HE DEAD!

[ummProfessional]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq_al_zarqawi;_ylt=AmJcyKV7wp2XzrbgM353BadX6GMA; _ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

AL ZARQAWI DEAD!!! UHH YEAH UHH YEAH!! lol

finally they killed this bastard! finally a breakthrough....

[The Grey Blur]

:lol: Breakthrough?

They've created a martyr that a divided resistance can unite around

Breakthrough my ass...

[Intifada]

Wow.

You pro-war idiots really are myopic in your perception of the Iraq occupation.

[Commie Girl]

And? Is the war/occupation over? :lol:

[Lord Testicles]

Now that he is dead everyone will stop this fighing and stop killing our god fearing, brave soldiers. <_<

Keep dreaming. :lol:

[bezdomni]

I dunno. Tragic Clown and I were discussing this earlier.

Does anybody else notice that he looks way different in every picture ever taken of him? It&#39;s not just hair that changes...the shape and size of his nose changes too and the way his eyes look.

Plus, if you look at an older picture of him, he looks really white...but the newer pictures of him make him look much darker.

Anyway, they could have just shown any burned up corpse and say "yep, that&#39;s him".

[Tungsten]

Permanent Revolution

They&#39;ve created a martyr and you call it a breakthrough?
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his."


Remember the Hydra
For his next trick, Permenent Revolution will show how the allies&#39; annihilation of the Nazi regime resulted in the German people queuing up to join the SS.

[LSD]

YAWN

One less fundamentalist whack-job, one more "great victory" for the "allies". I&#39;m sure it&#39;s entirely coincidental that this is an election year&#33; :lol:

Honestly, with the number of "right hand men" that Osama Bin Laden seems to have, you&#39;d think that people would eventually stop queueing for the job.

Oh well, I&#39;m sure that the US will come up with a new "enemy" figure just in time for November. He&#39;ll probably be even "bigger" and "badder" than Zarqawi and the Republicans will be the "only ones" who can "stop him". :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, everyone will keep focusing on the insignficant "leadership" of a, fundamentally, decentralized insurgent movement for whom "leadership" is about as important as bubblegum.

I guess that it&#39;s tough to fit that on a playing card though.. <_<

[violencia.Proletariat]

Does this mean we can go home now? :lol:

[Xvall]

OMFG ZARKAWIS DEAD TEH WAR IS OVAR. LOLOLOL AMERICA WINS

[ummProfessional]

hahahahhaa guys calm your asses down, i don&#39;t mean this is gonna change things at all, i mean it might demoralize some of these jihadist turds, but it might strengthen some others, but at least we got a big criminal killed, and by the way aren&#39;t your type the ones who are always bragging about "BUT THEY HAVEN&#39;T EVEN CAPTURED BIN LADEN YET&#33;&#33;", so then i guess when we do capture Bin Laden (if we do) your responses would just be the same is this one "ohh what&#39;s it gonna do , hahah we won the war?".....personally im glad they killed this fucking criminal, and for the dumb ass who said it doesn&#39;t even look like him , there is something called fingerprints , plus his face is obviously bruised, only from AN AIR STRIKEEE&#33;&#33;&#33; and plus check his lips out, they are the same darkish purple big lips he has in all his photos...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:59 PM
hand by the way aren&#39;t your type the ones who are always bragging about "BUT THEY HAVEN&#39;T EVEN CAPTURED BIN LADEN YET&#33;&#33;",
No, that&#39;s liberals. People who support the war, but disagree on tactics. They claim they could conduct the war more effectively than the Bush administration.

Anyway, it&#39;s too early to say what effect Zarqawi&#39;s death will have.

It does have a certain symptomatic significance: the U.S. military is having an easier time getting informants among Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

[TC]

Zarqawi was always just a convienet american scapegoat, al quada in iraq was neither a significant nor especially effective faction of the resistance and people often made false claims on its behalf, its most likely that Zarqawi is more a media invention of the United States (who would prefer to portray the war as against Al Qaeda than against the remnants of the Iraqi government and anti-imperialist resistance). They probably just picked some random fugitive to make a &#39;nemisis&#39; out of.

[Forward Union]

One religious nutjob dead....like, billions left.

[Janus]

Wow&#33; Major breakthrough.

