Log in

View Full Version : War Criminals



redstar2000
9th November 2004, 03:25
I did not spend a quarter of a century in the military, serving two combat tours in ‘Nam, one in Grenada, and one in the Noreiga fiasco plus many intel ops, to listen to people bad mouth our Nation, our People, our political system.

Then shut your ears, war criminal!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Ex-Christian Net on November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, redstar2000, at least I am brave enough to commit my life to a cause, even to the point of giving my life for it...

Sorry, that cuts no ice, war criminal.

Physical courage is as common as dirt; name any "cause" and you'll find people willing to "commit their lives even unto death" for it.

It's what you commit to that counts.

You committed yourself to mass murder for the greater glory of U.S. imperialism.

In particular, I take it that you personally dropped bombs on the Vietnamese...a method of "combat" that is indistinguishable from serial killing.

Hey, hey, hey, hey,
How many kids did you kill today?


If you support marxism...

Karl Marx never killed a single person. Neither have I.

But you've killed quite a few, haven't you? Was the money good? Was it a lot of fun?

Did it make you feel like a "real man"? Like a "warrior"?

Or were you "just doing your job"? (The German translation is "we were just carrying out our orders.")

Not that it matters. You're still a war criminal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Ex-Christian Net on November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Redstar -- where the hell did that come from?

It came from here...


2 tours and 428 combat mission Forward Air Control - does that make me a hero too?

What do you think he was dropping on the Vietnamese...leaflets?


Originally posted by webmaster
That kind of personal attack is beyond my tolerance level.

Knock it off - now!

If someone came to this board and said, "I was an SS concentration camp guard and personally participated in 428 massacres" and someone else expressed their condemnation of a person who would do that, would your response still be "knock off the personal attacks"?

Is it "ok" to attack war criminals as long as you don't name them?

Or do you think that Americans are "never" war criminals?

Or at least not any Americans that you personally know?


...but us "old timers" know him for the great guy he is.

He's a "great guy" who just happens to have murdered a bunch of Vietnamese on the orders of his imperialist government.

What's a little napalm "between friends"?


Redstar,

Go fuck yourself. Who the fuck do you think you are?!

A guy who tells the truth...even when it pisses people off. And it often does.

Now, "who the fuck do you think you are?!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Ex-Christian Net on November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm all for banning redstar now.

Thanks for your support.


I'm one combat vet that is gratified that these folks can still *****, without being put in jail or worse.

Many people in the United States were "put in jail" for "*****ing" about the war against Vietnam (including myself)...as they have been for "*****ing" about the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.

So far, no modern anti-war protester has yet been killed. In 1970, four unarmed protesters were shot and killed by the Ohio National Guard and many were wounded. Three kids were also killed in Jackson, Mississippi, and three more in Orangeburg, South Carolina. 27 members of the Black Panther Party were murdered by various police agencies in the late 60s and early 70s.

Over 2,000 peaceful and unarmed protesters were recently arrested at the Republican National Convention for "*****ing".

Your gratification is misplaced.


However, I much doubt that Vietnam (or any of our wars since WWII) had anything to do with securing freedom for anyone...

Not a thing.


I didn't volunteer to preserve a government, but to preserve the freedom of my people and "I thought" to gain it for another people, but then I was a stupid kid.

Youthful follies can be overcome -- the members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War played an extraordinarily honorable role in the anti-war movement.

But their numbers were too few.


I love the good old USA...

But it doesn't love you.

You should not love things that can't love you back.


...you think a man or woman who puts his or her life on the line for the security and safety of the country is just doing a job?

I've heard military personnel say that -- "we're just doing our job" -- both during the 1960s and today.

And what is this crap about "the security and safety of the country"? It's a fucking EMPIRE!


Those people are out there every day, staring down the barrels of guns over and over for US to SIT HERE ON OUR FAT ASSES and ***** about the country!

No, they are "staring down gun barrels" for the sake of oil barrels.

So far, the estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq are between 15,000 and 100,000.

Something to be "proud" of, right?


...if you don't like what's going on, get your lazy arse out of the house, do something, go talk to people, write letters to congressmen, write a letter to DUBYA himself, even!

But you haven't done that, have you? No, you've just sat here and insulted a man who helped keep your bloody mother alive so she could birth you, fucker.

Yeah, the Vietnamese were about to land at Santa Monica and kill my mother. LOL!

