Violence/Extremism

[The Grey Blur]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Do you agree with this statement? If so, do you agree with the following groups methods of resistance; the IRA (the Irish Republican Army), the INLA (the Irish National Liberation Army), ETA (Basque seperatist group), FARC (Columbian Maoist Liberation Army) - all groups who are routinely described as terrorists. I would be especially interested to know British members view on the Republican movement.

If you don't agree with this statement please give a cogent answer, not just some smartass quote (you know who you are ;) ) but remember - all these liberation/resistance movements were nonviolent until repressed, opressed or attacked.

BTW - I wanna hear new guys voices on these debates as well, not just the usual suspects!

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 29 2005, 02:14 PM
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Do you agree with this statement? If so, do you agree with the following groups methods of resistance; the IRA (the Irish Republican Army), the INLA (the Irish National Liberation Army), ETA (Basque seperatist group), FARC (Columbian Maoist Liberation Army) - all groups who are routinely described as terrorists. I would be especially interested to know British members view on the Republican movement.

If you don't agree with this statement please give a cogent answer, not just some smartass quote (you know who you are ;) ) but remember - all these liberation/resistance movements were nonviolent until repressed, opressed or attacked.

BTW - I wanna hear new guys voices on these debates as well, not just the usual suspects!
I think that I do agree since sometimes the oppressive conditions in a country call for extremism and violence. On the other hand you have Ghandi who realized the liberation of his people through completely peaceful means. Now I think that it would be fair to say that Ghandi's was a virtue. So was Fidel's and Che's on the contrary. I beleive that it depends on the conditions. Extremism and violent revolution can sound very romantic but can get out of hand very easily. Peaceful means would also be nice but casn easily be destroyed. thanks comrade :huh:

[Rockfan]

I see your point hastalavictoria but when it comes to extremism in the ofrm of terrerism it dosn't gain groups any favours in the eyes of those in opposition to there cause, They're going to be mad out as mad killers. Its goning to make them more stubbon in the efforts to resits and turn away possible surpporters. It is also a sign of desperation, the opposition's gonna know they have you on the ropes. Also with regards to India, when the Britsh rulers left they were just replaced by Indian followers, hardly libiration.

[Guerrilla22]

So called extremism is often a result of oppression coming from the ruling party.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria+Nov 29 2005, 06:24 PM--> (hastalavictoria @ Nov 29 2005, 06:24 PM)
Rage Against The [email protected] 29 2005, 02:14 PM
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Do you agree with this statement? If so, do you agree with the following groups methods of resistance; the IRA (the Irish Republican Army), the INLA (the Irish National Liberation Army), ETA (Basque seperatist group), FARC (Columbian Maoist Liberation Army) - all groups who are routinely described as terrorists. I would be especially interested to know British members view on the Republican movement.

If you don't agree with this statement please give a cogent answer, not just some smartass quote (you know who you are ;) ) but remember - all these liberation/resistance movements were nonviolent until repressed, opressed or attacked.

BTW - I wanna hear new guys voices on these debates as well, not just the usual suspects!
I think that I do agree since sometimes the oppressive conditions in a country call for extremism and violence. On the other hand you have Ghandi who realized the liberation of his people through completely peaceful means. Now I think that it would be fair to say that Ghandi's was a virtue. So was Fidel's and Che's on the contrary. I beleive that it depends on the conditions. Extremism and violent revolution can sound very romantic but can get out of hand very easily. Peaceful means would also be nice but casn easily be destroyed. thanks comrade :huh: [/b]
Too bad Ghandi publicly admitted he admired what Hitler had done with Germany.

That prick. Oh, and what he "accomplished", was hardly "liberation" for his people. That is just a nicey-nice anti violence story told to children to make them think they can do whatever they want without force.

[Correa]

Most Indians refer to Ghandi as "Ghandu" which in Hindu means asshole. Ghandi was a phony, and yes I do support an armed resistance. True revolution will come by the sword not the pen.