Obviously, many still do not understand the nature of the insurgency. When Saddam was captured, was the opposition destroyed? If Bin Laden is captured, will Al-Qaeda collapse. It&#39;s not like Zarqawi was Skynet or something, he was not the essence of Al-Qaeda and became less and less involved in planning as he became more wanted.

Yes, this victory may be symbolic, but it is nothing more than that.

[Enragé]

Zarqawi was despised by the iraqi insurgents themselves, and they are probably the ones who gave the yanks the information.

There have even been times when the insurgent groups attacked Zarqawi for his crimes against the Iraqi people.

Al-Zarqawi&#39;s group was a fringe group which just happened to use tactics which get you on the news, that is to say; killing a shitload of children, old people and babies.
The vast majority of the insurgency targets Coalition soldiers, iraqi military and sometimes the police; since they are harder to kill and actually are justifiable targets they dont get as much coverage

In short
this wont change anything
At the most it will ease sectarian tendencies (Zarqawi liked to kill shia) and unite all Iraqis against the US.

Let me explain here that the reason why the shia are mostly not fighting is simply because their leaders have an interest in keeping shit quiet. If those leaders withdraw their support all hell breaks loose.

And just to show you what kind of people those leaders are; funded, backed and armed by Iran.

soooo
Bush
gonna invade Iran anytime soon?

[Janus]

Zarqawi was despised by the iraqi insurgents themselves, and they are probably the ones who gave the yanks the information.
yeah, but it&#39;s doubtful that they would reveal it to the Americans. He still worked with some of them.

The report already said who some of the informants were.

[FinnMacCool]

Let&#39;s all meditate on how killing Zarqawi has improved the IRaqi peoples lives.

. . .


. . . . . . . .

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Jun 8 2006, 08:18 PM--> (TragicClown @ Jun 8 2006, 08:18 PM) ....its most likely that Zarqawi is more a media invention of the United States (who would prefer to portray the war as against Al Qaeda than against the remnants of the Iraqi government and anti-imperialist resistance). They probably just picked some random fugitive to make a &#39;nemisis&#39; out of. [/b]

If you ever see it, pick up a book called Insurgent Iraq; Al Zarqawi and the New Generation by Loretta Napoleoni. It&#39;s a really good book and well worth the price. Her other book, Terror Inc., looks pretty interesting as well....she&#39;s an Economist apparently, but that&#39;s about all I can find on her.


ummProfessional
....there is something called fingerprints....

Are you living in 1964 or something? They do DNA tests now, at least that&#39;s what CNN is saying....though one wonders how they&#39;ve got his DNA; because his prison sentence was served before the use of widespread DNA testing.

[Janus]

though one wonders how they&#39;ve got his DNA
Family members probably. Through his Jordanian family that is.

[FriedFrog]

George Galloway was just talking about this on question time. Something interesting he brought up was that Zarqawi has been involved in 21 bombings on Iraqi people.

This is a TINY proportion of the huge number carried out by the native Iraqi &#39;resistance&#39; who continue to ethnically cleanse each other. Zarqawi does not control the resistance, the resistance is one consisting of Iraqi&#39;s, not foreigners.


One religious nutjob dead....like, billions left.

Exactly

[BobKKKindle$]

One religious nutjob dead....like, billions left

I will be far happier when people like Pat Buchmann are dead. But honestly, I dont think the insurgency movement will suffer a huge loss of morale of leadership in their struggle. What with the recent Haditha Massacre and the continual hostility of the ocupying imperialist armies, the US government should not expect peace in which to steal iraq&#39;s oil any time soon. Ho Chi Minh died (of natural causes) in 1969, and that did nothing to stop the North vietnamese. if anything, the resistance will emerge all the more stronger, and continue to fight Imperialism.

[bezdomni]

Zarqawi is dead, but that doesn&#39;t pay the bills or put food on the table.

[anomaly]

He dead&#33;
...
Who cares? The war is still going on.

A &#39;breakthrough&#39; will be when that crusty Texan (not CPA) takes the troops out of Iraq. Hell, that will be a miracle&#33;

[Comrade Yev]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:50 AM
He dead&#33;
...
Who cares? The war is still going on.

A &#39;breakthrough&#39; will be when that crusty Texan (not CPA) takes the troops out of Iraq. Hell, that will be a miracle&#33;
I think he&#39;s already said in a speech that that isn&#39;t happening in his presidency.

