Elusive Sniper Saps U.S. Morale

[Ownthink]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

Commanders weigh their options as 'Juba' notches up more kills.

Let's hope he doesn't die anytime soon.

Victory for the Resistance!
Iraq for and by Iraqis!

[mo7amEd]

Now that's a good sniper. I hope he'll keep it up with the good work.

[Xvall]

Intruiguing. I wonder who it actually is. It would be interesting if it was actually a group of well trained snipers; it's even possible that it's an American soldier who has transfered to the side. Whoever it is, I commend their respect for civilian life. It would be a lot better if the entire resistance group acted this way and refrained from attacking unarmed civilians.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 6 2005, 06:19 PM
Intruiguing. I wonder who it actually is. It would be interesting if it was actually a group of well trained snipers; it's even possible that it's an American soldier who has transfered to the side. Whoever it is, I commend their respect for civilian life. It would be a lot better if the entire resistance group acted this way and refrained from attacking unarmed civilians.
Quoted for Truth. All of it.

[Ian]

Word Drake.

"The insurgent grapevine celebrates an incident last June when a four-strong marine scout sniper team was killed in Ramadi, all with shots to the head"

Althought macabre this is pretty awesome.

Let's hope this guy isn't caught anytime soon.

[mo7amEd]

lets hope this guy isnt caught or killed ever...

[MoscowFarewell]

He sounds like white feather. He was a US sniper in Vietnam, my friend's dad would tell countless stories of him.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

"The insurgent grapevine celebrates an incident last June when a four-strong marine scout sniper team was killed in Ramadi, all with shots to the head"

If it's true, then it's damn impressive.


He sounds like white feather. He was a US sniper in Vietnam, my friend's dad would tell countless stories of him.

Did he like switch sides or something?

[MoscowFarewell]

no, he was just a US sniper, but I'd consider him an inspiration for all snipers. He did his duty and he did it well.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:58 PM
no, he was just a US sniper, but I'd consider him an inspiration for all snipers. He did his duty and he did it well.
I find this funny coming from someone on a Communist website. praising someone who "did their duty" in Vietnam? Against the poor Communistic peasants of the Vietcong? It's the same as Iraq, buddy. I would support him if he went to the VC.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 6 2005, 06:19 PM
Intruiguing. I wonder who it actually is. It would be interesting if it was actually a group of well trained snipers; it's even possible that it's an American soldier who has transfered to the side. Whoever it is, I commend their respect for civilian life. It would be a lot better if the entire resistance group acted this way and refrained from attacking unarmed civilians.
I couldnt agree more with you.



He waits for soldiers to dismount, or stand up in a Humvee turret, and aims for gaps in their body armour, the lower spine, ribs or above the chest. He has killed from 200 metres away.

"It was the perfect shot," the battalion commander, Lt Col Kevin Farrell, said of one incident. "Blew out the spine.

That is a good fucking shot.

[viva le revolution]

Vasili zeitsev....eat your heart out.
This sniper is pretty anazing.

[Xvall]

That would have been totally sweet if White Feather had started collaberating with the Vietcong. I think MF is talking about him being respected for his killing accuracy, and not his ideals/actions.

[MoscowFarewell]

Matter of fact Drake, that is the case.


I'm a Socialist, but I wanted to be a sniper since I was six years old. He was an inspiration to me.

[Colombia]

Showing support to a man who kills people who are just doing their job.

Yup that is sure what communism is about. Showing support to killings.

[Xvall]

If your "job" is using military force to occupy my community, you're damn right I'm going to show support to the man killing you.

How do you know he's not doing his job as well?

While we're at it, we shouldn't criticize the Nazis who were occupying European cities, because they were just doing thier jobs too. I don't know what the hell the Red Army's problem was, busting in up on their workplace and everything.

On a lighter note:

BOOM! HEAD SHOT!

(Were you talking about Juba or that White Feather guy? If you were talking about the latter, you can disregard my post.)

[viva le revolution]

No actually communism is about opposing imperialism and all it's tools. The army iis just another tool in the hands of the capitalists. The institution as a whole has to be opposed. The individual beliefs and conditions of the soldier bear little significance in the bigger picture because this institution aims to crush dissent and revolutionary movements. If we stop and think of them as individuals doing their jobs then nothing will be achieved and the notion of revolution will just be an empty one.
The soldier sure as hell won't be thinking about you when he fires his m-16 nor when he carpet bombs your home. That is what he is trained for and that is what his essential duty is. He is part of a war, everybody knows that going in. We can't oppose the army without opposing the soldier. That is just idealistic and romantic thinking.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 7 2005, 01:00 AM
If your "job" is using military force to occupy my community, you're damn right I'm going to show support to the man killing you.

How do you know he's not doing his job as well?

While we're at it, we shouldn't criticize the Nazis who were occupying European cities, because they were just doing thier jobs too. I don't know what the hell the Red Army's problem was, busting in up on their workplace and everything.

On a lighter note:

BOOM! HEAD SHOT!

(Were you talking about Juba or that White Feather guy? If you were talking about the latter, you can disregard my post.)
Even if the man is an Islamic fundamentalist?

If he is just doing his job, then wouldn't it be wrong to show support to the man and seem a bit hypocritical?

My whole issue is the fact that you support a man killing another human being without a second thought. This is an issue I have with you guys. Sometimes your ideals get in the way of reality.

[Ownthink]

^ Defending his country and himself is now a job?

[Xvall]

I don't necessarilly fully support him, but at this point I appreciate what he's doing. If he turns out to be an Islamic Fundamentalist, that will be unfortunate, and I won't support his ideals, but I'm still not going to have much of a problem with him blasting off the heads of coalition mercinaries.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:37 AM
Matter of fact Drake, that is the case.


I'm a Socialist, but I wanted to be a sniper since I was six years old. He was an inspiration to me.
Heh, same here. If i don't say so myself, I'm a good shot :D

[Colombia]

Human indifference is what is wrong with many of you guys. You all scream foul when you see pictures of poverty, but scream with joy when a US soldier is killed without thinking about the person behind the helmet.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:49 PM
Human indifference is what is wrong with many of you guys. You all scream foul when you see pictures of poverty, but scream with joy when a US soldier is killed without thinking about the person behind the helmet.
Would you cry if Bush died? Would you be angry or sad if Hitler died if you were alive then?

Some people just get what they deserve: death.

[LSD]

You all scream foul when you see pictures of poverty

Because the poor are the innocent victims of an oppressive system we bitterly oppose.


but scream with joy when a US soldier is killed

Because they are the means by which that system is maintained.


without thinking about the person behind the helmet.

We think about the person, and it would be much better if that solider were to defect. It would be much better if all occupying troops in Iraq (and elsewhere) refused to fight ...but that's not going to happen today.

Today, every "coalition" soldier in Iraq is part of an illegal brutal occupying army, suppressing and ensalving the Iraqi people. Is it their "fault"? No. Were most of the soliders coerced to enlist? Yes. But it doesn't matter.

All of the Wermacht was conscripted, so was the Nihon Kaigun. But imperialist aggressors are imperialist agressors. The fact that, this time, they happen to speak the same language as you is irrelevent.

Life isn't black and white. Sometimes killing is wrong, this time it isn't.

[Colombia]

Talk to just about any soldier who has just returned from Iraq and their hatred of the war is just as strong if not stronger than yours. Do you think most of these soldiers go into Iraq with the idea of suppressing and enslaving the Iraqi people? I don't. I think they were just brainwashed to think what they were doing was right until they actually got their and saw how much of a hell hole it is over there. Most are even nationalist in nature but just join to get an education. If they had their way they would never even fire a shot.

[novemba]

Why do people on this board always bicker ova trick shit?

[Xvall]

Do you think most of these soldiers go into Iraq with the idea of suppressing and enslaving the Iraqi people?

No, but that's what they ended up doing.


I think they were just brainwashed to think what they were doing was right until they actually got their and saw how much of a hell hole it is over there.

The Nazis were brainwashed too. Regardless, it was good news when they ended lying in pieces across the German countryside.

What's your alternative, by the way? Should we support the U.S. troops and hope that the insurgents are killed? How is that any better? How is that more humanitarian? Or should be be adopting some sort of completely pacifistic ideal where we hope that no one ever dies and that everything will just fall into place?

[Colombia]

You are right. How is that any better on your part? We should just stay neutral on the subject completely.

[Free Palestine]

You really are one imperialism-loving stooge, aren't you Colombia? You lash out at a hero guilty of nothing more than resisting occupation and play apologist ("they're just doing their job" etc) for the occupying power possessing the greatest arsenal of weapons, tanks, planes, communications equipment and surveillance devices in human history, murdering as many as 100,000 Iraqis.


Do you think most of these soldiers go into Iraq with the idea of suppressing and enslaving the Iraqi people? I don't. I think they were just brainwashed to think what they were doing was right until they actually got their and saw how much of a hell hole it is over there. Most are even nationalist in nature but just join to get an education. If they had their way they would never even fire a shot.

There were many German soldiers in World War 2 who were brainwashed into "thinking what they were doing was right" too and sacrificed themselves for an ideology which cost tens of millions of lives, lead to the death camps and devastated the continent of Europe. Are all these people innocent and completely absolved simply because they possessed an ardent belief in their mission or ideology?

The equivalent of Germans who did what they could to not get stationed at the Death Camps, cursed Hitler, but still fought in his wars. Tough situation, buddy, but you’re on the wrong side, and deserve to killed.


Even if the man is an Islamic fundamentalist

And what evidence is offered in support of this ridiculous assertion? I don't recall it saying anywhere that the sniper was an Islamic fundamentalist. Please show me where you picked that up. Unless you consider resisting occupation and imperialial dominance an act of "Islamic fundamentalism"!

Would you have supported the Minutemen during the American revolution? You are aware that they were both slave-owners and capitalists, yes? But justice was still on their side compared with the yoke of England, was it not? Tell me, Do the Iraqis or do they not have a damned right to resist this outrage? Nobody is asking you to express solidarity with Islamic fundamentalists, but defenders of cities. You don't have to support their social program beyond their opposition to the occupation, just their opposition to the occupation.


We should just stay neutral on the subject completely.

Sorry, I tend to support the right of self-determination in the struggle against imperialist domination.

[Phalanx]

Who cares? The fact is, whether you agree with him or not, the guy is a very good shot. End of Story

[MiniOswald]

Aye just respect his shooting skills, i mean i doubt hes got himself a good weapon, most likely a dragunov or something, old soviet style weapons, most of the resistance use the old AKs and RPGs so it probably fits with that. Now one of them old dragunovs up against people with the thermal imaging and their fancy sniper rifles (what does the US army use now?) is a pretty big task.

Like in WW2, there were some excellent soviet snipers and some excellent german ones i respect both, because they were masters of their trade, even if the trade were death.

[JC1]

This Juba guy is a real hero of the Iraqi masses.

Victory to the Insurgency !