Now, as to my "lazy ass", I went on my first anti-war demonstration in 1961...it's funny to look at the photos from those days because we all wore suits and ties to "look respectable". In 1962, I beat the draft entirely (without going to jail or to Canada). From 1965 to 1970, I worked full-time for SDS (in the South no less) and also had a "day job". During the 1970s and early 1980s, I wrote for and helped to publish several underground newspapers.

Then I got old (dammit!)...and now I just drag my feeble carcass to the keyboard.

We do what we can do.

(Writing letters to capitalist politicians is a waste of effort...unless you enclose a very large check.)


Now, let's talk about the German translation 'we were just following our orders.' To equate our military, who are truly trying to save our lives, with a military whose only purpose was to kill anyone who didn't fit into acceptably insane standards of aesthetics and religion...that's not a fair comparison, to say the least.

It's completely fair...unless you wish to argue that the Iraqi Marines were about to storm the beaches of Long Island.

These arguments that you raise -- the American mercenaries are "defending us" -- are fundamentally moronic. It is simply inconceivable that either Vietnam or Iraq was ever a credible military threat to the United States.

The purpose of the U.S. military has, in fact, always been aggressive. The rhetoric about "self-defense" has never been anything more than a pack of lies.


Lastly, I'd simply like to tell you this. There are many of us on these boards who have ties to Vietnam. My ex-fiancee's father, along with being my favorite atheist in the world, was in Vietnam. The man is 70+ years old now and still has nightmares about the things he did and the things he saw.

Maybe he should write down what he did and what he saw...and publish it.

I'm sure there are lots of people walking around with bad memories...things that "can't be told" because civilized people would find them disgusting.

I'm also sure there are lots of Vietnamese who "still" have nightmares...over what was done to them.


You're an insipid, vile little rat for saying those things to [Mr. War Criminal] and you owe him more than an apology. To be truthful, you owe him (and the other fellows and ladies who've enlisted) your life.

He will receive neither. But it will be interesting to learn if your mouth is writing checks that your ass can't cash. If you volunteer for occupation duty in Iraq or elsewhere, I'll send a bouquet to your memorial service.

Stinkweed would be appropriate, I think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Ex-Christian Net on November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------


This was one famous saying that I always admired, growing up

"I may not agree with whay you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

One of the French enlightenment philosophers said it. But if I'm not mistaken, he was lying; he lived very close to the Swiss border and at the slightest hint of royal displeasure, he was on the other side.

He didn't even "defend to the death" his own "right to say it".


I won't give the details, but I did a few war crimes myself up close and personal.. So you can add me to your list if you care to.

Consider yourself added.

How about those "details"? Rape? Torture? Killing women and children?

Don't you feel a "moral obligation" to tell the "youngsters" here about what America is really like?


SS concentration camp guards were a part of a group of people that murdered Jews, gays, etc. simply because of who they were. We were at war with the vietnamese. If you don't see the difference than you are just as stupid as I thought.

Gee, I must have missed the "declaration of war"...guess I didn't see that day's paper.

When was it? And did the Vietnamese "bomb Pearl Harbor" or what?

Also, there were parts of Vietnam that were designated, if I remember correctly, as "free fire zones"...meaning American troops could kill any Vietnamese in such a zone.

Just for being Vietnamese.


[Mr. War Criminal] is more of a man than you will ever be.

I'm glad you said that about him and not me. I would find support from someone like yourself extremely embarrassing.


If someone came to this board and said, "I was an SS concentration camp guard and personally participated in 428 massacres" and they didn't want to talk about it due to the pain it caused them to just think about it...then yes, I would tell a piece of shit like you to knock off the personal attacks.

Awww...what a sweetie you are.

Never mind the pain of the victims...what about the pain of the executioner?

I think you should start a support-group for war criminals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Ex-Christian Net on November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you really think men and women in the military service can choose where to go and what to do?

Yes I do. They are armed.

That means they can turn their weapons on their officers any time they feel suitably motivated.

Guess who wins any armed conflict between soldiers and officers?

The real American heroes in Vietnam were the ones who fragged their officers. If only there had been more of them!

Just as the real heroes in the Third Reich were those who deserted and resisted.


It's not a single enlistee's fault that we're in the middle east right now.

I never said or implied that.

What I do say is that if you find yourself trapped in an imperialist war, then you have an obligation to resist -- presuming you wish to continue considering yourself a decent human being.

That means you disobey orders (openly or covertly), encourage other soldiers to do the same, desert, kill your officers if possible, video-tape war crimes and smuggle the tapes to the world press...whatever it takes to expose what's really going on.

Here's one of the tiny number of Biblical quotations that I've found to actually be true...