[overlord]

Jeeeze, one would think you guys supported the Al Squida bastards. Since you are not with us I suppose you are traitors. Please hand yourselves into the new Haliburton detention camps. It will be no great loss to the world I assure you. Personally I wouldn&#39;t deal with youse in that manner. You think capitalists should be shot? :lol: YOU SCUM&#33; How&#39;s this? If I WERE IN CHARGE, you SOCIALISTS would not get off lightly for your crimes. I would chain you to 150 kilo steel balls and make you chip away rock in my mines until the cows come home. You think capitalists should be bayonetted? Very well, upon exiting my Rolls Royce to survey my empire, I shall greatly enjoy personally whiping you all with my bullwhip. How&#39;s that for reciprocity? I shall also starve you the way your regimes starved 100 million. I shall chew upon bubble gum and you will beg me to spit in your mouths from hunger. You think you can escape angering me with your threats of death? I&#39;m sick of it&#33; BUT I WOULDN&#39;T DO ANY OF THIS BECAUSE I&#39;M A NICE GUY. :)

WHY? Capitalists are morally superior&#33; You think you have all the ethics? Well why do Redstar and Redteam want to kill everyone? pfft, so much for ETHICS&#33; :rolleyes: How would you like it if I started talking like that? You wouldn&#39;t would you, you murdering conspirers. YOUR ETHICS is not ethics at all&#33;

[Janus]

Since you are not with us I suppose you are traitors.
We do not support nationalist governments, so yes we could be considered traitors.


Capitalists are morally superior&#33;
Yeah, that explains all the repression that has gone on and is going on in capitalist nations.


Well why do Redstar and Redteam want to kill everyone?
Obviously, capitalists have a terrible sense of judgment and memory as well.

Jeeeze, one would think you guys supported the Al Squida bastards.
Redstar has certainly not supported killing everyone and members here have explicitly voiced their opposition to Al-Qaeda.


How would you like it if I started talking like that?
That would certainly explain some things.


You wouldn&#39;t would you, you murdering conspirers. YOUR ETHICS is not ethics at all&#33;
Morals are subjective, what&#39;s your point?

[overlord]

Some of you guys just wanna kill capitalists and it kinda makes me upset that you can be so ungrateful. I just don&#39;t think you should be so mean. :(

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:41 PM
Let me explain here that the reason why the shia are mostly not fighting is simply because their leaders have an interest in keeping shit quiet.

They are fighting. Both the Shi&#39;a theocratic militia, including the Mahdi army, and Shi&#39;a who are joining the army and police. Sometimes it&#39;s hard to distinguish the militia from the army and police.

The Shi&#39;a are fighting against Sunni Arabs, and against the resistance. Because the resistance is all about killing Shi&#39;a, and restoring the privileges which Sunni Arabs had under the old regime.


At the most it will ease sectarian tendencies (Zarqawi liked to kill shia) and unite all Iraqis against the US.

That train left a long time ago. It&#39;s not just Zarqawi who liked to kill Shi&#39;a; that&#39;s become the policy of the whole resistance. While the Sadrists are busy killing Sunni.

Whatever sporadic, local, brief conflicts have erupted between al-Qaeda and other elements of the resistance...they&#39;re not over religious sectarianism, they agree on that. It&#39;s over disagreements on participating in elections (to keep the Shi&#39;a from gaining to much influence) and things like that.

As Fried Frog accurately pointed out:

George Galloway was just talking about this on question time. Something interesting he brought up was that Zarqawi has been involved in 21 bombings on Iraqi people.

This is a TINY proportion of the huge number carried out by the native Iraqi &#39;resistance&#39; who continue to ethnically cleanse each other. Zarqawi does not control the resistance, the resistance is one consisting of Iraqi&#39;s, not foreigners.

&#39;Course, there are plenty of Iraqis in Zarqawi&#39;s organization, too.

The Washington Post had an interesting bit on the reaction on the street in Iraq:
But the predominant feeling in Madhloom&#39;s restaurant was jubilant.
....
There were a couple of long faces, however. Salam Abdul Rahman, a 28-year-old government employee, angrily refused to take a soft drink from a man who was handing them out.

Another man, Saad Saleem, a 32-year-old laborer, was depressed by the insurgent leader&#39;s death and thought it would lead to trouble for Sunni Arabs.