[mo7amEd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:42 AM
You are right. How is that any better on your part? We should just stay neutral on the subject completely.
So you think we should think of the guy behind the helmet? But you didn't think of the kid that he killed? If I could I would kill every American soldier in Iraq, and I wouldn't hesitate or even have a bad conscience.

[Decolonize The Left]

OK I'll step in between Columbia and the rest of you.

I think that this sniper should be respected for his ability to do either his job, or for fighting for what he believes in.

BUT I don't think any of you have the right to applaud the killing of soldiers whom you don't know and while I AGREE that they are the means of the machine, many of them didn't have another option, or are too ignorant to think differently. FOR THIS YOU CANNOT APPLAUD THEIR DEATH. It is because of the system that they are there in the first place.

I am not justifying the soldiers killing Iraqis, be them insurgents or innocents, I think this is horribly wrong.
But I also have enough dignity to not justify the killing of US soldiers, be them innocent at heart or not.

-- August

[Xvall]

Fine, I won't aplaud their deaths. I'll just smirk with content.

[Decolonize The Left]

I appreciate your restraint. I shows your dignity and respect for other people's feelings and lives.

-- August

[Seeker]

what does the US army use now?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../ground/m40.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m40.htm)

[Amusing Scrotum]

1. While the solidiers do represent an Impearialist force, America. They are in the majority young, working class, uneducated men. If they did any other job they would doubtless be part of the proleteriat. As Marx himself said, in the Communist Manifesto, the bourgious arm and need the proletariat to fight their wars. Bush, Blair and company wanted this war. It is the terrible irony of the system that means the war mongers will never fire a shot. Never risk their lives. It is hypocrisy in the first degree.

2. These solidiers leave behind families. If any of you had a relative who was killed in Iraq. Would you be happy they died. Despite the fact that you felt the war was unjust.

3. Killing a few solidiers will not win the country back. America is too reactionary to think about its actions.

4. If, and I stress if, this solidier is an Islamic Extremist, would you rather live under Capitalist law or Religous law. Women stoned to death for adultery, thieves having their hands chopped off. I would rather Western Capatalist Justice, as flawed as it may be over extreme religous law.

5. He must be one hell of a shot. I would imagine he has had some form of military training. Probably by a Goverment with Impearlist tendencies.

6. Where were all these "freedom fighters" when Saddam Hussain was in power. Bar the uprising during the First Gulf War, people didn't seem to shoot Iraqi Solidiers, the forces of another brutal Government.

7. Solidiers tend to be thick working class men. After a revolution are we going to line them up against a wall and shoot them or send them to labour camps. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Communism isn't about genocide or brutal oppression. Russia exluded. Too much Vodka and too little humanity.

8. Many people serving in Iraq are members of the T.A. or National Guard. They earn shit doing their normal job so they work another job. They just play solidier. They never expected to actually do anything.

9. War is brutal. I dislike anyone who pepertrates it. Imperialist War, Religious War etc.

10. While I happily support peaceful people protests against occupation. They are happening in Iraq. I cannot support an Insurgency which regually blows up innocent civilians as a method. It is like supporting the blanket bombing of Iraq by the "Coalition Forces".

11. Violence creates more violence. Peoples reactionary elements appear. I was disgusted when Iraq was invaded, because it was obvious that undue death would occur. Be it civilian, military or insurgent. Death always leaves someone behind who will grieve and hurt.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 7 2005, 12:25 AM

He waits for soldiers to dismount, or stand up in a Humvee turret, and aims for gaps in their body armour, the lower spine, ribs or above the chest. He has killed from 200 metres away.

"It was the perfect shot," the battalion commander, Lt Col Kevin Farrell, said of one incident. "Blew out the spine.

I don't get this part. 200 meters away is child's play. You could hit someone's uvula with that range. Now, 1000 meters away is a different story.

[violencia.Proletariat]

i dont like it that are soldiers are dying, because they are working class. now im not too concerned about this in this present conflict because they volunteerd (not counting national guard as armchair socialism said, they probably didnt expect to be doing this). now would you guys feel any different if the soldiers are draftees? i bet you would. again, i dont support our militiary, and if these soldiers dieing are volunteers, then it was their decision. but if they were draftee's, i wouldnt want them being shot up. and yes draftee's can evade, but, not all of them are knowledgeable of the leftist stance.

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by Chinghis Khan+Aug 7 2005, 01:48 AM--> (Chinghis Khan @ Aug 7 2005, 01:48 AM)
[email protected] 7 2005, 12:37 AM
Matter of fact Drake, that is the case.


I'm a Socialist, but I wanted to be a sniper since I was six years old. He was an inspiration to me.
Heh, same here. If i don't say so myself, I'm a good shot :D [/b]
Me too. Over a hundred yards, I can hit with a 22 caliber pretty easy. On a silheuoutte, I get about 25 out of 30 shots and when the target is moving, I get about 7-8 out of 10.

[KC]

Supporters of an oppressive system are just that. Let's take slavery for example.

Slave-owners can be ruthless, or they can be nice. They can even treat their slaves respectfully and their slaves' families respectfully, etc.... But who these people are is beside the point. THey are still supporters of the system, whether they like it or not.

When soldiers signed up for the army, they knew what they were getting themselves into. Whoever they are - whether they're nice or not - doesn't matter. We don't need to look at what's in the helmet; we need to look at whats in their hands. And that is a gun. A gun that they use to protect and assist in the expansion of an oppressive system. Because these people are human, does this mean their crimes don't count? Does this mean that all of the innocents, women and children they've killed are justified? They could be the nicest people. That's beside the point. They still kill civilians, and for that they deserve to be punished.

[MoscowFarewell]

Okay, so what if those same people rescue hostages?

[KC]

If a killer saves someone's life is he absolved?
If a serial killer saves someone's life is he absolved?

[Seeker]

6. Where were all these "freedom fighters" when Saddam Hussain was in power. Bar the uprising during the First Gulf War, people didn't seem to shoot Iraqi Solidiers, the forces of another brutal Government.

IIRC, they were suppresed by the Republican Guard. Even at the very begining of the invasion, Saddam was more affraid of those people than the US. He kept his armies spread out to prevent an uprising instead of massing them to counter the American blitz. (according to some guy on c-span).




I don't get this part. 200 meters away is child's play. You could hit someone's uvula with that range. Now, 1000 meters away is a different story.

The ability to make the shot from that close and not be seen is impressive.

[Decolonize The Left]

To nate and Lazar:
I agree that if these soldiers were draftees there would be a huge change in people's stance on their death here in this forum. But I disagree with the stance that since these soldiers volunteered, they are therefore willingly helping an oppresive system expand its power.
Sure they volunteered. But why? Ever ask that? I don't think you did.
Many of our soldiers probably volunteered out of will, they wanted to join because they thought it was right, or they agreed with the cause. And with these soldiers, you have a valid point: they are supporting an oppresive system and therefore are guilty.
BUT what about the soldiers who come from incredible poverty with no education and no support from their parents? Where are they to go? Gangs, drugs, death? Or the army? "At least here they can see the world and make money for college", as the slogan says. These people are products of the system which you claim to hate. They are a result of greed, and an example of inequality. And yet you cheer for their death and pain, as if they haven't experienced enough. Shame on you and your hypocrisy.

-- August

[KC]

Does asking the question "Why?" really matter?

Every person that joins the army knows what they are getting into. Regardless of their reason, they know what they are getting into. And their history of poverty does not absolve them of their crimes. They still murder innocent people.

The poor can survive easily without joining the army.

[Heesh]

I think all soldiers should be respected... regardless of allegiance or idealogy. The demonization of american soldiers is unnecessary even if you advocate the deaths of US soldiers. Distinction between the institution and individual is important in this case. Like someone mentioned, the men behind the helmets may be the most caring people. Bottomline is even though you may support the insurgency their is no reason to view american deaths as a joyous occasion.

[Decolonize The Left]

Lazar, the blatant ignorance of your comments is insulting:


Does asking the question "Why?" really matter?

The question 'why' is the basis of intellectual thought.


Every person that joins the army knows what they are getting into. Regardless of their reason, they know what they are getting into. And their history of poverty does not absolve them of their crimes. They still murder innocent people.

You demonstrate here your complete disregard for circumstance. Circumstance tends to play a large role in all actions, as it partially determines each action. If you have no money, you are attacked fairly often, have no home, no food, can barely read and write, and have only one parent who can't support you and is addicted to something, what looks better? Finding your way through hell (the streets)? Or joining the army, and possibly making your future better for yourself? Regardless of killing someone (they might have done that already, perhaps in self-defense), these people arn't concerned with foreign people's lives like you and I might be. They are concerned with THEIR OWN LIFE.


The poor can survive easily without joining the army.

Some might, but many can't. And you should be ashamed for assuming you know enough about teh mass amounts of poor to make this judgment. These people are viciously oppressed by the capitalist system which you so abhore. They are the people who are suffering the most from the people you hate the most. They are the people you should feel the most pity for, and yet you wish their death.

Well I pity you, and your ignorance.

-- August

[KC]

The question 'why' is the basis of intellectual thought.

I didn't mean in a general sense; I meant in this circumstance. Irregardless of where they come from, they are still assisting the expansion and defense of the very system which oppresses them!



You demonstrate here your complete disregard for circumstance. Circumstance tends to play a large role in all actions, as it partially determines each action. If you have no money, you are attacked fairly often, have no home, no food, can barely read and write, and have only one parent who can't support you and is addicted to something, what looks better? Finding your way through hell (the streets)? Or joining the army, and possibly making your future better for yourself? Regardless of killing someone (they might have done that already, perhaps in self-defense), these people arn't concerned with foreign people's lives like you and I might be. They are concerned with THEIR OWN LIFE.


WHY does this matter? They are still guilty of murder. Soldiers are mass murderers. Are you justifying mass murder? Because they're poor?



Some might, but many can't. And you should be ashamed for assuming you know enough about teh mass amounts of poor to make this judgment. These people are viciously oppressed by the capitalist system which you so abhore. They are the people who are suffering the most from the people you hate the most. They are the people you should feel the most pity for, and yet you wish their death.


These people are oppressed by the capitalist system; so they fight for it? When did I wish their death? When did I praise the sniper? I don't think I did. I did say that murderers should be punished; and I hope you agree with me on that. Do I feel pity for them? Yes! That's precisely why I became a communist. But that doesn't justify them killing civilians.


Well I pity you, and your ignorance.

I pity your hypocracy and your blatant disregard for human life.

[D_Bokk]

I didn't read through the whole thread because once I got through the first page I felt sick from some of the heartless responses.

I have nothing against this sniper because it takes a massive amount of guts to go solo against a huge army. However since he remains unnamed, I will not support his killings because he may very well have a ideology just as bad as Capitalism.