He that doeth evil hateth the light.


But let's go live in your fictional world for a few moments. Let's say the people in the services all went AWOL right now and for the next 10 years no one enlisted.

What do you think would happen?

I actually expect something along those lines to happen...as the immediate prelude to proletarian revolution.

When the Petrograd garrisons went over to the revolution, 300 years of czarist despotism went down the toilet in days.

The 300th birthday of the American Empire will be 2076...so, if we're going to do better than the Russians, it's time to go to work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Ex-Christian Net on November 5, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I was more than willing to continue this controversy, the webmaster -- "Dave" -- cut me down with this post...


Your desire to hijack this site and make some political pundit soapbox of it for YOUR personal agenda, whatever that is, is contrary to the site's clearly stated purpose.

Your posts reflect a desire to make this board into some sort of anti-American political soapbox. That is unacceptable.

Knock it off as requested or you will be banned.

He later added...


This site was set up to encourage those leaving Christianity, those who feel alone and cut off with no one to talk to about it. That is its only reason for existing.

Dave "Feel-Good" clearly did not want anyone to "feel bad" about U.S. imperialism or the deeds of those who serve it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

The Garbage Disposal Unit
9th November 2004, 04:20
It's easy enough to reject god . . . I guess it's a bit harder realize that, without God on yr side, slaughter and empire begin to lack their moral high ground. It's making that jump from the theoretical, to the practical implications that always seems to catch people . . .


"I'm not a Christian any more, I just cling to the worst elements of the faith!"

revolutionindia
9th November 2004, 07:10
Interesting read

Professor Moneybags
9th November 2004, 21:17
Physical courage is as common as dirt; name any "cause" and you'll find people willing to "commit their lives even unto death" for it.

It's what you commit to that counts.

You committed yourself to mass murder for the greater glory of U.S. imperialism.

And you're comitting yourself to what, exactly ? "The revolution" and an unrealisable ideology that rationalised the killing of millions who have nothing to anyone.

Congratulations.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
9th November 2004, 21:24
And you are commiting to what?

The American Empire?
The wealth of the Bushies?
Extinction of idealism?

Spare me the "Liberty, Democracy and Freedom" speech.

Professor Moneybags
9th November 2004, 21:29
Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 9 2004, 09:24 PM
And you are commiting to what?
A world where the initiation of force is outlawed.

i.e. the exact opposite to the one you or Redstar2000 are advocating.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
9th November 2004, 22:01
Seriously now. Isn't this double standard?


A world where the initiation of force is outlawed.

Law is always forced.

To have people obey your law, you need a controlling and "practicing" force, i.e the Army and Cops.

Instead of this, I do go for real solutions. Destroying hierarchy and state. So that nobody can ever force anyone.

And here we go for the triple standard.

You want to "outlaw" force, yet you support the War against Iraq and the continuous occupation. Bet those nice Iraqi's aren't beeing occupied voluntarily.

Osman Ghazi
10th November 2004, 02:02
NSB, if only your feeble leftist brain could comprehend.

You see, Iraq didn't disarm themselves, and if someone doesn't do what you want, then you have the right to go to war with them and it will be considered retaliation instead of inititation of force.

Poor stupid bastard :lol:

Or wait, no, it was because Iraq attacked the U.S. Ya, that sounds right. :blink:

Palmares
10th November 2004, 02:46
I agree with NSB.


Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!
Law is always enforced... Destroying hierarchy and state. So that nobody can ever force anyone.

And hence, to have a society without coersion, it must be without laws and the structures that create and perpetuate them.

Osman Ghazi, was that sarcasm there? Or...?

Professor Moneybags
10th November 2004, 13:56
Seriously now. Isn't this double standard?

No.


Law is always forced.

That is a blatant equivocation.


To have people obey your law, you need a controlling and "practicing" force, i.e the Army and Cops.

The purpose of the law is protect people from agressors, both inside and outside the country. How is that "control" ?


Instead of this, I do go for real solutions. Destroying hierarchy and state. So that nobody can ever force anyone.

Why, who's going to stop them if they do ?


You want to "outlaw" force,

Read carefully : The initiation of force.

Hiero
10th November 2004, 14:12
I did not spend a quarter of a century in the military, serving two combat tours in ‘Nam, one in Grenada, and one in the Noreiga fiasco plus many intel ops, to listen to people bad mouth our Nation, our People, our political system.

Thats my favourite. The claim they went and served to save you democratic rights and free speach yet they dont want you to use it. It lke all conservatives in america do you think that bill oriely will be supporting Kerry, or sites like www.probush.com.