[ReD_ReBeL]

there is no justification of extremeism(in the sense of al-queda etc) because killings civillians of a country is no way justifiable, if thy r unhappy bout tht countrys policies towards thm why dont they not go for the people who can change it i.e Politicians, what did al-queda gain from september 11th bombings? US troops bombarding 2 countries killing loads of innocent civillians and a country in ruins, Even the IRA bombing british shops...whats that going to acheive? the killing of more civillians by both forces probably PS i agree with the IRA in the way thy want independance and a united Ireland but no way to i agree violance towards civillians

[Seven Stars]

It is not IRA policy to target civilians, while there were civilians killed, thats what happens in war.

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:25 AM
there is no justification of extremeism(in the sense of al-queda etc) because killings civillians of a country is no way justifiable, if thy r unhappy bout tht countrys policies towards thm why dont they not go for the people who can change it i.e Politicians, what did al-queda gain from september 11th bombings? US troops bombarding 2 countries killing loads of innocent civillians and a country in ruins, Even the IRA bombing british shops...whats that going to acheive? the killing of more civillians by both forces probably PS i agree with the IRA in the way thy want independance and a united Ireland but no way to i agree violance towards civillians
I think that you put it very well, Red Rebel. I congragulate you on your awesome response.

Violence and extremism that is acted out in self defense directly against the oppressor, I believe, can be justifiable most of the time.( and by that I mean not bombings of government buildings, but defense against police or government forces when they try to oppress you, the way that the WCPI revolted against the Baathists throughout their rule). I don't know much about the IRA or ETA, so I will comment on the methods used by the FARC-EP.

The FARC-EP is justified in their grievances against the colombian governments oppression. But, in their way of trying to change and fight the oppression of the Colombian government, they have used violence and kidnappings against non colombian military forces, but against civilians, which really accomplishes nothing, and can make more victims than there needs to be.

[ReD_ReBeL]

cheers LEFTISTMARLEYIST, IRISH_REPUBLICAN i know its not there policy but bombing of a shop is not an act of war it is an act of terrorism, you are killing people who are shopping and working, for all u know thy might be pro-IRA, thy where not involved in the british occuptation of Ireland, bombing shops and other civillian targets is just wreckless

[The Grey Blur]

A point I forgot to make is how Western, Capitalist countries have accepted the ANC, the Cuban Revolution and exalt (or at least recognize their movemnts as legitimate) leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Che Guevara, etc but the IRA, the FARC etc are routinely condemned. Is this a case of "history is written by the winners", the reformism of succesful revolutions, romantiscism or sheer propaganda influencing people's views?

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea the likes of Che Guevara didnt go around bombing civillian targets did he, thy where strickly military and government, not shops, bins in city centers etc
i cant remember the exact words but read Che Guevara:a revolutionary life and he says "killing a civillian is not the way to achieve victory", as for FARC theve hijacked planes , kipnap innocent foreigners etc

[The Grey Blur]

I don't want to actually become dragged down into yet aother IRA/anti-IRA arguement but I will make this comment on attacking targets such as shops: these were seen as legitimate targets as they were part of the economy of Northern Ireland - a state the IRA wanted to destroy (also major warnings were given, only in rare cases was there any danger at all to civilians).

I am not saying whether this is correct or not but a major component of guerilla warfare is disregarding the liberal rules of war laid down by Imperial powers and keeping their rule in dissarray - this is completed by attacking economic as well as military targets.

[ReD_ReBeL]

ok, RATM, could u inform of the ideology behind the IRA plz, since i am not very sure, i once read tht it may be marxist leaning but i wasnt sure so could u confirm it plz

[bolshevik butcher]

There is a time and a place for violcnece. I think that as marxists we shoudlnt be pacifists, but at the same time we shouldnt have a fetish for violence.

If the reovlution is going to be carried out to completion though there will undeniably have to be an armed working class.

