criminal protesting okay?

[Orion999]

Turns out the whole thing was a hoax but even though David Lucas didn't sell these gallows to Mugabe etc., he does actually support the death penalty and is proud to display his home-made gallows outside his farm shop. I managed to find his address and phone number on the internet (he was stupid enough to put it on the site for his shop). Who's up for a bit of protest in the form of criminal damage? I'm not suggesting we harm him, I just want to see those gallows burned to the ground. I only live an hours drive away from Mildenhall. What do you think?

Protest in the form of criminal damage? Is this kind of behavior really supported by this forum? This guy probably posted his address because he's waiting for some idiot like you to show up so he can blast your head off. What an idiot for posting this on the internet.



It's bad enough that people get caged up like animals but its even worse when they are in there waiting to be murdered by the state.

And what exactly is it you suppose we do with murderes, rapist, and child molesters? Wait till some sicko molests your 10 year old little girl before you start railing against imprisonment and the death penalty. Although I do be believe it should only be used in the most extreme circumstances and a higher burden of proof of guilt should be required.

[apathy maybe]

I don't really want to comment on the specific post, but on the issue of protesting using "criminal" methods more generally.

The state makes the laws, the rules etc. under which we live. Because the state is not a legitimate organisation, there are no good reasons for me to feel obliged to it, nor to recognise its authority over me. It compels me to obey it. As such, why should I not use criminal methods to protest it?

Talking of property, if property is being used for purposes that I strongly disagree with, then it is ethical that I damage that property to attempt to stop whatever it is being used for.

Revolutionaries do not have to obey the laws of the government they wish to destroy, nor respect the values of a society that is so corrupt.

[Orion999]

Just like it will be ethical when I put a bullet in your head.

Engaging in activities such as this is only going to discredit your movment ( that is if communism could possibly be more discredited) more and make it even harder to gain the support needed for your revolution. So for your own good and your movements I suggest you refrain from destroying people's property

[theraven]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 6 2006, 05:32 AM
I don't really want to comment on the specific post, but on the issue of protesting using "criminal" methods more generally.

The state makes the laws, the rules etc. under which we live. Because the state is not a legitimate organisation, there are no good reasons for me to feel obliged to it, nor to recognise its authority over me. It compels me to obey it. As such, why should I not use criminal methods to protest it?

Talking of property, if property is being used for purposes that I strongly disagree with, then it is ethical that I damage that property to attempt to stop whatever it is being used for.

Revolutionaries do not have to obey the laws of the government they wish to destroy, nor respect the values of a society that is so corrupt.
dont be suprised when the govenrmtn vionetly stamps out your organization the...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:37 AM
Just like it will be ethical when I put a bullet in your head.

Engaging in activities such as this is only going to discredit your movment ( that is if communism could possibly be more discredited) more and make it even harder to gain the support needed for your revolution. So for your own good and your movements I suggest you refrain from destroying people's property
Oh fuck off you dipshit. Don't respond to someone advocating non-violent property damage with a death threat. If your going to be a hypocrite, at least logically debate.

From your second paragraph, you do not prove his actions will discredit the movement. You suggest communism could not be discredited any further - you do not justify that.

Get an education.

[Orion999]

Oh fuck off you dipshit. Don't respond to someone advocating non-violent property damage with a death threat. If your going to be a hypocrite, at least logically debate.

From your second paragraph, you do not prove his actions will discredit the movement. You suggest communism could not be discredited any further - you do not justify that.


The death threat is for anyone coming onto my property to inflict damage should not be upset if I shoot them in the face. How could communism possibly be more discredited. If you live in America, try going around asking random people if they want to attend your communist meeting. Maybe .00001 percent will accept the offer.

And if you don't think going around destroying other people's thing is going to lead to a severe crackdown and arrests your an idiot.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Orion999+--> (Orion999)Just like it will be ethical when I put a bullet in your head. [/b]Not if I get you first ...