They claim you are a traitor if you do not support the president and they have Kerry in there traitor list. So does that mean they are going to shut down their probush website when bush cant run anymore and then support blindly who ever is next elected.

This type are funny, they fight for democracy yet they get pissed whenever anyone uses it.

cubist
10th November 2004, 15:32
insightful

its sad how people just don't get it, more of a man for following orders, i was always told to stand up for my opinion and that it was better to say no,

Invader Zim
10th November 2004, 15:42
Please could you post a link to the origional discussion?

redstar2000
10th November 2004, 16:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 10:42 AM
Please could you post a link to the origional discussion?
http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1069

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

no_bourgeoisie_liberals
15th November 2004, 08:45
It is immoral for a person to serve in the US military or work for the Haliburton company in Iraq. Of course, many Americans will be tempted by the high wages paid. However, anyone benefiting from American imperalism is a war criminal
and should feel really bad.

On the movie "Platoon" a young man volunteers for the Army because he thinks it's not fair only poor people should serve. However, the young man's service is still wrong because what's wrong is wrong plain and simple. Also, people can't use the "Well I was poor and I needed a job excuse". The US military has been recruiting alot of minorities to serve. Deep down these people don't like Bush but have been brainwashed by American propoganda enough to serve in Iraq.

Alot of bourgeoisie liberals have supported the war because they don't want to look like "Commie Traitors". This shows thier true colors as reactionary "apologists". They think Capitalism is bad but are too soft to go into all out rebellion against it. In fact, John Kerry himself served in Vietnam and killed
many Vietnamese. Was he a hero? Even if he later said the war was wrong, Does that change the fact he was a war criminal?

People need to make up thier mind. Are they for Capitalism or Socialism? There are no in betweens.

Don't Change Your Name
17th November 2004, 02:13
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 9 2004, 09:29 PM
A world where the initiation of force is outlawed.

i.e. the exact opposite to the one you or Redstar2000 are advocating.
You mean you would have opposed the moment when private property was created?

You're an utopian bourgeois hippie.

no_bourgeoisie_liberals
17th November 2004, 03:23
A world where the initiation of force is outlawed.

i.e. the exact opposite to the one you or Redstar2000 are advocating.

That's a stupid idea. You sound like those peace loving Canadians or South Koreans. There is a price to pay for capitalism. That price is your life or otherwise oppose capitalism. The Canadians and South Koreans don't want to do the dirty work of capitalism. So they leave it to the Americans.

Anyways, I don't like or participate in war or capitalism. But I understand that capitalism will lead to war. These crybabies want to have thier cellular phone middle class life for nothing! I would respect them if they became all out communists.

You sound like you are in favor of anarchy. Anarchy can never exist. Human beings by nature follow a leader. They always want to follow someone that is strong. So people have to choose whom they will serve. A good or evil leader.

A capitalist or communist leader. It's just the way nature is.

redstar2000
17th November 2004, 05:22
Originally posted by no_bourgeois_liberals
Human beings by nature follow a leader. They always want to follow someone that is strong. So people have to choose whom they will serve. A good or evil leader.

A capitalist or communist leader. It's just the way nature is.

Do you realize that this is a view of "human nature" most strongly articulated by fascism?

IF it were true, then what would be the point of communism at all? If we are "doomed" by our "human nature" to lick some bastard's boots, then what difference does it make if they are brown boots or red boots?

The communist/anarchist view is that ordinary people can run a society without "strong leaders".

Sure, we could be wrong about that...maybe it's really true that humans are, "by nature", hopelessly servile.

I don't think we are wrong...and I don't see choosing which boots you want to lick as worth a broken fingernail, much less a revolution.

"Anybody who starts giving orders should be taken out and summarily shot!" -- redstar2000

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

no_bourgeoisie_liberals
17th November 2004, 08:42
Originally posted by no_bourgeois_liberals
Human beings by nature follow a leader. They always want to follow someone that is strong. So people have to choose whom they will serve. A good or evil leader.

A capitalist or communist leader. It's just the way nature is.


Do you realize that this is a view of "human nature" most strongly articulated by fascism?

Yes, but they are probably right about that. All of your Communist
(in the pre-stage of socialism) states of the
20th century had strong leaders. The reason is obvious. The Communist wanted
to win.

Fascists make an error because they want to base everything on Darwinism.
They fail to realize that human beings are not animals. We have a brain and the
capability to be loving and kind.