[rossith]

I think that instead of bombing innocent civilians and targets, they should hit places that arent putting civillian lives at risk; perhaps like military buildings, then maybe more of the civilian population may support them.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:50 PM
ok, RATM, could u inform of the ideology behind the IRA plz, since i am not very sure, i once read tht it may be marxist leaning but i wasnt sure so could u confirm it plz
"There has always been a tradition of armed resistance to the British military and political occupation of Ireland. This tradition generally only found effective expression when after a period of non-armed agitation, large sections of the Irish people, faced with the British government's denial of the legitimate demand for Irish independence, exercised the right to use armed struggle.

This was the case with the organisation from which modern Irish republicans trace their origins - the United Irishmen of the 1790s. Inspired by the example of the American War of Independence and by the democratic ideals of the French Revolution, the United Irishmen sought to unite the people of Ireland in a common effort to achieve equality and freedom. Choosing initially non-violent means to win their aims, the United Irishmen quickly met with a repressive response from the British government. It was only then that they exercised their right as Irish people to defend their liberty by the use of arms. It was a pattern that was to be repeated several times in the next century and a half."

The Provisional IRA (the group that orchestrated the armed campaign from the 70's to the 90's) were not a socialist group in the stricter sense of the word but they were more concerned with the immediate opression of the Catholic population and thus their defence; not any distinct political ideology. Their long-term goal has always been a democratic socialist united Ireland.

The Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP) and Irish National Liberation Army [INLA] were founded on December 10, 1974. Most original members were drawn from Official Sinn Fein and the Official IRA (the organizations from which the Provisional Irish Republican Movement had split five years earlier). This was a much more socialist and class-based attempt at defying the British occupation but cooperated greatly with the PIRA and the two groups are generally regarded as the two major defenders of the Catholic population during the British forces occupation.

Hope that's some help to you.

EDIT: @Rossith - To whom do you refer? Also, I want to know whether you agree with the statement I quoted at the beginning of the topic, thanks.

[rossith]

I agree with the statement if it is against things like dictatorships and imperialism. im refering to groups that are fighting for independence, equal rights etc. i think that they would be given so much more support by the general civilian population if they didnt actually target the civilians.

[bcbm]

The issue of armed seperatist groups killing civillians generally shows most people for the hypocrites they are. I'll use ETA as an example...

When ETA kidnaps a murders a politician, both the Spanish and Basques hold massive rallies condemning ETA and calling for an end to violence, etc.

When the Spanish state and its Basque government stooges kidnap Basque youth and torture them, kidnap ETA volunteers, execute them and frame it as a suicide and routinely harass and abuse all those involved in the struggle for freedom, there are no mass rallies or condemnations.

The killing of civillians is regrettable, certainly, and most armed groups have been making increasing efforts to avoid such casualties. However, I find it extremely hypocritical to focus entirely on the violence of seperatists while the far more massive and brutal violence of the state, direct against civillians, is ignored or even excused as a response to "terrorism." Fuck that.

Yes, I support the IRA, INLA, ETA and others like them.

[Rawthentic]

damn, I didnt know that Ghandi was like that. Theres a thread about it in the history forum. I do agree that extremism in the form of terrorism is bad because it accomplishes nothing. Dont label me as a pacifist please. I myself yearn to be a guerilla. :rolleyes:

[The Grey Blur]

To quote Socialism O Muerte's brilliant post on Ghandi;

Over and over again in threads about Gandhi people keep making the same stupid mistake: Looking at Gandhi as a politician.

As he always maintained, he was not a politician. But a freedom fighter. You say he only got power for Indian capitalists? Well I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in independance, free of any colonial or imperial rule, and have capitalist rulers from my own country than live under a brutal colonial regime which enslaved all of my country. Having capitalist rule is, in my opinion, far better than being ruled by colonialists. And the rulers of India which took over after independance such as Nehru and Indira Gandhi weren't even what I'd call "capitalists" at all. Even Che himself commended Nehru and his plight.