Originally posted by Orion999+--> (Orion999)Engaging in activities such as this is only going to discredit your movment ( that is if communism could possibly be more discredited) more and make it even harder to gain the support needed for your revolution. So for your own good and your movements I suggest you refrain from destroying people's property[/b]
I disagree. If I destroy property that is being used to kill people or imprison them without charge, then I think there are many people who would support that.

I would also gain support if "private" property that is being used to torture animals or destroy rare environments was destroyed.


[email protected]
dont be suprised when the govenrmtn vionetly stamps out your organization the...The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.


Orion999
The death threat is for anyone coming onto my property to inflict damage should not be upset if I shoot them in the face. How could communism possibly be more discredited. If you live in America, try going around asking random people if they want to attend your communist meeting. Maybe .00001 percent will accept the offer.

And if you don't think going around destroying other people's thing is going to lead to a severe crackdown and arrests your an idiot.If you had have read my post I said it was a general answer to the question of "criminal" methods. Besides which, I haven't seen a large crackdown on people slashing SUV tires or spray painting them yet ...

[Zero]

Something tells me this guy just earned his first keyboard...

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:32 AM
Something tells me this guy just earned his first keyboard...
Now, now. I'm sure it's his second. He probably broke the first one mashing it with his palm in a blind episode of stupidity.

Violent protest against an inefficiant system is perfectly justified, property damage is definatley justified: not only do you not hurt anyone physically, but damage the right property and you can damage pocket books.

[theraven]

The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.

the only violcen the gvonermetn uses is to keep youf from breaking the law...

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 01:09 PM


The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.

the only violcen the gvonermetn uses is to keep youf from breaking the law...
We dont recognise their laws

[theraven]

Originally posted by Whitten+Sep 6 2006, 05:13 PM--> (Whitten @ Sep 6 2006, 05:13 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 01:09 PM


The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.

the only violcen the gvonermetn uses is to keep youf from breaking the law...
We dont recognise their laws [/b]
they dont care

[Whitten]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 6 2006, 06:24 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 6 2006, 06:24 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:13 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 01:09 PM


The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.

the only violcen the gvonermetn uses is to keep youf from breaking the law...
We dont recognise their laws
they dont care [/b]
neither do we

[theraven]

Originally posted by Whitten+Sep 6 2006, 06:52 PM--> (Whitten @ Sep 6 2006, 06:52 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:13 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 01:09 PM


The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.

the only violcen the gvonermetn uses is to keep youf from breaking the law...
We dont recognise their laws
they dont care
neither do we [/b]
you will when they arrest you for breaking the law.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 6 2006, 07:06 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 6 2006, 07:06 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 05:13 PM

[email protected] 6 2006, 01:09 PM


The government uses violence or the threat everyday against me. If I use violence against them, it is simply self defence.

the only violcen the gvonermetn uses is to keep youf from breaking the law...
We dont recognise their laws
they dont care
neither do we
you will when they arrest you for breaking the law. [/b]
Thats why we avoid getting caught.

[Zero]

One-liner responses FTW!

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:25 PM
One-liner responses FTW!
damn right!

[BuyOurEverything]

Orion999: This thread is stupid. Obviously people advocating the overthrow of the government are not going to inherantly respect their laws. Did the Americans respect the laws of the British empire?

Now, I agree that damaging regular peoples property is stupid, I would be pretty pissed if someone came and slashed my tires, but that is different than respecting the legitimacy of laws as a whole.

And as for turning people against the movement, that can sometimes be the case depending on the situation. However, that is a tactical issue, not an ethical one, and it seems rather pointless to discuss socialist tactics with a capitalist.

[adz170]

The thing you have overlooked is that when you destroy public property on a large enough scale it is just going to push up the taxes of that country....( as if they arent high enough already , what are they funding an secret army!! ) . so you and fellow comrades would just end up paying for the damage which you inflicted , thus proving nothing except maybe the publicity which it might cause for a brief period . all in all i think you will be risking your life and if you dont get killed you will still have to pay... , but i guess its the thought which counts :D . capitalism is nearly , nearly! full proof

[YSR]

Damn, I thought we had a quote train possibility here for a second.