What a lot of you forget is that many of US soldiers were/are POOR! For crying out loud, some of you sound like Fascist pigs with your "Death To All Americans!" bullshit. For many of these people, the Army was only only way for them to actually receive a paycheck without tossing their dignity in the trash can to work at McDonalds. Recruiters blanket the poorest areas of this country to find men and women who are desperate for a job. Then you cheer for their death?! And you call yourselves Communists...

...you poor excuses for human beings.

[Decolonize The Left]

Ok, I've read what you wrote, and re-read what we wrote before and I would like to clarify certain things.


I didn't mean in a general sense; I meant in this circumstance.

Perhaps asking "why" is not as important as looking at the action for what it is, a murder, but you should never not ask why. It will always provide more information and perhaps shed some light on what really happened.


WHY does this matter? They are still guilty of murder. Soldiers are mass murderers. Are you justifying mass murder? Because they're poor?


I have never justified murder of any type, let alone mass murder. To say that because I look as to the roots of people's envolvment in murder = my justification of their murdering someone else, is completely groundless and false. Because I look at why people have decided to shoot someone else, something I don't think I could do, shows my sympathy for the people killed. I want to know why they died. I want to know how their death can be prevented in the future.


These people are oppressed by the capitalist system; so they fight for it? When did I wish their death? When did I praise the sniper? I don't think I did. I did say that murderers should be punished; and I hope you agree with me on that. Do I feel pity for them? Yes! That's precisely why I became a communist. But that doesn't justify them killing civilians.

These people ARE oppressed by the capitalist system, we agree. But I wish to state that in most cases they DON'T KNOW who is oppressing them, and in many cases, they don't know what they can do about it (i.e. what you and I are doing).
Second, yes you are correct, you didn't wish their death. And you are also correct in saying that they deserve punishment for killing innocent people.

Finally I wish to say a few things. First, I don't see how you have concluded that I have a "blatent disregard for human life" from my comments. If you read closely, it is my value of human life that has made my write this in the first place. Secondly, asking 'why' purely shows my interests in preventing these conditions in the future, something from which your comments I gather you don't care about. You would prefer to administer negative feedback to one generation while ignoring the cause and effect of the whole ordeal. I don't disagree with punishing people who kill innocents, regardless of their circumstance. But I think this punishment should be administered with some research into the causes of these deaths and to what degree of punishment is needed for each case.

-- August

[Free Palestine]

I cannot support an Insurgency which regually blows up innocent civilians as a method.

That is because there are no hiding places for combatants, such as forests and mountains, which forces them to fight almost exclusively in heavily populated cities, towns and along certain highways. That is why the car bomb and suicide bombers are deployed in the towns and cities. Also note the car bombings target military checkpoints, U.S. patrols, police stations, and officials who collaborate with the occupation -- all fair game. The nature of the car bombings results in civilian casualties by perforce, but they are rarely if ever the primary target. Some of the attacks that seem to be directed at only civilians reflect sectarian religious provocations, not necessarily associated with the resistance.

Disgusting? Yes, but understandable and far less criminal in the context of warfare than American actions. Before you prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance should conduct their "secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent" battle, you should shore up your end of the resistance by helping force the U.S. and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq.


For many of these people, the Army was only only way for them to actually receive a paycheck without tossing their dignity in the trash can to work at McDonalds. Recruiters blanket the poorest areas of this country to find men and women who are desperate for a job.

That is no excuse. When the day is done, they're still serving in an army of occupation and oppression, which engages in daily humiliations, indignities, and human rights abuses to which Iraqis are subjected living under. No amount of rationalization, justification, moral equivocation, brainwashing or sophistry will change that. Willful imperial gendarmes do not deserve anyone's sympathy.

[bolshevik butcher]

I support the irapi resistance attacking coalition forces but not civillans. Viva juba!

[Dark Exodus]

I don't understand the support for the Iraqi resistance, they are mostly foreigners (this is info from someone who fought their) or baathists. Not to mention the Islamic extremism.

In the end they will lose, both miltarily and morally, the struggle only serves to lower peoples opinion of them and cause unneccessary loss of life.

[dso79]

What a lot of you forget is that many of US soldiers were/are POOR!

I don’t really care about a soldier’s background; if he takes part in the war against Iraq he is an enemy and deserves to be killed. Imperialism cannot be defeated by peaceful means.

I only support soldiers who oppose the war and refuse to take part in it.


Even if the man is an Islamic fundamentalist?

I don’t think Juba is an Islamic extremist; he’s very well trained, so he may have been a sniper in Saddam’s army. Anyway, he is doing a great job picking off the bad guys without harming civilians.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Anyone here from Britain would doubtless have heard about Reg Keys. The man who lost his son in Iraq and then stood against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. This mans life was destroyed by the actions of a minority of political elites in America and Britain.

He felt his son was doing a justified and responsible job. He believed the Governments lies about Iraq being a threat. Did he then deserve to lose his son?

Over half of the American population bought into the war. Do they deserve to die?

My point is any loss of life is terrible and instead of supporting one side over another. We should take the moral stance and denounce all forms of warfare.

[Decolonize The Left]

I wish to clarify my stance for all of you:
I have never supported or justified the killing of innocent civilians or anyone for that matter. I also do not support the military, regardless of whether the soldiers joined out of patriotism or of circumstance.
I purely would appreciate people acknowledging that not everyone in the military is there because they think its the right thing to do.
And I think when people did, or kill other people, we should ask "why"? Not look at it in black and white.
That's all.


My point is any loss of life is terrible and instead of supporting one side over another. We should take the moral stance and denounce all forms of warfare.

Well put Armchair. This is exactly what I think we should do.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

It sounds nice to denounce warfaire, but what would you think if another country invaded yours?

[Decolonize The Left]

If I had my way, there wouldn't be a reason for a country to invade mine.

But ideals aside, if a country invades my country, I am therefore defending my life, and the life of my family and friends. This is a different situation, as in this case, war has been brought to me, I did not go out seeking it. I don't know what I'd do...

-- August

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 04:34 AM
If a killer saves someone's life is he absolved?
If a serial killer saves someone's life is he absolved?
So if someone took a group of people hostage and you knew none of them deserved it, that if they weren't saved their end result would be death, you'd rather let them die?

[KC]

Perhaps asking "why" is not as important as looking at the action for what it is, a murder, but you should never not ask why. It will always provide more information and perhaps shed some light on what really happened.

Sometimes asking "why" is pointless and won't offer any helpful information.



I have never justified murder of any type, let alone mass murder. To say that because I look as to the roots of people's envolvment in murder = my justification of their murdering someone else, is completely groundless and false. Because I look at why people have decided to shoot someone else, something I don't think I could do, shows my sympathy for the people killed.

It sounds like your sympathy is for the soldiers. What of the civilians?



I want to know why they died. I want to know how their death can be prevented in the future.

The civilians died because the soldiers are there. The soldiers died because the soldiers are there.



Finally I wish to say a few things. First, I don't see how you have concluded that I have a "blatent disregard for human life" from my comments. If you read closely, it is my value of human life that has made my write this in the first place.

You're condemning the murder of murderers. Only a few thousand American soldiers died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.



Secondly, asking 'why' purely shows my interests in preventing these conditions in the future, something from which your comments I gather you don't care about. You would prefer to administer negative feedback to one generation while ignoring the cause and effect of the whole ordeal.

We both obviously know that many poor people join the army. If you want to prevent this, educate them! I don't care about murderers. I do hope that no more enlist, though.



I don't disagree with punishing people who kill innocents, regardless of their circumstance. But I think this punishment should be administered with some research into the causes of these deaths and to what degree of punishment is needed for each case.

And what if there is no system to put them through? What if there is no court, no judges, no investigators? Should they just go free?


Over half of the American population bought into the war. Do they deserve to die?

Of course not! They didn't murder anybody.



My point is any loss of life is terrible and instead of supporting one side over another. We should take the moral stance and denounce all forms of warfare.

Denouncing all forms of warfare is foolish and serves no purpose. We live in a world of war, sadly, and denouncing it does nothing as it will continue to happen whether you like it or not.




Well put Armchair. This is exactly what I think we should do.

Pacifism is futile.



But ideals aside, if a country invades my country, I am therefore defending my life, and the life of my family and friends. This is a different situation, as in this case, war has been brought to me, I did not go out seeking it. I don't know what I'd do...

And you don't think there are people over there doing just this?



So if someone took a group of people hostage and you knew none of them deserved it, that if they weren't saved their end result would be death, you'd rather let them die?

What? I said no such thing. What I meant by that was that, even though soldiers can do good things (such as save hostages), usually they dont; usually they end up murdering people. In this case many people that don't deserve it.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:14 PM


Perhaps asking "why" is not as important as looking at the action for what it is, a murder, but you should never not ask why. It will always provide more information and perhaps shed some light on what really happened.

Sometimes asking "why" is pointless and won't offer any helpful information.



I have never justified murder of any type, let alone mass murder. To say that because I look as to the roots of people's envolvment in murder = my justification of their murdering someone else, is completely groundless and false. Because I look at why people have decided to shoot someone else, something I don't think I could do, shows my sympathy for the people killed.

It sounds like your sympathy is for the soldiers. What of the civilians?



I want to know why they died. I want to know how their death can be prevented in the future.

The civilians died because the soldiers are there. The soldiers died because the soldiers are there.



Finally I wish to say a few things. First, I don't see how you have concluded that I have a "blatent disregard for human life" from my comments. If you read closely, it is my value of human life that has made my write this in the first place.

You're condemning the murder of murderers. Only a few thousand American soldiers died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.



Secondly, asking 'why' purely shows my interests in preventing these conditions in the future, something from which your comments I gather you don't care about. You would prefer to administer negative feedback to one generation while ignoring the cause and effect of the whole ordeal.

We both obviously know that many poor people join the army. If you want to prevent this, educate them! I don't care about murderers. I do hope that no more enlist, though.



I don't disagree with punishing people who kill innocents, regardless of their circumstance. But I think this punishment should be administered with some research into the causes of these deaths and to what degree of punishment is needed for each case.

And what if there is no system to put them through? What if there is no court, no judges, no investigators? Should they just go free?


Over half of the American population bought into the war. Do they deserve to die?

Of course not! They didn't murder anybody.



My point is any loss of life is terrible and instead of supporting one side over another. We should take the moral stance and denounce all forms of warfare.

Denouncing all forms of warfare is foolish and serves no purpose. We live in a world of war, sadly, and denouncing it does nothing as it will continue to happen whether you like it or not.




Well put Armchair. This is exactly what I think we should do.

Pacifism is futile.



But ideals aside, if a country invades my country, I am therefore defending my life, and the life of my family and friends. This is a different situation, as in this case, war has been brought to me, I did not go out seeking it. I don't know what I'd do...

And you don't think there are people over there doing just this?



So if someone took a group of people hostage and you knew none of them deserved it, that if they weren't saved their end result would be death, you'd rather let them die?

What? I said no such thing. What I meant by that was that, even though soldiers can do good things (such as save hostages), usually they dont; usually they end up murdering people. In this case many people that don't deserve it.
This post hit the nail right on the head.