As for Pakistan, that was hardly any fault of the Mahatma's. Muhammed Ali Jinnah successfully stirred up enough religious fervour in the hearts of India's Muslims to get backing for a free state of Pakistan. Gandhi did not stir up religious violence. Gandhi wanted to free Indians, not Hindus. And the now Pakistani Muslims were then just as much Indians as the Hindus.

To say that Gandhi achieved nothing for the world is just a plain ignorant comment. It's not even worth debating. India was the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire. Of course it wanted to hold onto power there. Gandhi helped Indians to prove that they were capable of witholding their own land and their own government. Yes, there were problems after independance and there are still problems in India now. But name me a country which, after escaping the shackles of imperliams and empire, does not have it's problems. And the fact that India's workers were transformed from slaves to Indian workers with independance proves that Gandhi and his men did achieve much for Indian peasants. The basis for his fight came from his want for a better deal for the peasants in India. He took a train ride all over India and visited hundreds of peasant villages to discover what needed to be done. He united them as Indians, something unheard of in the parochialism of the day.

Gandhi was a humanist. Not a politician. He simply wanted to free people from slavery and empirical rule. And he did that. That "skinney old fart in a white cloth" is one of the greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen and if you don't appreciate and accept that then you simply cannot grasp historical fact.

[bcbm]

That post seems to ignore the fact that, um, the British couldn't hold on to India anymore, whether they wanted to or not.

[ReD_ReBeL]

BLACK BANNER BLACK GUN i see in ur aviator u have an ETA picture, didnt thy not bomb a civillian train a while ago and kill like 30 innocent people? if they did how can you support that?

[Sons_of_Eureka]

I don't think we should admire Ghandi at all to be frank,comrade RATM pointed out that because Ghandi changed India from being a Colonial state to a Capitalist state which seems progressive.But are/were they a free Capitalist state? no they wern't they are still a subject of western monopoly capitalism and are subject to neo-colonialism.They're conditions are as bad if not worse than they were under the british.The only benefactors are the rulling class.

I would also say that the British military control over india was unsistanible ecconomicaly as it took to much capital away from the public/private sector which needed to be increased in the post war era.So the british didn't pretty much handed it over to the indian ruling class while the british ruling class still controled just about all the indian industries/capital and private sector.


The whole split of India and Pakistan was typical of western imperialist(with ghandis help of course),as divide and conquer has been a statagy since before the Romans and we can see it now in Iraq as the western imperialist keep advocating the importance of racial,cultural and religiose sepretism thus creating ethnic conflics and civil war while the imperialist happily play the agaist each other and steal their resorces.

Ghandi single handedly destroyed any revolutionary prospects,crippled the indian communist parties and is responsible for fascistic impoverished sea of slaughter which we call india and pakistan.Had Ghandi been born a Marxist-Leninist we would see a India and pakistan united full of peace and prosperity.It is his fault that the workers and peasants suffer today!

Finaly some people call Ghandi a humanist i call him a reactionary,he slept with many women half his age and then has the guts to condem homosexuality he suported Hitler and i've read that he supported the imperialist first world war.Please do not call him a revolutionary call him a reactionary dog and a enemy to the international working class.

A coment,please stop saying you condem attacks on civillians as it is a un-Marxist term it would be more appropreate if you said ''i don't support attacks agaist the working class'' as the ruling class are a completly diffrent kettle of fish so don't unify them under 'civilian'.