"Zarqawi was the one who put a limit to Shiite influence and all the killing of Sunnis," he said. "It is a big loss. Who will fight the Americans the way he used to fight them? They were ready to leave the country because of his operations. Now there will be no one like him who will be able to push the Americans to leave Iraq. There will be no one to stop the Iranian Shiites. Al-Qaeda must look for a good replacement for Zarqawi. Otherwise the Sunnis will lose every thing in Iraq".

Note how Shi&#39;a, perceived as Iranian agents ever since the Iran-Iraq war, are seen as a bigger enemy than the U.S. This is a typical pro-insurgent sentiment; the idea of Shi&#39;a and Sunni uniting against the occupation is expressed by few or no Iraqis....also, pro-insurgency but anti-Zarqawi sentiment is not much in evidence presently.

Even Hamas, in Palestine, issued a statement hailing Zarqawi as a martyr....

[Enragé]

They are fighting. Both the Shi&#39;a theocratic militia, including the Mahdi army, and Shi&#39;a who are joining the army and police. Sometimes it&#39;s hard to distinguish the militia from the army and police.

The Shi&#39;a are fighting against Sunni Arabs, and against the resistance. Because the resistance is all about killing Shi&#39;a, and restoring the privileges which Sunni Arabs had under the old regime.

Not true, certainly not the Mahdi. The Badr militia (which i think you mean by theocratic) perhaps do, but not the Mahdi. During the siege of Najaf they were aided by the Sunni and during the battle of Fallujah they repayed this debt, also, their leader Al-Sadr has called for unity of all iraqis, and even in an unprecedented move put forward a suggestion for sunni and shia to pray together.

It is true however that it is hard to distinguish militia from army and police, but this works more to the disadvantage of the US than too Iraqi unity.

The Shi&#39;a are not fighting against the Sunni arabs, or vice versa, only factions do so. Before the US invasion there was no real Shia-Sunni divide in the way that there is now, it has been enflamed by the US incursion but there still are many people that arent sectarian, one of which is Muqtada Al-Sadr.

As for the sunni resistance, historically the sunni are extremely bound to Arab Nationalism; for them to give this up would be a strange turn indeed...


It&#39;s not just Zarqawi who liked to kill Shi&#39;a; that&#39;s become the policy of the whole resistance

nonsense really
this would completely negate any inititiative from sunni and shia anti-occupation orgs to work together


Whatever sporadic, local, brief conflicts have erupted between al-Qaeda and other elements of the resistance...they&#39;re not over religious sectarianism, they agree on that.

its on the targeting of civilians. I actually read a communique in regard to that..

[Sabocat]

Personally, I couldn&#39;t give a fuck less about Zarqawi. One less religious fundy jackoff, I just wish all the other religious fundy&#39;s would share his fate. But just a quick question....


Who do you think was responsible for killing more civilians in Iraq? Zarqawi or G W Bush?

Who&#39;s the criminal again?

[JimmyC]

Fucken A HE DEAD&#33;

Another loser bites the dust.

[BobKKKindle$]

Some interesting perspectives from the BBC on their World Service Website:


Several sources close to the insurgency had suggested in the last few weeks that Zarqawi&#39;s role had already been downgraded. He was also criticised recently by Osama bin Laden&#39;s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.


But the insurgents might also use this as a chance to refocus their campaign, perhaps concentrating their fire on the security forces, and away from the attacks on civilians that Zarqawi pursued so cynically. That in turn could help the fractured insurgency to work together more effectively, and might also help them win more support from the Iraqi people.

Dont count on being able to establish a stable puppet government any time soon. ANd despite what a comrade here said, I do in fact have a marginal level of support for Al Qaeda.

[Zero]

I&#39;m still kind of wondering why overlord isn&#39;t banned. Obviously he doesn&#39;t contriubte anything to the boards, and obviously doesn&#39;t understand that "if he was in charge" donkeys would shit blueberrys, and the entire nation of Spain would melt into Viniger.

[BobKKKindle$]

if he was in charge" donkeys would shit blueberrys, and the entire nation of Spain would melt into Viniger.

LoL Dude I am Laughing so hard right now&#33; :lol:

[overlord]

Obviously he doesn&#39;t contriubte anything to the boards, and obviously doesn&#39;t understand that "if he was in charge" donkeys would shit blueberrys, and the entire nation of Spain would melt into Viniger.