[Warren Peace]

Who cares if Juba is religious? As long as religion is kept out of politics and isn't racist, people have the right to follow whatever religion they want. Besides, nowhere in the article did it ever suggest Juba was an "Islamic fundementalist".

Juba is obviously against imperialism. He obviously has compassion for the Iraqi people; he doesn't kill civilians and only targets the imperialists. Not to mention he's a kickass sniper. There is no reason for us not to support him. Hopefully he will become a resistance hero, then maybe other Iraqi resistance fighters will follow his example and only target the imperialists.

If you're going to support the US soldiers, who are fighting for imperialism and murdering innocent Iraqi people, because they're "just doing their job" then why oppose terrorists who kill civilians? Aren't they just "doing their job?"

[MoscowFarewell]

It's not like that Revolt, some of them couldn't leave. My girlfriend's brother for example was trying to use the Airforce so that he could get on his way into a career outside the military. He had no idea that the war was coming and when it did, he served his time. After that, he was about to return home. They wouldn't let him and for months he hasn't been home. He writes letters to the head of his Battalion but they won't let him go. Not only that, they put him as just another soldier to fight in the fields, completely screwing what he was training for.

[Decolonize The Left]

Lazar, I will respond to what you said in regards to my earlier posts and leave out your comments towards other people.


Sometimes asking "why" is pointless and won't offer any helpful information.

Through this logic, you will never learn anything beyond basic ideas and thoughts. If you refuse to do something known as self-reflection, or just reflection in general, I don't think we need to have further debates.



It sounds like your sympathy is for the soldiers. What of the civilians?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in the statement you quoted above this one. I wrote "shows my sympathy for the people killed". How does that not apply to civilians? Regardless of this error, you should have enough intelligence to gather from my arguments and my statements about pacifism that I care very much for the civilians, more in fact, than for the soldiers. This is apparent. Furthermore, this thread topic was addressing the soldiers deaths, not civilians and so I responded in such. Please do not make an argument out of context.


The civilians died because the soldiers are there. The soldiers died because the soldiers are there.

You are correct in your statement here. Now by your demonstrated logic you would have all the soldiers killed, and that would solve the problem. But anyone can see that this will solve nothing. The government is to blame for the soldiers involvment, the soldiers themselves did not purchase boats and guns and sail overseas... Your simplistic view on war is not becoming of your argument.


We both obviously know that many poor people join the army. If you want to prevent this, educate them! I don't care about murderers. I do hope that no more enlist, though.

Clearly, I do not have the means to educate the mass numbers of poor in America. If I could have the public education system reformed so as to better educate the large majority of the popultion, I would.
As to your quote of you "don't care about murderers", this seems in stark contrast to your earlier statement "They are still guilty of murder. Soldiers are mass murderers. Are you justifying mass murder?" from the previous page. Are saying you only care about murder under conditions of war? You're contradicting yourself in the span of several posts.


You're condemning the murder of murderers. Only a few thousand American soldiers died. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

I am condeming war, which is murder. I thought this was apparent, I believe I stated that earlier. I am aware of the consequences of war in regards to the large amount of civilian deaths in proportion to soldiers, which is why I am condeming that very cause.


And what if there is no system to put them through? What if there is no court, no judges, no investigators? Should they just go free?


I believe your response was to my statement that punishment should be anministered to people who kill others as can be seen by your quote of my words. Now I wrote that in response, or rather agreement, to your earlier statement " I did say that murderers should be punished". So in effect you are questioning your own statement...



Denouncing all forms of warfare is foolish and serves no purpose. We live in a world of war, sadly, and denouncing it does nothing as it will continue to happen whether you like it or not.

Why not give peace a chance? We have shown that we know how to conduct war, and that we know the results of war, and that we know the horrors of war, so why not try something else? Your argument is terribly ignorant and one-sided, claiming that you know how the world works. It is people like you who, through their view that war is the only way, cause the deaths and suffering of millions of innocent civilians which you claim to care so much about. There is a word for that, its called hypocrisy.


Pacifism is futile.

See above response.

-- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Moscow, my sympathies for your girlfriend's brother. He was wronged. Although he is not completely justified as he did 'enlist in the army' which implies that he knew what might happen, that doesn't mean it was good.

Revolt now:

If you're going to support the US soldiers, who are fighting for imperialism and murdering innocent Iraqi people, because they're "just doing their job" then why oppose terrorists who kill civilians? Aren't they just "doing their job?"

I have never supported the US soldiers. What I did say is that we should not celebrate their deaths, because killing someone is wrong. There is a difference between the two.
Also I never used 'doing their job' as an excuse for anything. I strongly condemn the use of military forces, as well as killing of anyone.

Ownthink, please see my post to Lazar, as you clearly support his flawed arguments.

-- August

[Ownthink]

"Ownthink, please see my post to Lazar, as you clearly support his flawed arguments."

His arguments aren't flawed. Give peace a chance? Come on, we all want that, but we all know it isn't going to ever happen. Ever. Juba isn't religious and he is against Imperialism and he isn't killing and civvies. Like RevoltNow said, is there any reason for us not to support him?


Go Juba!

[MoscowFarewell]

I understand that and I just try to make a point with people. Yes, they can be considered murderers. But they are humans like us too and that justifies that they aren't all directed as mindless killers, but that they are easily put in as well.

[KC]

Through this logic, you will never learn anything beyond basic ideas and thoughts. If you refuse to do something known as self-reflection, or just reflection in general, I don't think we need to have further debates.


I said sometimes. Not all the time. Sometimes the reason people do things isn't important; no matter what the reason was, they still did it.



Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in the statement you quoted above this one. I wrote "shows my sympathy for the people killed". How does that not apply to civilians? Regardless of this error, you should have enough intelligence to gather from my arguments and my statements about pacifism that I care very much for the civilians, more in fact, than for the soldiers. This is apparent. Furthermore, this thread topic was addressing the soldiers deaths, not civilians and so I responded in such. Please do not make an argument out of context.

My mistake.



You are correct in your statement here. Now by your demonstrated logic you would have all the soldiers killed, and that would solve the problem. But anyone can see that this will solve nothing. The government is to blame for the soldiers involvment, the soldiers themselves did not purchase boats and guns and sail overseas... Your simplistic view on war is not becoming of your argument.

Soldiers are tools the government uses to expand its power. And all soldiers shouldn't die; the ones that kill people should. The government AND the soldiers are both to blame.



Clearly, I do not have the means to educate the mass numbers of poor in America. If I could have the public education system reformed so as to better educate the large majority of the popultion, I would.
As to your quote of you "don't care about murderers", this seems in stark contrast to your earlier statement "They are still guilty of murder. Soldiers are mass murderers. Are you justifying mass murder?" from the previous page. Are saying you only care about murder under conditions of war? You're contradicting yourself in the span of several posts.


Reforming education to that extent will never happen. You have to educate people yourself, just as everyone else here has to. You just need to reach one person and you will have made a difference. When I said I don't care about murderers, you interpreted this wrong. What I meant was that I don't care if murderers die.




I am condeming war, which is murder. I thought this was apparent, I believe I stated that earlier. I am aware of the consequences of war in regards to the large amount of civilian deaths in proportion to soldiers, which is why I am condeming that very cause.


Again, my mistake. I let some assumptions into my argument which were just incorrect. However, I do see the pacifist view as futile, as war is a product of our society.




I believe your response was to my statement that punishment should be anministered to people who kill others as can be seen by your quote of my words. Now I wrote that in response, or rather agreement, to your earlier statement " I did say that murderers should be punished". So in effect you are questioning your own statement...

My response to your quote was because you said that "this punishment should be administered with some research into the causes of these deaths and to what degree of punishment is needed for each case." This implies some investigation. What I was questioning was what should happen if there is no investigation? What if there is nobody to investigate? Should these murderers be set free?



Why not give peace a chance?

Because since everybody isn't pacifist, the non-pacifists will take advantage of that and start pushing the pacifists around.



We have shown that we know how to conduct war, and that we know the results of war, and that we know the horrors of war, so why not try something else? Your argument is terribly ignorant and one-sided, claiming that you know how the world works. It is people like you who, through their view that war is the only way, cause the deaths and suffering of millions of innocent civilians which you claim to care so much about. There is a word for that, its called hypocrisy.

I never supported war; I just stated it as an inevitability. That is how the world works, in this society at least. War isn't the only way, but it happens; deal with it. Are you against a socialist/communist revolution? Do you think there's some other way? Reform? Sometimes violence is needed.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Lazar - "Pacifism is futile."

Pacifism never bombed anyone, shot anyone, tortured anyone.

Look at history and it will show you when violence is used as a solution, the solution becomes flawed.

Do you think this statement is untrue Lazar?

Clenched Fist - "It sounds nice to denounce warfaire, but what would you think if another country invaded yours?"

Why would I care if another country invaded mine. Hopefully Holland will then we can sit round in coffee shops getting stoned all day. :rolleyes:

[Decolonize The Left]

Lazar, thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the phrases I posted. Your argument becomes much more clear and reasonable to me now. You must understand that I agree that war is a product of our society, but that still doesn't mean I can't think it's wrong.

I would like expand on your final comment:

I never supported war; I just stated it as an inevitability.

This is in effect, supporting war. To say something is inevitable is to accept it. And when you accept something, you are supporting it in regards to options you don't don't accept (i.e. peace). You're right, we live in a war world. And we have lived in a world of war for as long as history can recall. And now we live in a world of inequality, suffering, and pain. Anyone can see the link: war = world of inequality, suffering, and pain.
This is a general statement, but it is a truism on most scales.
No one has ever attempted peace on a large scale. Never, at least to the best of my knowledge, if someone has information I'd be glad to read it. Therefore you are saying that something that has never been tried can't work, a very fundamental point-of-view, and one that opposes by nature the whole area of science as we know it. Experimentation is how things are discovered.


Are you against a socialist/communist revolution?

If it comes down to it, I'll be wherever the people need my services. Be it on the front line or in the back, be it on the bottom or the top. But that time hasn't come quite yet.


Do you think there's some other way? Reform?

I don't know. That's why I'm here, to read about more ideas and thoughts on how things can change. As well as what people think needs to be done, so I not only know how people are thinking, but what is the best way to proceed.

Ownthink: In regards to your comments on peace, please read what I have written above. In regards to Juba, you're right, he is fighting for the right reasons. I agree with you, I just find it hard to support the killing of people, that's all.

-- August

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:20 PM
Lazar - "Pacifism is futile."

Pacifism never bombed anyone, shot anyone, tortured anyone.

Look at history and it will show you when violence is used as a solution, the solution becomes flawed.

Do you think this statement is untrue Lazar?

Clenched Fist - "It sounds nice to denounce warfaire, but what would you think if another country invaded yours?"