PS,i&#39;d like to coment on extremism but the my goverment just passed some new anti terror laws which would mean i might get 7 years if i coment on sesitive subjects like this <_<

[Seven Stars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 06:50 PM
ok, RATM, could u inform of the ideology behind the IRA plz, since i am not very sure, i once read tht it may be marxist leaning but i wasnt sure so could u confirm it plz
You can get more info about Republicanism at www.upthera.net

[ReD_ReBeL]

cheers comrade, u a supporter of the IRA? and if ur from Ireland what was the attitude towards the IRA like from the majority of the people

[TheComrade]

I have experienced the Irish violence first hand (I was very small but I remember the helicopters, bombs, shootings etc) I am a Republican - I support the IRA&#39;s CAUSE but NOT the way they do it. Terrorism and war doesn&#39;t work - I do think that sometimes small amounts of force are required to just tip the scale, but that is where it should stop. People get tired of war very quickly - it is a horrific and totally evil event.

More about Ireland - I don&#39;t think that the IRA are the worst - the Royalists are far worse but they are overlooked because they don&#39;t do things big - they just do the tit for tat killings, but the thing that is appalling is that they have an image of being non violent, friendly and open. The Orange Order is disgusting - I loath the DUP and UUP&#33;

Ireland is occupied by the British - I believe Imperialism to be wrong (as I am certain most of you do) - Liberate Ireland now.

[The Grey Blur]

This is good comrades, thank you for your arguments and comments.

Regarding Ghandi I believe calling him a "reactionary dog" is disrespectful to one of the greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen; he freed a country of Imperialist opression through peaceful activism, suffering a lot of personal pain due to his actions, this should be admired.
Also, the British were not, as was insinuated, "happy to lose" India - it was the jewel in the crown of their Empire and the revolution there exposed the weakness and opressiveness of the British Empire, leading to other revolutions throughout the world against Imperialist powers.

Anyway, there is already a Ghandi thread, please take this discussion elsewhere :)

On the subject of the IRA - Yes, they did have the support of the majority of Catholic/Nationalist communities who were fed up with the harrassments of the British forces and murder of innocents. Armed revolution was the only method of resistance open to them after peaceful measures were opressed.

There were errors of judgement and simple mistakes on the part of the IRA which led to such tragedies as the Claughdy bombing, the Shankill bomb and a few others and which inevitably lost them a lot of support but the British Government&#39;s insane, dangerous and oppressive policies in the Six Counties only reinstilled the Republican belief that the armed struggle was just and necessary.

EDIT: 300th Post&#33; W00T W00T :D

[RedSabine]

I think it was Ghandi who said something along the lines of "The musket and the book make a good Facsist

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:21 AM
I think it was Ghandi who said something along the lines of "The musket and the book make a good Facsist
Why the fuck do people keep quoting this Ghandi shithead?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 1 2005, 09:59 AM
Regarding Ghandi I believe calling him a "reactionary dog" is disrespectful to one of the greatest revolutionaries the world has ever seen; he freed a country of Imperialist opression through peaceful activism, suffering a lot of personal pain due to his actions, this should be admired.
Stop licking his arse. Ghandi didn&#39;t go it alone and there was plenty of violence against the British in India.


Also, the British were not, as was insinuated, "happy to lose" India - it was the jewel in the crown of their Empire and the revolution there exposed the weakness and opressiveness of the British Empire, leading to other revolutions throughout the world against Imperialist powers.

It doesn&#39;t matter if they were happy or not, they couldn&#39;t afford to hold it, opposition or no.


Anyway, there is already a Ghandi thread, please take this discussion elsewhere :)

Okay, I&#39;m done. ;-)

[TheComrade]

Why the fuck do people keep quoting this Ghandi shithead?

You are a sick and disgusting person. You give left wing ideals a bad name. You are violent, you are crude and you have no respect for other people. And yet you are a Mod, how ironic.

I&#39;m very sorry this is off topic - but someone has to say it.

[ReD_ReBeL]

lol erm whats a mod?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:08 AM
You are a sick and disgusting person. You give left wing ideals a bad name. You are violent, you are crude and you have no respect for other people. And yet you are a Mod, how ironic.
No, someone who suggests that millions of people should march willingly to their death to accomplish nothing instead of resisting however they can is a sick and disgusting person.