:huh: Are you on drugs? Is this your contribution? Debate me if you want to contribute.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:19 PM
OMFG ZARKAWIS DEAD TEH WAR IS OVAR. LOLOLOL AMERICA WINS
Hmm... a rather interesting analysys of recent Iraq events.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Obviously, many still do not understand the nature of the insurgency. When Saddam was captured, was the opposition destroyed? If Bin Laden is captured, will Al-Qaeda collapse? It&#39;s not like Zarqawi was Skynet or something, he was not the essence of Al-Qaeda and became less and less involved in planning as he became more wanted.

Yes, this victory may be symbolic, but it is nothing more than that.

And what is your evidence or sourse that Zarqawi has been less and less involved in planning (of attacks) as he became more wanted?


Just a quick question....Who do you think was responsible for killing more civilians in Iraq? Zarqawi or G W Bush?

Who&#39;s the criminal again?

Civilians caught in the crossfire because the enemy insurgents are using civilian locations to use as protection is certainly a tradegy. But a war crime it is not.

US and coaltion forces policy is to AVOID deaths of unarmed civilians.

Al Zarqawi&#39;s policy (and Al Quida for that matter) was and is, to TARGET the civilian population. To behead as many as possible. To blow up as many markets as possible, to even go after hotels in Amman, Jordan.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2006, 11:46 PM
US and coaltion forces policy is to AVOID deaths of unarmed civilians
Oh, really? Try telling that to the people of Hadith :angry:

[Enragé]

And Tal Afar

And Fallujah

(if you want to go further back in time)
And My Lai
And Dresden

[Xvall]

Don&#39;t forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[ummProfessional]

Don&#39;t forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki

so let me guess, you would of prefered for an US invasion of Japan, which would have produced 10 times more dead on both sides than the atomic bombs?

"For a Good Cause, Wrongdoing is Virtuous"- Publilius Syrus

im not saying the atomic bombs weren&#39;t horrible, in fact they were a terrible thing, but necessary to end THE WORST WAR IN HUMAN HISTORY&#33;&#33;&#33;

[overlord]

so let me guess, you would of prefered for an US invasion of Japan, which would have produced 10 times more dead on both sides than the atomic bombs?

"For a Good Cause, Wrongdoing is Virtuous"- Publilius Syrus

im not saying the atomic bombs weren&#39;t horrible, in fact they were a terrible thing, but necessary to end THE WORST WAR IN HUMAN HISTORY&#33;&#33;&#33;

Exactly. Japan needed to be nuked for thinking they could take on the existing empires with impunity. What a joke they were. And their pissy slow aircraft too. US didn&#39;t even bother sending decent planes to combat them until 1943. Look how yammamoto was shot down by p-38 lightnings and the zeros who were escorting him couldn&#39;t keep up to save him&#33;

[Janus]

And what is your evidence or sourse that Zarqawi has been less and less involved in planning (of attacks) as he became more wanted?
That&#39;s what certain militants have said about him. Of course, he still planned but it was much less than before.


Japan needed to be nuked
And you think that the US should decide who needs to be killed and who doesn&#39;t?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:10 AM
Some of you guys just wanna kill capitalists and it kinda makes me upset that you can be so ungrateful. I just don&#39;t think you should be so mean. :(
so much time posting here, and yet you have such a dim understanding of marxism.

when we speak about violence, it is not about DELIVERING JUSTICE; it is about executing an action that is materialistically necessary for our freedom. sure we attach EMOTIONS to this kind of actions, but rationally analyzing it, we want those actions to be EXECUTED because of necessity.

for example, there is a thread in the history subforum about the execution of the romanovs. while we can agree the adults of the royal family were scumbags, we cannot be so sure about their children. however, in order to avoid the death of thousands of russian children it was necessary to execute the whole royal family. surviving factions of the tzarist family could have boosted the morale of white guardists or worse yet, become a rallying point for white reaction.

i dont think it was particulary SATISFYING to kill little alexei, but his death probably saved some few thousand children.

[overlord]

so much time posting here, and yet you have such a dim understanding of marxism.


Oh, I understand what Marxism is. Its what happens when you step in some dogshit.


when we speak about violence, it is not about DELIVERING JUSTICE; it is about executing an action that is materialistically necessary for our freedom. sure we attach EMOTIONS to this kind of actions, but rationally analyzing it, we want those actions to be EXECUTED because of necessity.


