOT working class.

How would they learn or why would they want to learn an ideology that has proclaimed members who wish death upon them? You just said you had friends in the military. They are not on our side as of now in capitalism..



They are the very people that defend capital. They are capitals vanguard, they are what backs up every capitalist policy and action. They are who we will fight in the streets. Not the bankers themselves, but these very same men and women will be shooting at me and you. So logically I want less of them around.

Give the romantic revolution bullshit a rest. Workers with no military experience and lack of arms cannot defeat a military of any kind. Without any military support a revolution is failed from the start.

How do you suppose a worker's revolution be waged?

[TrotskistMarx]

I cannot kill not even Adolf Hitler. We must invent weapons that would be able to put people to sleep instead of killing them. However there is an internview in marxists.org of Karl Marx and The Chicago Tribune, where Karl Marx said that there is no real change in this world, without blood, without murder, and without violence. What a straight-talker was Marx, he was an ultra-realist who said things like they are even if they were offending others. So even though I wouldn't be able to kill a person in a class-war (In a war between the poor people of a country vs. the rich people of a country), I think you are right in that deaths are part of all radical changes of history and today


.


Again, look at French Revolution. There were less then a dozen people imprisoned in the Bastille, yet somehow Robespierre's terror killed tens of thousands. Is that acceptable? According to me, it is. At that time, the
bourgeois was playing a historically progressive role, and no matter what violence it used, it was justified in order to replace feudal tiranny which was hampering the development of productive forces. The same goes with Russian Revolution. Marxists are not moralists. They see the violence as "good or bad" depending on whether it plays a historically progressive role or not. Marx himself saw colonialism as progressive force and he supported it critically believing that, despite the massive violence equalled only by Nazi barbarities, it would lead to spreading of capitalism in Asia and destruction of the historically backward Asiatic mode of production, which would backfire for capitalism itself by creating conditions for its own destruction by the working classes of those countries. Which actually happened. The revolutions in China, Vietnam and Korea would not have been possible if this countries have not been before that penetrated by western capital, though at a horrendous cost. So, to conclude. Violence is justified only when it is used to change relations of production in a historically progressive way. Were Whites trying to do that?



I'm not addicted to anything. I'm a Marxist, which means that I have a materialist perception of history. All "revolutions" :rolleyes: are violent, some more, some less, because the law of historical development is that not a single ruling class has relinquished its power peacefully. Everyone who doesn't approve this is either a reactionary or a misguided and confused person. And the consequences of this kind of idealism are disastrous. When workers in Paris Commune refused to utilise revolutionary terror effectively, the bourgeois used this to organise themselves and stage a counter-revolution which costed tens of thousands of workers lives. In Germany, workers were weakly organised and were not led by "bloody" Bolsheviks, but by "civilised" Social-Democrats, so they were all slaughtered; leading to the rise of Nazism which wiped out tens of millions. If they had just utilized that damn terror... Same story happened in Iran in 1953, in Guatemala in 1954, in Iraq in 1963, in Brazil in 1964, in Indonesia in 1965, in Chile in 1973, in Nicaragua during the 80's, and the list goes on...

Oh, and as to the FARC... I don't recall FARC ever using mass revolutionary terror to suppress its opponents. FARC was founded as a response to the institutionalised violence of the rulling class against the workers and peasants of Colombia. It never had a "violent vision of the revolution" and it always worked for the establishment of peace, not war. They even tried to win power through the institutional road, participating in the elections in the 80's; just as you would have liked. As to what happened to them, google the Patriotic Union.



Never heard for such a practice. Source? Possibly, unbiased one.





Yes, Robespierre utilized horrendous means to achieve progressive goals. It was reverse for the Louis XVI. Yes, the Bolsheviks utilized horrendous means to achieve progressive goals, while the US Army utilizes horrendous means for horrendous goals. That's the difference and you seem unable to grasp it. These two things, although on surface they may look the same, are in fact totally incomparable. I believe this answers your questions.



No, the purpose of communist revolution is to break as much capitalist eggs as necessary in order to make an omelette for the hungry working class.

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend you are right, you know I know a lot about the Mexican culture. And you know most Mexican people are very very mind-controlled by the telenovelas, of Univision and Telemundo. The Mexican government doesn't even need a strong police fascist system to prevent a revolution. They can control their population with the ultra-catholic philosophy embedded in the mexican way of life. Man, you know another tool they use to prevent socialism and to chase away socialism, to wash away Mexico from any socialism spirit is the strong influence of art in that country. But i am talking about pseudo-catholic artists like Pablo Montero, Luis Miguel, Lucero all those artists and telenovelas and mexican movies stars have a very powerful mind-manipulating effect over the population of Mexico. I think Colombia is a little bit like that.


And I do support FARC Socialist Army. And all poor Colombians and all poor Latin Americans should indeed support FARC !!

Like The Count of Montecristo who said: "I am a count, not a saint"


.


.



I agree with that. Where have I claimed opposite?



OK. Irrelevant. Robespierre did far worst things, still French Revolution was a gigantic leap forward.