Why would I care if another country invaded mine. Hopefully Holland will then we can sit round in coffee shops getting stoned all day. :rolleyes:
You're right, Pacifism never did bomb or kill or shoot or torture anyone, and it never got anything done, either. I am 100% in agreement with Lazar here. Sometimes, violence is necessary, especially with a Revolution. Am I a pacifist in that I would prefer that I could push a button and no one would die and there would immediately be a Communist Utopia? Yes, but am I a pacifist in that I will use violence if necessary? No. We need Violent, Armed Revolution, NOT Reform! I would prefer if nobody died, but that isn't going to happen. Be practical.

Oh, and if you hate the neocons and the bourgeois so much, then how can you call yourself a pacifist? You just going to let them walk all over you, or are you going to send them to their graves?

[Decolonize The Left]

and it never got anything done, either.

It was never given a chance to get anything done. You have a null point.


We need Violent, Armed Revolution, NOT Reform!

You obviously don't listen to history. What has "armed, violent, revolution" gotten in the past? Death not change. If it was so fucking effective, where is it today?


Oh, and if you hate the neocons and the bourgeois so much, then how can you call yourself a pacifist? You just going to let them walk all over you, or are you going to send them to their graves?

No I'm not going to let them walk all over me. I'm gonna develop some intellect and go take them out of power by informing the people of the hypocrits and liars they are and how they are making life worse for almost everyone but themselves.
You don't have the support of the people, you have a small minority that wants to engage in violence. That isn't going to do shit. The people don't want to die, they want to live with dignity and with respect. They need someone to show them a better way for themselves, where they will live through the transition.
And if that doesn't work, maybe I'll think about taking up violence. Violence is a last resort.

Your pathetic kill-them-all attitude is only going to get you killed and your cause destroyed.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Ownthink - "Oh, and if you hate the neocons and the bourgeois so much, then how can you call yourself a pacifist? You just going to let them walk all over you, or are you going to send them to their graves?"

Someone has a masculinity complex.

Ownthink - "No. We need Violent, Armed Revolution, NOT Reform!"

Reform has its problems but so does violent revolution. Extreme violence at times of revolution more often than not leads to paranoia. Look at Russia. Lenin ended up killing or imprisoning anyone who disagreed with his view of the revolution. This is not Communism, Communism is co-existence.

[Warren Peace]

We need Violent, Armed Revolution, NOT Reform! I would prefer if nobody died, but that isn't going to happen. Be practical.

I completley agree.

Ever notice that all great reformist leaders get killed? MLK? He was a great man, but he never did come close to ending the Class War and the struggle for freedom in America. At the snap of his fingers, he could have launched a glorious revolution to burn away US oppression and imperialism, but he never did. His stance against violence was too dogmatic; he didn't want anybody to die, even for the greater good. That didn't change the fact that people were, and still are, dying.

Sure, some revolutionary leaders get killed, like Che and Malcolm X. But look at all the revolutionary leaders who did live and did make revolutionary changes. Sun Yat-Sen! Fidel Catsro! Ho Chi Minh! And others!

The class enemy won't give up without a fight. The only way to make revolutionary change is through revolutionary action!

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Revolt Now!@Aug 8 2005, 04:27 PM

We need Violent, Armed Revolution, NOT Reform! I would prefer if nobody died, but that isn't going to happen. Be practical.

I completley agree.

Ever notice that all great reformist leaders get killed? MLK? He was a great man, but he never did come close to ending the Class War and the struggle for freedom in America. At the snap of his fingers, he could have launched a glorious revolution to burn away US oppression and imperialism, but he never did. His stance against violence was too dogmatic; he didn't want anybody to die, even for the greater good. That didn't change the fact that people were, and still are, dying.

Sure, some revolutionary leaders get killed, like Che and Malcolm X. But look at all the revolutionary leaders who did live and did make revolutionary changes. Sun Yat-Sen! Fidel Catsro! Ho Chi Minh! And others!

The class enemy won't give up without a fight. The only way to make revolutionary change is through revolutionary action!
Jesus, is this guy the only one with me? Pacifism isn't going to do shit. We need Revolution, not Reform. Oh, and I don't have a "kill 'em all" attitude! I would PREFER if nobody died, but that ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! It's called being a REALIST! Being PRACTICAL. Yeah sure, in a dream world everything would be perfect, no wars, everyone would be peaceful... but WAKE UP! That is NOT going to happen in this world, no matter how much you want it to. Pacifism isn't going to establish ANY major change. Bullets count, bodies count. The working class is SICK OF BEING WALKED ON! We are not going to vote or rally or petition. Fuck peace, that chance has gone. The only way for a Revolution is Armed Insurrection, not pacifist pleading.

[D_Bokk]

What many of you people fail to realize is that the people who are dieing are the ones amongst the lower end of the military hierarchy. Don't Communists become Communist because we fight for the little guy? Had this sniper been sniping people whom actually deserve it like high up officials in the US government or British government - I could understand your enthusiasm.

However, this is not the case - the people whom many of you claim to be fighting for are the ones who are dieing. The working man whose only possible way to elevate themselves from poverty was to join the army is the main target. These aren't professional soldiers, these are people whom had the choice between poverty and a chance in life.

[Decolonize The Left]

Big words, I hear lots of big words. Where to begin?
Revolt Now:

MLK? He was a great man, but he never did come close to ending the Class War and the struggle for freedom in America.

How dare you diminish the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. He accomplished things which you dream of, and he did it without fighting. You have conveniently left out all his accomplishments to say "he never did come close to ending the Class War". MLK was an African-American Civil Rights activist, he was fighting for something specific, racial rights for blacks in America.


But look at all the revolutionary leaders who did live and did make revolutionary changes. Sun Yat-Sen! Fidel Catsro! Ho Chi Minh! And others!

And what HUGE impact have they had on the rest of the oppressed people of the world? I am not saying they didn't do the right thing, but I am saying that they are a few people, not millions.

Ownthink:

It's called being a REALIST! Being PRACTICAL.

Frankly I don't see how practical your claims truly are. You are demanding a revolution from an apathetic majority who wishes at last resort to engage in full on violent conflict. Where is the practicality in that?
Realist? I hope you don't mean the political science definition of Realism, that would lead you to be a capitalist imperialst. But I don't think you are. You think power is the only way to get what you want, and I think that is naive. Seeing as how you have not tried any other forms of changing the system, you have no grounds to claim violent revolt is the only way.


Bullets count, bodies count.
(Sounds like a quote from the neo-conservatives.)
Wrong. People count.


The working class is SICK OF BEING WALKED ON!

Really? Where is this outcry? Where are these people taking to the streets in anger and violence? I read a lot of news and am quite observant and I have seen nothing. I have seen the working class protest the War in Iraq, Civil rights, abortion, gay marriage and other specific issues relative to certain groups of people, but NEVER this all encompassing massive rebellion you speak of.

You both are all in your head, with no practical solutions. And that is because a violent revolution isn't practical at this point in time.

-- August

[Ownthink]

Baha. Yes, it will all work out with peace. Not.

[Decolonize The Left]

A very sophisticated and mature answer to a well-written argument...

Just what I would expect from your previous childlike, ignorant comments. How can you expect any to listen to you, let alone take you seriously when all you do is preach about vioence? You have no arguments, you just preach. And to be frank, I don't care for being preached to, and I don't think many other people in this forum do either.

I am always more than happy to have a debate or discussion on a topic, almost anything, but when you resort to the simple yelling of ignorant comments, you do not advance your cause. I hope you learned this today.

-- August

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 05:55 PM
A very sophisticated and mature answer to a well-written argument...

Just what I would expect from your previous childlike, ignorant comments. How can you expect any to listen to you, let alone take you seriously when all you do is preach about vioence? You have no arguments, you just preach. And to be frank, I don't care for being preached to, and I don't think many other people in this forum do either.

I am always more than happy to have a debate or discussion on a topic, almost anything, but when you resort to the simple yelling of ignorant comments, you do not advance your cause. I hope you learned this today.

-- August
What the hell? I tried to debate with you telling you that peace was never going to work. Once can only coherently post arguments to an ignorant moron like you until it starts to drive him up a wall with the EXACT SAME RESPONSE EVERY TIME. What's the point in arguing? So you can just say "peace works" and I can say "No, it doesn't"? This argument would go on forever. It's like trying to argue with a Religious person about the existence of a God. It never works, no matter what you do.

Go try your whole Peace thing, and let me see if you establish a Communist society.

EDIT: You seem to forget how America was formed: Armed Revolution. They petitioned and pleaded before that and nothing worked, only violence. I think this puts this argument to rest.

[bolshevik butcher]

I dont see why we cant use both means in the right situations. MLK did achieve great things, nelson mandela and che used violence, they also chieved great things.

[Decolonize The Left]

You are correct Clenched Fist, different times call for different actions.

Though I am saying that in our case at the present time, violence is not necessary and should be avoided.

- August

[bolshevik butcher]

In the U$, certainly, now is not the time for violence.

[Decolonize The Left]

I didn't see OwnThink's post when I last posted, I'll address that now:


What the hell? I tried to debate with you telling you that peace was never going to work.

Allow me to quote your last response to my post beforehand.

Baha. Yes, it will all work out with peace. Not.
A very fine debate you were arguing there. And here:

Pacifism isn't going to do shit. We need Revolution, not Reform.
And here:

Pacifism isn't going to establish ANY major change.
here:

You're right, Pacifism never did bomb or kill or shoot or torture anyone, and it never got anything done, either.
here:

Give peace a chance? Come on, we all want that, but we all know it isn't going to ever happen.
etc...

You never debated anything. You just yelled "Pacifism won't work, revolution is the only answer!" Your arguments consisted of: "It won't work cause it's weak, they will walk all over you..." with no justification.

As long as you resort to preaching violence, and you won't even ATTEMPT to see what a peacful solution will bring, your method is flawed.

As for the argument you thought had a point:

You seem to forget how America was formed: Armed Revolution. They petitioned and pleaded before that and nothing worked, only violence. I think this puts this argument to rest.

I'll put this argument to rest by simply quoting what I had already posted before:

And if [peace] doesn't work, maybe I'll think about taking up violence. Violence is a last resort.

I think you just proved my point, the American Revolution originally attempted diplomatic and peaceful solutions, and when they failed, they RESORTED to violence. Exactly what I have been saying... But you won't even attempt to look at diplomatic or peaceful solutions...

-- August

[Ownthink]

Wait wait wait wait...

Didn't I say that I didn't WANT there to be violence, although there has to be when every other option is exhausted? Oh yeah, I DID.

You even quoted it. "Give peace a chance? Come on, we all want that, but we all know it isn't going to ever happen."

There you go. I didn't say "fuck everything else, lets go grab guns and kill people". I said that we have already tried marches, protests, votes, and petitions. And guess what: THEY DIDN'T WORK. I believe that Revolution is the only way to establish Communism/fight the bourgeois/fight Imperialism. These things I have just listed will use violence to combat us, so why shouldn't we use violence to combat them?

[novemba]

Stop *****in about whos the better debater.