Same difference. You think bourgeoise humans are greedy and other humans are not? You think revolutionary leftists do not have human nature? One question, are you human? HAHAHAHH&#33; Everyone has to die if you start killing greedy people.

Anyway, lets say you kill the factory owner who wasn&#39;t enslaving you in any way. What then, you have your freedom, or do you? Blood on your hands and a disfunctional factory is freedom? Lets say someone else wants to give the orders in the factory? Do you kill him too? Your system is unsustainable unless everyone is dead&#33;&#33; :o Hence: A DEAD SYSTEM&#33;


for example, there is a thread in the history subforum about the execution of the romanovs. while we can agree the adults of the royal family were scumbags, we cannot be so sure about their children. however, in order to avoid the death of thousands of russian children it was necessary to execute the whole royal family. surviving factions of the tzarist family could have boosted the moral of white guardists or worse yet, a rallying point for white reaction.


Pray tell, how did killing sweet little Alexei :wub: save a thousand children? And who pray tell killed more, the reds or the whites? :rolleyes: And what kind of sick necrophiliac bastard of a system kills a royal family? :angry: And if you kill a royal family, well that&#39;s the final boundary&#33; You can kill anything after that, and you did, didn&#39;t you&#33; :angry:

I am REALLY REALLY starting to think you people need to be chained up and dropped into the Bermuda triangle during a hurricane so you can plague the earth no more. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Janus]

You think bourgeoise humans are greedy and other humans are not? You think revolutionary leftists do not have human nature?
Could you provide solid evidence for human nature? The only part of human nature that I have heard of is that we analyze things in patterns.


Pray tell, how did killing sweet little Alexei save a thousand children? And who pray tell killed more, the reds or the whites? And what kind of sick necrophiliac bastard of a system kills a royal family? And if you kill a royal family, well that&#39;s the final boundary&#33;
You act as if the Romanovs and the royals are saints. You forget that countless dies under their reign and that even their so called family refused them refuge.

[overlord]

Could you provide solid evidence for human nature? The only part of human nature that I have heard of is that we analyze things in patterns

Do you know what jewellery is for? Ever been robbed? Ever comb our hair to look cute? :rolleyes:


You act as if the Romanovs and the royals are saints. You forget that countless dies under their reign and that even their so called family refused them refuge.

Actually, they ARE saints. And why kill a royal family? What is the logic except revenge? Royals are cool people. Much cooler than you blowjobs.

[black magick hustla]

oh god overlord you are amazing. i dont know man, you are just....dumb.

I am being serious. For example, I do not have HIGH REGARDS for people like tungsten and pulbius, but they are definitely not dumb. I do not know if you are acting retarded in purpose [as part of an elaborate joke] or you are just being...you.

there is already a thread in the commie club about you because apparently your idiocy is stellar.

Congratulations, you are stupid enough to have your own thread in the CC&#33;


Same difference. You think bourgeoise humans are greedy and other humans are not? You think revolutionary leftists do not have human nature? One question, are you human? HAHAHAHH&#33; Everyone has to die if you start killing greedy people.

i had to read this paragraph like two times because your convulted style is not very lucid&#33;

adressing your point, i think you didn&#39;t understand me at all. I wasn&#39;t speaking wether we are "greedy" or not, i was speaking about how bloodshed is necessary for the betterment of humanity.

however, i disagree with many of my fellow comrades about how people "aren&#39;t greedy". the communist is driven by self-interest, the interest of being finally free--of being able to be in control of his life and achieve a very high quality of life. however "self-interest" doesn&#39;t only mean a maddening impulse for accumulating infinite commodities--it can mean many other things---ranging from having enough free time to indulge yourself into your desires and having time to speak and socialize with your comrades.

a communist revolution wont be made by altruistical individuals--people that sacrifice themselves to the nothingness. the masses have antagonistical material interests to the bourgeosie, and this conflict will be materialized in a violent outburst.

:)


Anyway, lets say you kill the factory owner who wasn&#39;t enslaving you in any way. What then, you have your freedom, or do you? Blood on your hands and a disfunctional factory is freedom? Lets say someone else wants to give the orders in the factory? Do you kill him too? Your system is unsustainable unless everyone is dead&#33;&#33; :o Hence: A DEAD SYSTEM&#33;


A dysfunctional factory? Hah&#33;

history disagrees with you buddy&#33; In the spanish civil war many factories were taken over by anarchist workers and the factories became democratic. In many places, the production actually doubled or even tripled&#33;

What you need is a good history book.