Then I was like, no it's just some dipshit cappies.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

This thread is Teh SuxorZ

[theraven]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 7 2006, 04:03 PM
Damn, I thought we had a quote train possibility here for a second.

Then I was like, no it's just some dipshit cappies.
why would we want a quote train? those things are horrible

[Guerrilla22]

It would be terrible if any government property were to ever be damaged, it also would be a shame if Nike Town and the Gap were damaged in a riot because it would surely hurt all of the forementioned if they had to pay to fix some damaged property.

[Orion999]

Dear Communists, by all means don't let me stop you from perpetrating your criminal activeity. The sooner you are all rounded up and locked away the better off we'll all be. And when your sitting in jail waiting for Bubba #3 to have his turn with you. take solace in the fact that your dreams have finally been realized, because in your new society everyone will be treated epually.

[Umoja]

Isn't it very American to think that if the government isn't representing your interest, that it's your right to take action against them?

Isn't that why we have the second ammendment? Wasn't our country formed by revolutionaries who started shit with the British government? Something about 'natural law' and the 'rights of man.'

I completely think criminal protest is justified, especially since our country was founded that way. The revolutionaries who died in the Boston massacre may have been 'wrong' for harassing redcoats, but they are certainly heros to most (if not all!) Americans.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 09:38 PM
Isn't it very American to think that if the government isn't representing your interest, that it's your right to take action against them?

Isn't that why we have the second ammendment? Wasn't our country formed by revolutionaries who started shit with the British government? Something about 'natural law' and the 'rights of man.'

I completely think criminal protest is justified, especially since our country was founded that way. The revolutionaries who died in the Boston massacre may have been 'wrong' for harassing redcoats, but they are certainly heros to most (if not all!) Americans.
you have the rigth to revolt if your natural rights (which in ameircan refers to property and religous rights) are being infrigend up on.

[apathy maybe]

Yet if anyone tried to protest, they will be stamped on as you have said.

This is the problem of the state, even if the 'right' exists to revolt, any government will opose this revolt with as much force as is needed. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Besides which, what is the difference between the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to religion and property, and the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to freedom and to life?

[theraven]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 PM
Yet if anyone tried to protest, they will be stamped on as you have said.

This is the problem of the state, even if the 'right' exists to revolt, any government will opose this revolt with as much force as is needed. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Besides which, what is the difference between the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to religion and property, and the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to freedom and to life?
freedom form what? what do you mean right to life? the govnermnt has the responsblity not to kill you unless you have committed a crime and the punsihemtn so warrants it, but generally the govenrmetn stays out of the whole you living and dying thing

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 7 2006, 06:22 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 7 2006, 06:22 PM)
apathy [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 PM
Yet if anyone tried to protest, they will be stamped on as you have said.

This is the problem of the state, even if the 'right' exists to revolt, any government will opose this revolt with as much force as is needed. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Besides which, what is the difference between the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to religion and property, and the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to freedom and to life?
freedom form what? what do you mean right to life? the govnermnt has the responsblity not to kill you unless you have committed a crime and the punsihemtn so warrants it, but generally the govenrmetn stays out of the whole you living and dying thing [/b]
Right, unless you do anything that might undermine their power over you, or possibly promote human rights, and the fact that all people are and should be treated as equals. As proved by COINTELPRO. For fuck's sake, you don't even have to be in America to feel the products of it's interference in peoples lives. Look at all the dictatorships and religious freaks its promoted over democratically elected candidates. The United States laws are in place to protect the rich upper class, and preserve the general order. If these fall, the United States may fall. The United States and its corporate backers do not want that. Therefore, all protest must be guided by the government to a point where it is rendered useless, and not a threat to its existence. 'Criminal' protest is not guided by the government, and therefore dangerous, and seen as punishable by the government.

[Orion999]

Right, unless you do anything that might undermine their power over you, or possibly promote human rights, and the fact that all people are and should be treated as equals

When is anyone arrested or killed for promoting human rights. This only happens in communists slave states.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:32 AM

Right, unless you do anything that might undermine their power over you, or possibly promote human rights, and the fact that all people are and should be treated as equals

When is anyone arrested or killed for promoting human rights. This only happens in communists slave states.
Lots of arrests have been made against communist protestors and striking union members. Sometimes the police 'accidentally' beat these people to death.