August: Tell us how you will achieve your peaceful revoultion in a well written thesis.

OwnThink: Tell us how you think that peaceful revolution isn't possible in well written thesis.

Then we'll go from there.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 08:50 PM
Where were all these "freedom fighters" when Saddam Hussain was in power.
In the Republican Guard. Who do you think sent this "Juba" guy to sniper school?

[Ownthink]

Does anyone else here agree with me that a "Peaceful Revolution" wouldn't accomplish much, if anything?

[D_Bokk]

Chavez's relatively peaceful revolution has accomplished a lot.

[viva le revolution]

Yes venezuela's revolution was comparatively peaceful, but what about chavez creating people's militias? Preparing for violence to keep all that venezuela has achieved.
In today's day and age, peaceful revolutions are near impossible, just look at venezuela again when chavez was ousted before in a military coup, Only mass discontent and mass action, with the spectre of it turning violent, brought him back to power.
Arguing that peaceful methods will bring down capitalism is not realistic, it is more of a utopian view.
Only mass action can bring about revolution and almost always it has to be aggressive to bring about any change. Talking about a peaceful transition to socialism or communism is only pacifying the masses and will lead nowhere. Never in history has any revolution been peaceful. Parliamentarianism replaced the monarchy through violence, so it will be with communism, all previous attempts at it have been brought about through conflict and effective mass action.
Some will argue and state that that's why they failed, but bear in mind that even the epitome of peaceful revolution, venezuela, is preparing for war.

[Decolonize The Left]

Necro: I appreciate your attempt at mediating this debate. I don't know if you have read all 5 pages of this thread, but I have been developing an argument for a while now. All I'm asking is for OwnThink and anyone else who thinks differently then myself to make a pointed argument with some base to it, instead of preaching the same thing repeatedly. This is not an argument:

Does anyone else here agree with me that a "Peaceful Revolution" wouldn't accomplish much, if anything?

Ownthink: Firstly, never ONCE did you say:

I said that we have already tried marches, protests, votes, and petitions. Except in that quote right there which is referring to previous times which never occured.

Although you did repeat numerous times as your main argument:

I would PREFER if nobody died, but that ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

Which means nothing because you have never tried peaceful solutions and so your argument in inherently flawed.


These things I have just listed will use violence to combat us, so why shouldn't we use violence to combat them?

These institutions will use vioence if you give them a reason to use violence. People are all rational, and as a group, they will not accept the use of unnecesary violence on other rational people.

I have developed reason as to why peace should be tried as a viable alternative to war. You can read these by reading my posts in this thread. I have yet to receive any form of a substantive point arguing the opposite.

-- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Viva, your post was posted while I was writing my reply, which is why I didn't address it.

I wouldn't be suprised if the US wasn't playing a large role in the opposition to Chavez. This brings in external influence into what was a most pacifistic revolution, which changes the conditions of peace. When someone else is forcibly trying to create violence, peace struggles to prevail.

I am no historian nor have I graduated college and so I do not profess to know much about this situation, but that is my take.

-- August

[D_Bokk]

There's a difference between defensive violence and offensive violence. The only reason there was violence in Venezuela was because the Capitalists were not happy and wanted power back. The building up of the militias is a defensive move to ensure that another unpopular coup or U.S. invasion doesn't succeed.

[Xvall]

Though I am saying that in our case at the present time, violence is not necessary and should be avoided.

I hope you're not talking about Iraq.

[KC]

Wow! A lot has happened here. Anyways, here we go:


You must understand that I agree that war is a product of our society, but that still doesn't mean I can't think it's wrong.


So you don't think it is inevitable that in a capitalist society war will keep happening?



This is in effect, supporting war. To say something is inevitable is to accept it. And when you accept something, you are supporting it in regards to options you don't don't accept (i.e. peace). You're right, we live in a war world. And we have lived in a world of war for as long as history can recall. And now we live in a world of inequality, suffering, and pain. Anyone can see the link: war = world of inequality, suffering, and pain.
This is a general statement, but it is a truism on most scales.
No one has ever attempted peace on a large scale. Never, at least to the best of my knowledge, if someone has information I'd be glad to read it. Therefore you are saying that something that has never been tried can't work, a very fundamental point-of-view, and one that opposes by nature the whole area of science as we know it. Experimentation is how things are discovered.


You seem to contradict yourself here. You say that when I accept it as an inevitability of our society, I support it (which is untrue; I can realize that war will happen but still be against it). Then you go on to accept it as well! You say "we live in a war world." By your own words, you support war! Very hypocritical.

This world of war you speak of is because of classes and class conflicts. War is a product of our society because we live in a society of classes. Also, your statement is backwards. World of inequality, suffering and pain = war.

Peace on a large scale doesn't work because of the conflicts between classes. For peace to work in this society, one class would bow down to another, and this just won't ever happen. That is why war is inevitable and continuous. My views on peace are not unfounded.



Oh, and if you hate the neocons and the bourgeois so much, then how can you call yourself a pacifist? You just going to let them walk all over you, or are you going to send them to their graves?

I think ownthink's argument has the same basis in class conflict.



It was never given a chance to get anything done. You have a null point.


And it never will, as long as classes exist.




You obviously don't listen to history. What has "armed, violent, revolution" gotten in the past? Death not change. If it was so fucking effective, where is it today?

What has revolution gotten in the past? Are you serious? How about the independence of countless countries, expansion of freedoms and so on? And as to where it is today; the world isn't ready for a revolution yet.



No I'm not going to let them walk all over me. I'm gonna develop some intellect and go take them out of power by informing the people of the hypocrits and liars they are and how they are making life worse for almost everyone but themselves.

Education is a good start, but it won't change anything. If you educated the people to become communists, the world wouldn't become communist. The bourgeois won't give up all their wealth and power for nothing! That is why revolution is necessary.



You don't have the support of the people, you have a small minority that wants to engage in violence. That isn't going to do shit.

You're correct! Only a small minority is willing to engage in revolution because they are the only people that realize it is the only way. Hell, they are the only people that realize that this kind of change is needed. Not enough people are communists. That's why a revolution isn't possible now. You seemed to have answered your own question! Education is what is needed right now, but when it comes time for change there will be violence.



The people don't want to die, they want to live with dignity and with respect. They need someone to show them a better way for themselves, where they will live through the transition.
And if that doesn't work, maybe I'll think about taking up violence. Violence is a last resort.

There is no peaceful transition. Making changes in the system won't change the system itself.



Your pathetic kill-them-all attitude is only going to get you killed and your cause destroyed.

It's not a kill-them-all attitude. It's fighting for our lives.



Reform has its problems but so does violent revolution. Extreme violence at times of revolution more often than not leads to paranoia. Look at Russia. Lenin ended up killing or imprisoning anyone who disagreed with his view of the revolution. This is not Communism, Communism is co-existence.

Revolution is the only way. If you have any other suggestion then I would love to hear it, but from what I know there is no other way. And don't look at Russia. Please. Russia is a bad example. No vanguard is needed. The Russian Revolution is full of errors that can easily be corrected. And revolution isn't communism. You should realize this. Revolution is how we will create a communist society.


What many of you people fail to realize is that the people who are dieing are the ones amongst the lower end of the military hierarchy. Don't Communists become Communist because we fight for the little guy? Had this sniper been sniping people whom actually deserve it like high up officials in the US government or British government - I could understand your enthusiasm.

However, this is not the case - the people whom many of you claim to be fighting for are the ones who are dieing. The working man whose only possible way to elevate themselves from poverty was to join the army is the main target. These aren't professional soldiers, these are people whom had the choice between poverty and a chance in life.

I support proletarians. I don't support proletarian murderers. This is covered more in depth in mine, and August's previous posts.



How dare you diminish the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. He accomplished things which you dream of, and he did it without fighting. You have conveniently left out all his accomplishments to say "he never did come close to ending the Class War". MLK was an African-American Civil Rights activist, he was fighting for something specific, racial rights for blacks in America.

Yes, MLK accomplished glorious reforms! :rolleyes: Again, changing the system won't create communism. It's still capitalism. Reforms are only made as long as they don't threaten capitalism.

I'm not going to quote all your arguments in this post, August, because I feel that I have already responded to many of them above.


I dont see why we cant use both means in the right situations. MLK did achieve great things, nelson mandela and che used violence, they also chieved great things.


MLK achieved great things, in the capitalist sense. But really he didn't accomplish that much. Reform won't help destroy capitalism. Actually it helps capitalism; it makes living in a capitalist society more comfortable so people will think less about how much they're getting screwed out of their lives. I'm not saying that what he did was bad; I'm just saying that what he did didn't come close to the root of the problem; and that is capitalism.



Though I am saying that in our case at the present time, violence is not necessary and should be avoided.


Yes, violence right now in this country, or most countries, should be avoided. Now is not the time. It is not time for revolution, it is time for education. There will, however be a time for revolution; it is just not now.


Chavez's relatively peaceful revolution has accomplished a lot.


It is still capitalist. It is just leaning socialist. I'll be impressed when he nationalizes all industry and has agrarian reform with the popular support of the people and remains in power.




These institutions will use vioence if you give them a reason to use violence.

And that reason is because you're going to take their power and their wealth and give it to the people.



I hope you're not talking about Iraq.

Haha, we've long forgotten about Iraq in this debate.

[Decolonize The Left]

Welcome back Lazar, good to hear from you again.


So you don't think it is inevitable that in a capitalist society war will keep happening?

No I don't. But I fundamentally disagree with capitalism, which is why I want to change it. I think I speak for everyone here when I say that. But I think we differ on the means to go about that change. You and Ownthink propose violent revolution as the only solution. I propose an attempt at a peaceful solution, and if this fails, then we have no other options. My reasoning behind this is the simple value of human life.

I was going to continue my analysis of your comments, in fact I had a half a page written when I deleted it. I did this because I sat back from reading and writing for a moment and thought. *still thinking...* *...*

Okay, I have come to a conclusion. After a considerable time of deliberation, I have thought through all the possible peaceful forms of revolution, and have come to the conclusion that they do not result in the form of government I would like to see in place. This does not mean they won't make changes for the better, I am certain they will. But I believe that they will still have capitalist values at heart.

Now, I have quetions. This is quite the revolution you gentlemen speak of, it would have to encompass the entire, if not near-entire, working class of whatever state you are thinking of. I, of course, am thinking of the US, as it is the most powerful terrorist nation in the world and causes the majority of suffering on this planet (imho). I believe there are many, many, obstacles, some fundamental, that lie in the road of this revolution, it seems very daunting indeed.

-- August

[Ownthink]

No one said it wouldn't be daunting. But I am glad to see that you know that peaceful revolutions would not accomplish Communism at all.

[D_Bokk]

I support proletarians. I don't support proletarian murderers. This is covered more in depth in mine, and August's previous posts.
The majority of the civilian workers death come about through bombing done by the airforce. Juba is targeting infantry units whom only kill those who are a threat to their lives. I'm sure some unarmed Proletariat were killed by the infantry, but is Juba targeting the ones whom have killed innocents?