Pray tell, how did killing sweet little Alexei save a thousand children? And who pray tell killed more, the reds or the whites? And what kind of sick necrophiliac bastard of a system kills a royal family? And if you kill a royal family, well that&#39;s the final boundary&#33; You can kill anything after that, and you did, didn&#39;t you&#33;

necrophiliac?

Don&#39;t use words you don&#39;t understand chap&#33;

ALso how is sick to kill the royal family? They were certainly scumbags who lived covered in jewerly while the people under their despotism lived like shit].

Are you implying that the tzarist family was much more valuable than normal russian families?

Fuck, most democratic revolutions ended with the killing of feudal aristocrats. Read a bit about your own American Revolution.



Also, this paragraph shows your gross misunderstanding of history. The white guardists could have easily found strength in the idea that a member of royal family was alive; they would have their morale boosted by the idea that restoring the monarchy was possible. This morale could have caused many casualties.



I am REALLY REALLY starting to think you people need to be chained up and dropped into the Bermuda triangle during a hurricane so you can plague the earth no more. :angry: :

sure

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

Do you know what jewellery is for? Ever been robbed? Ever comb our hair to look cute?

You let your emotions and desire rule your intellect? Capitalism is indeed primitive&#33;

[overlord]

You let your emotions and desire rule your intellect? Capitalism is indeed primitive&#33;


If its primitive surely even a commie like you could understand it :) Fact is its more advanced than your mind allows for which is why you can&#39;t understand it.

[bezdomni]

Sorry, but "WOO HOO...WE KILLED US AN A-RAB" is far from a complex thought.

[overlord]

Sorry, but "WOO HOO...WE KILLED US AN A-RAB" is far from a complex thought.


So war is capitalism? Waht other gems of insight can I glean from this forum?

Cutsie Marmot :wub: :



oh god overlord you are amazing. i dont know man, you are just....dumb.

Well, coming from a communist am I supposed to be insulted? :lol: BTW I nearly have two degrees. How could I be stupid?


I am being serious. For example, I do not have HIGH REGARDS for people like tungsten and pulbius, but they are definitely not dumb. I do not know if you are acting retarded in purpose [as part of an elaborate joke] or you are just being...you.


I am really serious and this is me :) OR is it? :blink: Nah, the only time I was joking was that religion stuff directed at monicapossessed. I just wanted to test her alleged newfound atheism to see if it wasn&#39;t implanted by simple brainwashing from you freaks.


there is already a thread in the commie club about you because apparently your idiocy is stellar.

Congratulations, you are stupid enough to have your own thread in the CC&#33;


So the inmates already have a thread on me? OH dear, a top secret thread in a secret forum no one but like 50 people can ever see&#33; I&#39;m ruined? What are they saying about me anyway? I&#39;m the best thing that has ever happened to this forum, I expect.


i had to read this paragraph like two times because your convulted style is not very lucid&#33;

It is only legible to those versed in the innate mysteries of Trygythemus Maximus. :blink:


adressing your point, i think you didn&#39;t understand me at all. I wasn&#39;t speaking wether we are "greedy" or not, i was speaking about how bloodshed is necessary for the betterment of humanity.


Like me taking you out with a gunship? Perhaps, but I wouldn&#39;t go there.


however, i disagree with many of my fellow comrades about how people "aren&#39;t greedy". the communist is driven by self-interest, the interest of being finally free--of being able to be in control of his life and achieve a very high quality of life. however "self-interest" doesn&#39;t only mean a maddening impulse for accumulating infinite commodities--it can mean many other things---ranging from having enough free time to indulge yourself into your desires and having time to speak and socialize with your comrades.


Why don&#39;t you guys just build your own factories if you&#39;re so greedy for wealth? Clearly you guys don&#39;t like rich people. On the other hand you&#39;re unhappy being poor? :blink:


a communist revolution wont be made by altruistical individuals--people that sacrifice themselves to the nothingness. the masses have antagonistical material interests to the bourgeosie, and this conflict will be materialized in a violent outburst.