[Orion999]

Your lucky you don't live in the U.S.S.R., China, or North Korea, because than they really would just execute you on the spot.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:42 AM
Your lucky you don't live in the U.S.S.R., China, or North Korea, because than they really would just execute you on the spot.
Hah, right - do you mind furnishing me with proof of street executions in these three countries. I expect a neutral and reliable source by the way, otherwise it's simply illogical to go along with it.

[kaaos_af]

Well it is a valid point Orion is making. What happened when the people of East Germany, Kronstadt, Hungary and Czechoslovakia stood up to the Soviet government? Not to mention Tian an Men Square..? They got slaughtered with tanks and bombs. When people find it necessary to commit acts of violence in protest against so-called socialist governments, isn't it clear that the government has lost its connection to the people?

I believe violent protest is justified when the state that is being protested against uses violence itself on a large scale. For example- the USA's brutal suppression of activist organisations such as the Black Panther Party, the ongoing attacks on the third world for global military supremacy and corporate profit, the enforced poverty of most of the world, the destruction of the environment. Violence against such a state could be described as self-defence, as peaceful protest gets you nowhere (there's no more Ghandi's, boys and girls, and if there are, they'll be run over by the police motorcycles).

[Orion999]

Hah, right - do you mind furnishing me with proof of street executions in these three countries. I expect a neutral and reliable source by the way, otherwise it's simply illogical to go along with it.



Ever heard of Tian an Men Square?

[kaaos_af]

That's what I just said...

BTW, don't bring up Pol Pot- there's evidence the CIA trained and armed his lot in Thailand, so youu'll just get shot down :D

[Orion999]

BTW, don't bring up Pol Pot- there's evidence the CIA trained and armed his lot in Thailand, so youu'll just get shot down

Sorry that is a valid point.

[theraven]

Originally posted by RedSouth+Sep 7 2006, 11:56 PM--> (RedSouth @ Sep 7 2006, 11:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:22 PM

apathy [email protected] 7 2006, 10:46 PM
Yet if anyone tried to protest, they will be stamped on as you have said.

This is the problem of the state, even if the 'right' exists to revolt, any government will opose this revolt with as much force as is needed. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Besides which, what is the difference between the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to religion and property, and the government infringing on your 'natural' rights to freedom and to life?
freedom form what? what do you mean right to life? the govnermnt has the responsblity not to kill you unless you have committed a crime and the punsihemtn so warrants it, but generally the govenrmetn stays out of the whole you living and dying thing
Right, unless you do anything that might undermine their power over you, or possibly promote human rights, and the fact that all people are and should be treated as equals. As proved by COINTELPRO. For fuck's sake, you don't even have to be in America to feel the products of it's interference in peoples lives. Look at all the dictatorships and religious freaks its promoted over democratically elected candidates. The United States laws are in place to protect the rich upper class, and preserve the general order. If these fall, the United States may fall. The United States and its corporate backers do not want that. Therefore, all protest must be guided by the government to a point where it is rendered useless, and not a threat to its existence. 'Criminal' protest is not guided by the government, and therefore dangerous, and seen as punishable by the government. [/b]
if by "undermingin theirr power" you mean overthrowing society..then yes their gon to stop you.

[Umoja]

And I could give a fuck about China, North Korea or the USSR. In America, we aren't them. We're on another level, we do things differently. This whole comparisson garbage is ridiculous, we exist on a whole different level.

Our government has done many messed up things in it's history, and people who say "Well at least we're not the Chi-comms." Are only diverting attention from the real issue, this comparisson bullshit proves absolutely nothing. America is made a better place by people who see injustice and change it by any means necessary. So while you conservative types are content to live in the best shit-hole in the world, I'd much rather live somewhere nice.

[Orion999]

So while you conservative types are content to live in the best shit-hole in the world, I'd much rather live somewhere nice.

What does this mean? Is America the shit-hole, and if so where is the "nice" place?