While some human beings may be strong that does not justify killing or harassing the weak ones. Why not help the weak ones? Why not be thier friend? Who said being disabled made you ugly? By whose standards do you
judge beauty or inferiority?

For example, the Nazis would kill disabled people because they thought they were inferior. Disabled people could not contribute to society. They were not "pretty" like all those blonde blue eyed physically fit ideal people.



IF it were true, then what would be the point of communism at all? If we are "doomed" by our "human nature" to lick some bastard's boots, then what difference does it make if they are brown boots or red boots?

It makes a big difference. Humans may be followers but they have a conscience. They can choose between good and evil. People that love thier fellow man (as cheesy as that sounds) will not choose an anti-human system like fascism. They won't if they have been properly educated. For example, if someone cared about dying children would they serve in Iraq? Would they serve in Iraq after they read your debate on ex-christian.com ? Many people are not
aware that serving US imperalism is bad. But that can change if you push the right buttons.



The communist/anarchist view is that ordinary people can run a society without "strong leaders".

I do agree that Cuba has made some progress toward a leaderless Communism. Of course, Castro is a strong leader but he allows local groups of citizens to make most decisions. Maybe that is the wave of the future. But for right now strong leaders are needed to protect the revolution from threats.

Osman Ghazi
17th November 2004, 13:22
for right now strong leaders are needed to protect the revolution from threats.


Sorry, what revolution was that?

I must have been in the john, because I wasn't aware of any recent revolutions.

Professor Moneybags
17th November 2004, 13:44
Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 17 2004, 02:13 AM
You mean you would have opposed the moment when private property was created?
I've already refuted this same nonsense from LSD. How is claiming your own labour and the products of that labour as private an initiation of force ? Or did you get your definition of "force" from 1984, like LSD did ?

no_bourgeoisie_liberals
17th November 2004, 21:46
Sorry, what revolution was that?

I must have been in the john, because I wasn't aware of any recent revolutions.

The ongoing everyday revolution. It does not always involve a war. It's a struggle
to expand, improve, and defend socialism. Maybe I should have called it a
"movement" instead of a revolution.

Eastside Revolt
17th November 2004, 21:51
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:46 PM

Sorry, what revolution was that?

I must have been in the john, because I wasn't aware of any recent revolutions.

The ongoing everyday revolution. It does not always involve a war. It's a struggle
to expand, improve, and defend socialism. Maybe I should have called it a
"movement" instead of a revolution.
You should look into "insurrectionary anarchism". To them a revolution is an incident, insurrection, is a series of incidents that hopefully brings about a revolution. (Or atleast class consciousness)

ÑóẊîöʼn
17th November 2004, 22:09
Professor Moneybags, how would your society deal with criminals if coercion is outlawed?

redstar2000
17th November 2004, 23:59
Originally posted by no_bourgeois_liberals
Yes, but they [the fascists] are probably right about that.

:o


All of your Communist (in the pre-stage of socialism) states of the 20th century had strong leaders. The reason is obvious. The Communist wanted to win.

But they didn't win, did they?

Worse, they weren't defeated by external enemies (like the Paris Commune or the workers of Barcelona) -- they were defeated from within. All their "strong leadership" could not prevent the rise of material corruption and reactionary views within the "vanguard party" itself.

Who did these "strong leaders" surround themselves with? Khrushchev was one of Stalin's favorites; Deng was one of Mao's.

Indeed, to be the "strong leader's" favorite was the road to power...perfect training for bootlicking. When the "strong leader" died, they looked for new boots to lick...imperialist boots!

I think you need to look a lot closer at the actual history of "strong leaders" to see what the dynamics of that kind of situation really involve.


While some human beings may be strong that does not justify killing or harassing the weak ones. Why not help the weak ones? Why not be their friend?

The myth of the "benevolent despot". No doubt many and perhaps even most "strong leaders" have aspired to such a reputation.

Why do none of them achieve it? One difficulty they all face is that even if they really want to "help people", they have no idea about how to do that. The despot is surrounded by courtiers eager for preference and advancement -- they will never tell the despot the truth about anything if a flattering lie is available.

The despot is making decisions about situations of which he knows nothing...and the laws of chance take over -- half of his decisions might be good ones but the other half are bad and some of them are catastrophic. While the 1961 famine was taking place in China (about 18 million "excess deaths" as I recall), Mao was told that China was producing so much food that an increase in food exports was ordered.


Humans may be followers but they have a conscience. They can choose between good and evil. People that love their fellow man (as cheesy as that sounds) will not choose an anti-human system like fascism.