That&#39;s when the dictator steps in and kills everyone.


A dysfunctional factory? Hah&#33;

history disagrees with you buddy&#33; In the spanish civil war many factories were taken over by anarchist workers and the factories became democratic. In many places, the production actually doubled or even tripled&#33;

What you need is a good history book.


If they couldn&#39;t build their own factory, how could they run one? And don&#39;t tell me some crap about not enough capital because they can pool resources. They have to pool anyway when they start to run things?


necrophiliac?

Don&#39;t use words you don&#39;t understand chap&#33;


Its why they killed the princesses isn&#39;t it? Why else? I say this because communists seem to do some AMAZING things in positions of power.


ALso how is sick to kill the royal family? They were certainly scumbags who lived covered in jewerly while the people under their despotism lived like shit].


Rubbish. The people loved their Tsar until the communists started filling everyone&#39;s heads with manure. And why shouldn&#39;t they be covered in jewellery as befitting their excellence?


Are you implying that the tzarist family was much more valuable than normal russian families?

Well, obviously they were since everyone keeps talking about them.



Fuck, most democratic revolutions ended with the killing of feudal aristocrats. Read a bit about your own American Revolution.


They ran some British governors out of town. American Aristocrats went unscathed and George Wash got his 100,000 acres on the other side of the British imposed proclamation line.


Also, this paragraph shows your gross misunderstanding of history. The white guardists could have easily found strength in the idea that a member of royal family was alive; they would have their morale boosted by the idea that restoring the monarchy was possible. This morale could have caused many casualties.


Who says all historians are Marxist? They are the minority. And I agree with that statement. The morale surge would have been enormous if one of the Royals had been alive. If only the USA and Britain had not pulled out without actually doing much fighting we might have been spared the USSR.

:wub: Bye Bye little animal.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:55 AM

Sorry, but "WOO HOO...WE KILLED US AN A-RAB" is far from a complex thought.


So war is capitalism? Waht other gems of insight can I glean from this forum?


That has nothing to do with what I said.

You were talking about how letting emotions rule your life is somehow a complex thought. I challenged your ridiculous statement, and you reply with nonsensical tripe.

And yes, capitalism creates war because it creates imperialism.

[overlord]

And yes, capitalism creates war because it creates imperialism.

Remember when North Korea invaded the South. Remeber North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam? Remeber China attacking Vietnam? Remember Vietnam attacking Cambodia? Remember USSR attacking Afghanistan? Remember Soviet Russia attacking Poland? Remember USSR taking over the Baltic States and attacking Finland?

[Janus]

Remember when North Korea invaded the South. Remeber North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam?
And remember what the US was doing in South Vietnam? Backing a very unpopular and brutal dictator?


Remember Vietnam attacking Cambodia? Remember USSR attacking Afghanistan? Remember Soviet Russia attacking Poland? Remember USSR taking over the Baltic States and attacking Finland?
And socialist countries are supposed to be perfect? Some of them did have imperialist agendas.

But who is the worst at it?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:21 AM

And yes, capitalism creates war because it creates imperialism.

Remember when North Korea invaded the South. Remeber North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam? Remeber China attacking Vietnam? Remember Vietnam attacking Cambodia? Remember USSR attacking Afghanistan? Remember Soviet Russia attacking Poland? Remember USSR taking over the Baltic States and attacking Finland?
Congratulations...you can name some wars in which socialist or quasi-socialist countries were involved in...

Capitalism, in order to expand, will eventually use violence against foreign countries to protect their foreign markets and the interests of the bourgeoisie. The working class has no interest in invading iraq, the working class had no interest in fighting the viet cong, the working class had no interest in suppressing the bolshevik revolution against the despotic czar. However, the workers make up the majority of the armed forces and therefore usually end up fighting the bourgeois wars. To put it in a simple one-liner, the rich man&#39;s war is fought with the worker&#39;s blood.

Imperialism uses brute force in order to maintain itself when it is challenged. There shouldn&#39;t be any argument over this, because it simply makes sense and can be historically validated. I shouldn&#39;t have to tell you about all the times imperialism has taken innocent lives in order to perpetuate itself, since you are obviously such a history buff...but here&#39;s one good example: The American Revolution.

[Tungsten]

clownpenisanarchy

Imperialism uses brute force in order to maintain itself when it is challenged.
So does/will communism. Your point?