I accept violence as necessary only when it is used for progressive goals. When French "Whites" rebelled in Vendee, the Republic responded in a genocidal way. And, they were totally right in doing it. When Whites tried to topple the Soviets, the Bolsheviks responded in the same way. And, they were justified in doing so. Was Milosevic regime in any way progressive? No, it was not. Would I support revolutionaries in violently overthrowing it? Wholeheartedly, I would. I find your tacit acceptance of using such empty "arguments" as calling in Milosevic in order to discredit me to be near-monstrous. The fact that I'm from Montenegro doesn't mean that you have the right to call me a supporter of genocidal quasi-fascist regimes!!! OK??? :thumbdown: :rolleyes:



Revolutions are a violent overthrow of one ruling class by another. Which, implies that violence will be necessary, even if not wanted, outcome. For those that defyed this rule and consequences of this, see Chile 1973.



First you compare me with Milosevic, than you compare FARC with the Khmer Rouge. Your statement is just a baseless accusation unsupported by any historical fact whatsoever and its only purpose is to demonise a movement which, according to many, is the most potent anti-imperialist force in the western hemisphere. Instead of throwing baseless insults, why don't you actually present any proof that FARC is even remotely close to SL, not to mention KR. It is estimated that during its rule at least 400 000 people were killed by Khmer Rouge, while the greatest crime attributted to FARC is Bojaya massacre in 2002 in which around 100 people were accidentally killed by a mortar grenade that has lost its course. Oh, yeah. FARC also has a habit of carrying out a "justicia revolucionaria" in its areas, in which government spies, the sapos, are killed for their activities. Which is basically done by every normal government in times of war. Could you name me any alleged FARC crimes that in any measure equal anything done by KR, or should I just take this as a attempt of appeal to emotions by linking widely despised KR with FARC in order to demonise the latter?



FARC is a revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist organisation with such a history and tradition, that this which you said, is an example of utter and worst kind of ignorance comparable only to that of George W. Bush. During almost half a century of its existence it has consistently fought for peace, socialism, land reform, workers rights, democracy, while probably tens of thousands of its members have perished trying to achieve that noble goal. 10 000 of them are currently being tortured in Colombia's horrendous prisons for trying to achieve social change. Some of them were born in affluent families, and yet they have sacrificed everything for emancipation of the working class. Simon Trinidad, currently serving 60-year sentence in US, was educated at Harvard. Joaquin Gomez, member of FARC Secretariat, was schooled in the Soviet Union and was university professor before he sacrificed everything for his ideals. Alfonso Cano, fought until the last drop of his blood with 6 000 Colombian Special Forces trained by US Green Berets, supported by dozens of US supplied Black Hawk helicopters. Totally surrounded, he refused to surrender and perished after 40 years of revolutionary struggle, majority of which he spent in jungles and mountains, sleeping without bed, without fancy food and any luxury. He originated from upper-middle class family in Bogota, studying anthroplogy in youth and dedicating his entire life to the emancipation of workers and peasants, while his organisation is being criticised by western "revolutionaries" sitting in their chairs, typing on their computers and fantacising about perfect revolutions. Have you ever stood up to your principles in times of danger, and if not, where did you get the right to criticize people who gave their life for "abandoning" their founding leftist principles?



Cheers from me, as well. Let's hope we will cure bourgeous pacifism for your own good. ;)

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, wow we shouldn't wish the death of anybody. Not even the death of Bush and Hitler. Besides US soldiers are victims of the US economic crisis, they join the US Armed Forces as a job, because of the US economy is no longer able to provide a future for most young poor americans



The soldiers are the ones doing the fighting. They are the ones physically doing all of the harm. Why would I bring civilians into this? The fact is I want the soldiers dead. All of them, dead. They are war criminals. Just like in WW2 I won't shed a single tear for any of the axis troops. I view the NATO war machine the same way I view the axis one of ww2. An imperialist weapon of terror.





I don't view it as a worse crime, I view it as adding insult to injury. It puts the icing on the cake. You go off and commit war crimes, and occupy nations, then have the audacity to say it is for "freedom". It is what frustrates me. The war crimes are horrible, the invasion is horrible, the war itself is horrible. The propaganda just adds fuel to the fire.






I want the most dead, maimed, and wounded reactionaries as possible. That includes the NATO troops carrying out their actions, and the Taliban carrying out their actions. Doesn't have to be in combat. Maybe on leave they crash their car and die.




These aren't conscripted soldiers where I can say "oh well they a were forced". These are people who willingly signed up to go and "kill brown people in a far away land". I have friends in the US who are soldiers in the military. Most of them joined talking about some bullshit sense of "patriotism" and "duty". I sincerely hope they get a bullet in their ass. The ones I knew who were sincerely poor and needed money for college, or had no alternate due to personal problems, all chose to work in some logistics department where they wouldn't face combat, or even carry a gun. Several of my friends are mechanics in the military who work regular hours at a base. This decision I can understand and will even support given their circumstances. However, to decide that you want to go to the front line is nothing short of willingly supporting imperialism and capitalism.

The second they pick up a gun and march into another nation they stop being "working class" and become tools of imperialism. These same soldiers would gladly take aim and shoot at you or me if they were given the order. These soldiers are our enemies, and the less of our enemies the better. They are tools of capitalism and imperialism. Nothing working class about them. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill me or you in the name "democracy and freedom".

"Inhumane" good, they aren't humans, they are occupiers and oppressors. Let them die if they wish to serve the capitalist state. Nothing of value will be lost.

Until they come around and develop some kind of class consciousness, and refuse to fight. They have no sympathy from me. Simply because they are NOT our friends, they are NOT on our side, they are NOT working class. They are the very people that defend capital. They are capitals vanguard, they are what backs up every capitalist policy and action. They are who we will fight in the streets. Not the bankers themselves, but these very same men and women will be shooting at me and you. So logically I want less of them around.