Why not? If they agree with you that people "need" a "strong leader"...then why not adopt an ideology that emphasizes that?

Sure, the German, Polish and Japanese variants of fascism were racist -- but there were certainly non-racist versions of fascism as well--or at least versions where racism played a much reduced role.

And, in their own fashion, all the fascist despots not only proclaimed their benevolent intentions but even, on occasion, delivered.

Beyond this, of course, is the content of that "cheesy" phrase: "to love one's fellow man". The reason that it's "cheesy" is because nearly everyone uses it...and most do so in order to disguise their personal ambitions.

How would we "followers" know who to follow? Who "really loves their fellow man" and who is just a contemptible liar intent on personal advancement?

"Conscience" is no answer...because what you've been taught is "good" and what is "evil" is a social product of the particular society in which you live.

By American standards, torture can be either "good" or "evil" -- depending on who is doing it to who.

To be perfectly honest, I don't expect American soldiers in Iraq to "give up" because they've come to perceive that they are guilty of "anti-human", "evil" practices.

I expect them to give up because they are beaten.

Some will feel remorse; most will blame "the politicians", "the media", "the anti-war movement", etc.

To this day, a lot of Vietnam vets claim that they were "stabbed in the back"...otherwise they would have won. (For some reason their ire is particularly focused on one-time movie star Jane Fonda -- as if a "sex-kitten" had clawed them in a particularly sensitive part of their ideological anatomy.)


Of course, Castro is a strong leader but he allows local groups of citizens to make most decisions. Maybe that is the wave of the future.

It is.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Professor Moneybags
18th November 2004, 14:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:09 PM
Professor Moneybags, how would your society deal with criminals if coercion is outlawed?
Aren't criminals coercers ? I'm not an anarchist, I'm not against police or anything like that.

cormacobear
18th November 2004, 14:46
Avertisement is the worst and most prevalent form of coercion, we are subjected to in the western world.

redstar2000
18th November 2004, 16:12
More on the subject...


Originally posted by San Francisco Indymedia
Don't Support the Troops! Not if They are Committing War Crimes

It is depressingly predictable how "worked up" the Pentagon brass gets about an atrocity committed in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions when the crime is captured on film, as happened during this recent Fallujah action in the case of an NBC pool cameraman showing the execution by a US Marine of a wounded Iraqi captive, and the apparent execution of several other wounded captives later on.

But does anyone seriously believe that this particularly grisly atrocity is the only one that occurred during the week-long and ongoing assault?

The casual way it was done, in front of the embedded cameraman, makes it clear that quite to the contrary, this must be standard operating procedure for the American soldiers, who weren't even worried about about the possible consequences of their being photographed. (Remember, the executioner was not alone, and none of his colleagues tried to stop him.)

How surprised should we be at this bloodthirsty and criminal behavior? The goal of the assault on Fallujah was not the capture of a city--the normal situation in a war. It was the killing of all the insurgents who were in the city.

More... (http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/1706245.php)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Funky Monk
18th November 2004, 16:35
Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Nov 18 2004, 03:35 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Nov 18 2004, 03:35 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 10:09 PM
Professor Moneybags, how would your society deal with criminals if coercion is outlawed?
Aren't criminals coercers ? I'm not an anarchist, I'm not against police or anything like that. [/b]
Not all criminals are coercers but if coercing was outlawed then all coercers would be criminals.

rainyday
18th November 2004, 16:35
Aren't criminals coercers ? I'm not an anarchist, I'm not against police or anything like that.


Most criminals are only criminals because a law has been written that says they are criminals
It doesnt make them [the criminal] any different than anybody else
Depending on where you live, one or ten of the thousand things you do everyday could be considered a crime, thus making YOU a criminal.

Are criminals coercers?
No
Criminals are you and I
Everyday citizens
The poor
The non republican
The liberal (antiAmerican)
Everyday people

The girl that crossed against the light
The single mom that couldnt renew her car insurance but had to drive to work anyway
The college student that went skinny dipping
The woman that fended off her attacker only to herself be charged with HIS assault


Most criminals are not murders
They are not rapists
Most have never hurt anyone at all in any way

I personally have quite the criminal record
I have spent more than my share of time behind bars
I suppose that record makes me a criminal
Does that in turn make me a coercer?

Of course not

I think you maybe should be more careful with your generalizations

Rainyday - Criminal

komon
22nd November 2004, 16:46
war criminal is something writen in the genova convention?
war is as criminal as bush is.but may be is genova forgoten those days?


war is war.no laws,only war.