It is still capitalist. It is just leaning socialist. I'll be impressed when he nationalizes all industry and has agrarian reform with the popular support of the people and remains in power.
Venezuela is in it's transition to Socialism. Chavez had already shown his support for Democratic Socialism and to Nationalize Industry right now will result in an armed conflict he cannot win. With his recent arming of militias, he will soon be able to have a fighting force capable of repelling the hostile US and Bourgeois Venezuelans.

By passing the Land Law in 2001, Chavez has shown signs of socialism. The law includes: taxing unused landholdings, expropriating unused private lands (with compensation), and giving inheritable, unsellable land grants to small farmers and farm collectives. His methods to reach Socialism are much different then those displayed by Stalin and Mao. He plans to gradually become socialist to minimize chances of famine, war and authoritarian government.

[KC]

Now, I have quetions. This is quite the revolution you gentlemen speak of, it would have to encompass the entire, if not near-entire, working class of whatever state you are thinking of. I, of course, am thinking of the US, as it is the most powerful terrorist nation in the world and causes the majority of suffering on this planet (imho). I believe there are many, many, obstacles, some fundamental, that lie in the road of this revolution, it seems very daunting indeed.

It will be incredibly difficult, especially in the US. I, however, don't believe that it has to happen in the United States first. I believe it will happen in the third-world first. Glad to see you're with us!



The majority of the civilian workers death come about through bombing done by the airforce. Juba is targeting infantry units whom only kill those who are a threat to their lives. I'm sure some unarmed Proletariat were killed by the infantry, but is Juba targeting the ones whom have killed innocents?

You don't think that these people kill innocents too? Also, murdering people that are defending their country is still murder.



Venezuela is in it's transition to Socialism. Chavez had already shown his support for Democratic Socialism and to Nationalize Industry right now will result in an armed conflict he cannot win. With his recent arming of militias, he will soon be able to have a fighting force capable of repelling the hostile US and Bourgeois Venezuelans.

By passing the Land Law in 2001, Chavez has shown signs of socialism. The law includes: taxing unused landholdings, expropriating unused private lands (with compensation), and giving inheritable, unsellable land grants to small farmers and farm collectives. His methods to reach Socialism are much different then those displayed by Stalin and Mao. He plans to gradually become socialist to minimize chances of famine, war and authoritarian government.

Again, I'll be impressed once nationalization and agrarian reform come around. Until then, I'm not keeping my hopes up.

[Decolonize The Left]

It will be incredibly difficult, especially in the US. I, however, don't believe that it has to happen in the United States first. I believe it will happen in the third-world first.

I think you are mistaken here, Lazar. With the power wielded by the US and it's foreign influence, it is VERY difficult to conduct a succesful revolution in a third world country. This isn't just the US, its the IMF and the World Bank. All you have to do is look at history to see the legacy of revolution destruction the US has left behind.

It must occur in the US first, and then the world will follow easily.

-- August

[KC]

Perhaps a 2nd world country, such as poland. Poor enough to contain disgruntled workers, yet rich enough to withstand US Imperialism. Revolution in the US is extremely difficult because everybody lives comfortably.

[Decolonize The Left]

Revolution in the US is extremely difficult because everybody lives comfortably.

Partially true. Not everyone lives comfortably, I'd argur 40% of the country does not live comfortably. But everyone's relative comfort is high, and yes, this does make things difficult. But there is the issue of civil libeties being dismantled, etc... as added fuel.

As for Poland, sure, I haven't put much thought as to what country would be best, I'm still looking at the theories, etc...

-- August

[KC]

As am I. I've been reading more about marxist philosophy as of late, and haven't gotten to those sorts of things.

[Seeker]

I have thought through all the possible peaceful forms of revolution, and have come to the conclusion that they do not result in the form of government I would like to see in place.


You just have not thought far enough into it. There is still work to be done before violence has a chance of maybe working.

It seems like Chavez is doing a pretty good job.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have just spent the past few hours in serious reflection as to the issue of a socialist/communist revolution the the US. These are my conclusions for the moment:

- (In this statement I am referring to the general population, not specific groups and I understand that there are some who do not feel this way) The US is very very deeply entrenched in the bowels of capitalism. Not just in government, and other institutions, which can be easily dismantled but through mindset. The mindset of the American public is that of individual success and materialism. This will be much harder to dismantle than the system of government. And it most certainly cannot be done through violent revolution. The people will not be willing to give up what they have (money, property, possesions, reputation, security) for the greater good. They have been told that this is wrong for generations and they believe it. They don't care about their neighbors, or the homeless, or the environment, they care about their family, and more impotantly, themselves. This is contrary to everything we believe in and there is where our mission should begin. We, as communists/socialists/anarchists/etc, should begin by dismantling this form of thought which will only continue the machine of oppression known as capitalism. The youth must particularly be targeted as they are the people with energy, and they are developing ideas. They will also follow this generation and if they are not passionate about the cause, it is doomed.
How will we do this? Through the public exposure of everything wrong with capitalism. Graphic public exposure of oppression is necessary to puncture this barrier. The people must see the sweatshops and the people starving, they must see the 1% who live in opulence, and then they must see themselves. They must see their lack of social security, lack of decent education, lack of retirement benefits, lack of social benefits of any kind. And it should be made clear that this is the fault of capitalism and greed. They should also be made to see the US support of torture, dictators, tyranny, and human rights abuses abroad. In all, the hypocrisy of the US government must be exposed. This all can be considered the education of the general public.

- And while this education of the public is being carried out, the current laws in place must be reformed. We cannot wait for a full revolution to make changes, we have to start now. Environmental laws must be re-written to protect what is being destroyed. International trade laws must also be re-written, as these are the sectors which will fall out of direct control of the government during a revolution. This is to protect that which we cannot control when the revolution happens. If support can be created before the revolution to change things for the better, the revolution will be better received.

- That is only two aspects of reform that must take place before any revolution can be enacted. A revolution will require around 80% of the public picking up arms and marching out the government. We must expect military reprocussions. That is why the number must be 80%, no military can suppress 80% of a population. Soldiers are rational human beings. They may have been de-humanitized, brainwashed, and endoctrined, but none-the-less, they are still somewhat rational human beings. And consider who these soldiers are. They are the children of the people, the people who they will be told to suppress. This obviously contradicts human nature. In order for a revolution to be successful, the LARGE majority of the population must eventually be paired with the soldiers of the military. Only then will we see results.

There you have it, 3 steps.
1. Educate the public, especially the youth
2. Re-write laws which affect non-domestic areas
3. Rally the large majority, and the army
Revolution

Well there you have it. A complete description of what I was thinking. It is late and I am tired, I apologize for any poorly written sentences or half-thought out ideas, I am not re-reading this one. I'm very tired.

-- August

[Seeker]

They are the children of the people, the people who they will be told to suppress.


I work with a right-wing-super-nationalistic-Christian who calls himself an anarchist (what he really supports is revolution leading to theocracy), and he seems to think that will not be the case.

His argument is that the people who would give the orders to suppress the revolution know that American soldiers might not listen. So they would use mercenaries.

There are no shortage of mercenaries these days. Dyncorp, Interpol, Halliburton, KBR, or (his favorite) UN blue hats could all be employed.

[Decolonize The Left]

Tell me how you think several groups of hired mercenaries will suppress 80% of the US population and the military....

-- August

[Ownthink]

- That is only two aspects of reform that must take place before any revolution can be enacted. A revolution will require around 80% of the public picking up arms and marching out the government. We must expect military reprocussions. That is why the number must be 80%, no military can suppress 80% of a population. Soldiers are rational human beings. They may have been de-humanitized, brainwashed, and endoctrined, but none-the-less, they are still somewhat rational human beings. And consider who these soldiers are. They are the children of the people, the people who they will be told to suppress. This obviously contradicts human nature. In order for a revolution to be successful, the LARGE majority of the population must eventually be paired with the soldiers of the military. Only then will we see results.
Marxists don't believe in such a thing as "human nature", so that argument is kinda flawed.

[Decolonize The Left]

My termonology might be flawed, but I think my argument still stands. Thank you for pointing this out.

-- August

[Warren Peace]

Chavez's relatively peaceful revolution has accomplished a lot.

Dozens died in Chavez's two attempted coups against the fascists.

Let's all remember the example of Nelson Mandela. At first, Mandela wanted non-violent mass struggle against the racist government. Guess what happened to him? He and 150 of his comrades were arrested and charged with treason! Then the government outlawed and massacred anti-racists. Mandela then realized that the only solution to defeating the ruling class is through armed, revolutionary action!


Tell me how you think several groups of hired mercenaries will suppress 80% of the US population and the military....

History has shown that once we have the support of only 15-25% of the population, we're all set to kick ass. It will be next to impossible for the ruling class to defeat us. As long as we are friendly too, work with, and organize the masses, we can get this 15% on our side. The biggest obstacle would be rallying an army in the first place; many people are gripped by brainwashing, and many others will still feel they have a lot to loose.

I doubt mercenaries would be a very good source of fighters for a revolution in the US. A better source would be Latin American revolutionaries. My idea is to start with focoism, like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara's Cuban Revolution. We could rally around 50-80 revolutionaries in the US, take them to a third world, reactionary Latin American country where there is already violence and instability. It would be cheap and easy to get us, our weapons, and our eqipment there, not like if we were going to Europe or Asia. Then, overthrow the government there. Then, now with a much larger army, carry the revolution back to the US!

[Decolonize The Left]

This idea is intriguing Revolt, and much more feasible. I do have a question though. How do you figure 15-20% will be enough? This is not a majority, and then what will the public say after the revolution. This revolution will not have been the people, it would have been a small percentage....

Your thoughts are welcome and patiently awaited.

-- August

[Warren Peace]

How do you figure 15-20% will be enough?

Read Mao's book, On Guerilla Warfare. I know Mao did some bad things, but he won the Chinese Revolution, so he's at least a reliable source on tactics.

According to SBG, (the US veteran brigadier general who translated and wrote the intro to the book), history has shown that revolutions in all countries, large or small, are impossible to defeat when they have the support of 15-25% of the population on their side. Mao also implies this in his book when he talks about the need to work with the masses.

Mao's example is that the revolutionaries are fish and the people are the stream; the revolutionaries will be defeated if they don't work with the people, just like a fish can't live out of water.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thank you Revolt, much clearer now.

Nice metaphor too with the fish.

-- August

[KC]

August, could you explain that whole human nature thing? I don't get what you meant.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:34 PM
August, could you explain that whole human nature thing? I don't get what you meant.
Indeed. Please explain.

[Warren Peace]

Sorry about all the editing, I keep thinking of stuff to change. :lol:

[D_Bokk]

Dozens died in Chavez's two attempted coups against the fascists.
A violent governmental take over didn't work in Venezuela - it wasn't until Chavez tried a peaceful means of obtaining power did he actually gain control of the country. Dozens of people really isn't a large amount of death and violence either, other Communist revolutions claimed lives of much more.

Violence is only needed if the majority of the people aren't revolutionary.

[Ownthink]

Violence is only needed if the majority of the people aren't revolutionary.

Which they aren't.

[bolshevik butcher]

Latin aemrica is the centre of the revolution just now.

[Decolonize The Left]

Lazar I will attempt to address what I meant about human nature.

In this specific instance I was referring to US soldiers, and should the government call on them to suppress the American people in a revolution. I wanted people to look at who these soldiers are: they are the sons and daughters of families in the US. And it might be very well possible that their families are participating in the revolution, at least we'd hope so. So I was pondering as to how a soldier could suppress his family and friends. I think that this action would run contrary to what I referred to as human nature. I mean I don't think the majority of the soldiers could or would do it. I don't think humans can suppress/kill their own families and friends without serious instinctual contradictions. On top of this, there would be so many people to suppress, that the visual impact of it would be too great.

I hope this clarfies somewhat what I meant. If not, post again more specifically and I'll do my best.

-- August

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:37 PM

Violence is only needed if the majority of the people aren't revolutionary.
I´m not quite sure. Violence becomes necessary depending of the social and political conditions of the country, and also the degree of contradiction between the social relations and the means of production. peaceful transition to socialism (as in venezuela) is possible if the ruling class (the working class in power) can have a great economical back up (oil revenues) to develop a transition program without expropiating the oligarchy, and eliminating private property over the means of production. As soon as the goverment recur to nationalization of resources, land reform and wealth redistribution the reactionary forces attack and the use of violence becomes necessary.

[D_Bokk]

Which they aren't.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Chavez won the majority vote...

I´m not quite sure. Violence becomes necessary depending of the social and political conditions of the country, and also the degree of contradiction between the social relations and the means of production. peaceful transition to socialism (as in venezuela) is possible if the ruling class (the working class in power) can have a great economical back up (oil revenues) to develop a transition program without expropiating the oligarchy, and eliminating private property over the means of production. As soon as the goverment recur to nationalization of resources, land reform and wealth redistribution the reactionary forces attack and the use of violence becomes necessary.
True, not many countries will have an oil supply to help set up their new socialist state. Before these countries can even possibly succeed without a revolutionary war, they will need allies whom have already set up a worker's state. These being Venezuela and Cuba. Surely these countries will give economic, medical and possibly military aid to these new government.

Of course the Bourgeois will become violent, at which point peaceful transition will not occur. However, by then the Worker's government will be highly organized which would lead to far less Proletarian death. Instead of sinking to the level of the Bourgeois who think of war as the only solution - we should rise above. I'm not saying "Don't Fight," but merely don't be the oppressor.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 09:16 PM
they are the sons and daughters of families in the US. And it might be very well possible that their families are participating in the revolution, at least we'd hope so. So I was pondering as to how a soldier could suppress his family and friends. I think that this action would run contrary to what I referred to as human nature. I mean I don't think the majority of the soldiers could or would do it. I don't think humans can suppress/kill their own families and friends without serious instinctual contradictions
August, if u think this way about human nature, then u should remember that it includes all of humanity (not just americans). how come you don´t feel that a US marine killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners goes contrary to what u refer as "human nature"?

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, the beugoirse may become violant bt if the rank and filesoldier and poiceman even is on our side who will they fight with?

[Decolonize The Left]

August, if u think this way about human nature, then u should remember that it includes all of humanity (not just americans). how come you don´t feel that a US marine killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners goes contrary to what u refer as "human nature"?

I'm aware of what human nature means. I do feel that "a US marine killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners" goes contrary to human nature.
So now you ask, then why do they do it? Firstly, they believe that it is their 'duty' and that they are defending their home and the people they love. Also because they have been brainwashed, de-humanized, and endocrinated to not care about these people what-so-ever.
So then why won't it be the same at home? Because they are also taught that Americans are the good people, they are the right people. Not to mention these people supported them, fed them, clothed them, and raised them as well. These are the people who they are told they are protecting by "killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners".

-- August

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:24 PM

August, if u think this way about human nature, then u should remember that it includes all of humanity (not just americans). how come you don´t feel that a US marine killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners goes contrary to what u refer as "human nature"?

I'm aware of what human nature means. I do feel that "a US marine killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners" goes contrary to human nature.
So now you ask, then why do they do it? Firstly, they believe that it is their 'duty' and that they are defending their home and the people they love. Also because they have been brainwashed, de-humanized, and endocrinated to not care about these people what-so-ever.
So then why won't it be the same at home? Because they are also taught that Americans are the good people, they are the right people. Not to mention these people supported them, fed them, clothed them, and raised them as well. These are the people who they are told they are protecting by "killing civilians, invading other countries and torturing prisoners".

-- August
And we should just let this continue by remainig silent on all the atrocities that they commit? No comrade, we need action. As you said their opponents are de-humanized, so in the battlefield, human compassion bears little weight. Thus a cause and effect relationship is started, The cause, the soldier invades, the effect, the soldier is attacked and killed.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't understand what you mean. I was describing a situation of revolution and saying that I didn't think the soldiers would suppress the people.

You wrote: "As you said their opponents are de-humanized," Who is they?

-- August

[Seeker]

15 or even 25 percent of the US population would not have a snowball's chance in hell of success.

Most of the country is very well armed and you'd have the other 75-85 percent of them shooting at you right along side the military.


If the military were on the side of the revolution, violence would not be necessary. The mere threat of it would be enough. Given the 'training' the soldiers receive, I doubt this will happen in any of our lifetimes.

Without the protection of the US military, there would be little the people could do against Dyncorp APC's and UN Harriers. We don't have the guns to take down those types of targets.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 10:35 PM
I don't understand what you mean. I was describing a situation of revolution and saying that I didn't think the soldiers would suppress the people.

You wrote: "As you said their opponents are de-humanized," Who is they?

-- August
I understood your meaning, i was referring to the soldiers.In their training and propaganda, they are trained to dehumanise their opponenets. the vast majority of the military thinks in this way. They do not accept their opponents as human let alone agree with their ideo;ogy nor capable of coming to terms with them.
If this were the case, the military would be our strongest base. As it stands now, the military is the most hostile, therefore our main effort should be to educate the backbone of the military, the civil population and institutions, The military will always be our enemy and it should be assumed as such, action must be taken where neccessary, but violence is inevitable, be it in the course of revolution or protecting it. therefore the best course of action would be to prepare ourselves for that eventuality and drop all pretensions of a peaceful transition.

[Decolonize The Left]

I agree with Seeker on this issue. Which is why in my original post I stated we would need 80% of the population in order to have a succesful revolution.

-- August

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, but you wold gain support as you went along, what i mean is you wouldnt need 80% of the population as registered communsitts or anything.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 9 2005, 09:10 PM
Latin aemrica is the centre of the revolution just now.
You're right. Our greatest hope is that the resistance in Iraq will weaken the imperialists enough to give our brothers and sisters in Latin America enough 'room' to succeed in their revolution(s).

As to the suggestion that this is an American sniper, gone to the other side, that's too comical to even suggest out loud.

It's also subtle racism. I noticed how it's common not to give colonised fighters their due. Kinda how the Brits dismissed republicans at first . . . but learned otherwise when 'one shot paddy' gave em hell in south armagh. :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh i agree oglach, what are the chances of an american renegade sniper and no one reprting one as missing recnetly either? Yeh, the imperialist eyes seem to be on iraq at the moment, however that doesnt mean they wont ty another coup in venezuela, or try and get columbia to launch a full scale invasion.

[Xvall]

It's not a horribly absurd notion. It's quite possible, and if the sniper were a member of the United States' military he would know exactly where to strike.

[bolshevik butcher]

Ok but why has there been no report of a missing us sniper recently? Also how would have he survived?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 10 2005, 05:29 PM
It's not a horribly absurd notion. It's quite possible, and if the sniper were a member of the United States' military he would know exactly where to strike.
I dunno, does the average American soldier speak Arabic? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Somehow I have trouble imagining it.

It is a bit like how the French couldn't conceive of being defeated, so chalked up their loss at bien phu to . . . betrayal! :lol:


You're right, Clenched Fist, they will definitely try again. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already drawn up plans for an invasion of Venezuala.

I don't doubt that the people of Venezuala and Chavez will outmanuver them again! :ph34r:

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't doubt that the people of Venezuala and Chavez will outmanuver them again! ph34r.gif

Which is why they will need the help of the people from within the imperialist countries. (i.e. all of us).

-- August

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 10 2005, 01:31 PM
Ok but why has there been no report of a missing us sniper recently? Also how would have he survived?
Missing? Dude, that place is a fucking warzone. Missing? Try presumed dead and we're not gonna go look for his sorry ass.

It would be kickass if a US sniper with a Barret .50 or M24 or some shit WAS indeed taking the side of the Iraqi resistance. But I just don't see it happening.
A) He doesn't speak their language, unless he is a very high up specialist (E class I believe)
B) He coulnd't approach them. He would be lit up with 7.62 rounds before he even had a chance to state his claims.
C) I don't think he could bring himself to kill a US soldier he served alongside of.

BUT, it would be cool if that is the actual case. It would be devastating to US morale!

Iraq for Iraqis!
Death to Imperialism!
Support The Resistance!

[bolshevik butcher]

Look this guy will have to have hoocked up with a resistance group, they would never acdet someone from the U$ forces. Oglachs right,e veryone should do what they can to help venezuela. The hands of venezuela campaign is a good way of showing unity with the workers of latin america.

[Warren Peace]

15 or even 25 percent of the US population would not have a snowball's chance in hell of success.

Most of the country is very well armed and you'd have the other 75-85 percent of them shooting at you right along side the military.


If the military were on the side of the revolution, violence would not be necessary. The mere threat of it would be enough. Given the 'training' the soldiers receive, I doubt this will happen in any of our lifetimes.

Without the protection of the US military, there would be little the people could do against Dyncorp APC's and UN Harriers. We don't have the guns to take down those types of targets.

I see your point. Still, even if we'd need a much more support than 25% of the population, I still think my idea of starting the revolution in Latin America and then carrying it back to the US is a good one.

[Decolonize The Left]

Please explain how you would "carry it back to the US".

When this revolution does happen, the US government will either:
a) Demonize the revoltion as the rise of a threat to the US
b) Completely deprive the American public on any information
c) Drop economic and political sanctions on the young government
or
d) Invade the country and pysically suppress the revolution.

Personally I doubt that d) will happen, but it is a possiblilty. The others are highly likely, and b) is almost a given.

-- August

[viva le revolution]

It would be much more realistic to spread the revolution not northwards but towards asia. The latin american american revolution would form a third world bloc, if successful, and would meet much more receptive ears in asia. Especially the communist movements of pakistan and india alongwith nepal. Turkey is aso a realistic option.