Communists kill 3 soldiers in Philippines

[Sky]

Communist guerrillas killed three Philippine marines on their way to a market without weapons Sunday after a 22-day Christmas cease-fire began.

Military officials condemned the attack on the marines, who they said were in civilian clothes, by about 20 New People's Army guerrillas near a farming village in the southwestern province of Palawan, 223 miles south of Manila.

Troops had been ordered to hunt down the attackers, the military officials said.

"This is an inhuman act," Lt. Col. Jacinto de Vera, spokesman for the military's Western Command in Palawan, told ABS-CBN TV network.

De Vera said the three marines, who were riding in a jeep when attacked, were not carrying firearms in observance of a Christmas-season cease-fire that the government unilaterally imposed, which began early Sunday.

They had planned to get food at a village market, stop at a church to pray and then pick up construction materials elsewhere to repair their rural outpost, de Vera said.

A hunt for the attackers would not violate the Dec. 16-Jan. 6 cease-fire, which allows government troops to defensively respond to rebel attacks, he said.

The rebels did not immediately issue a public reaction to the military's accusations.

The Maoist rebels have refused to declare their own Christmas truce for the past two years, claiming the military has used it to spy on and even attack them.

The guerrillas, now about 6,000-strong, have been fighting for a Marxist-led state for 39 years. They withdrew from peace talks in 2004 after accusing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's government of instigating their inclusion on U.S. and European Union terrorist lists.

The people of Philippines are justified in this legitimate struggle for social liberation. Monopoly capital in past decades has had devastating consequences for the country. The Philippines is in need of a genuine people's democracy with participation from all progressive forces.

[Green]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:57 pm

Communist guerrillas killed three Philippine marines on their way to a market without weapons Sunday after a 22-day Christmas cease-fire began.

Military officials condemned the attack on the marines, who they said were in civilian clothes, by about 20 New People's Army guerrillas near a farming village in the southwestern province of Palawan, 223 miles south of Manila.

Troops had been ordered to hunt down the attackers, the military officials said.

"This is an inhuman act," Lt. Col. Jacinto de Vera, spokesman for the military's Western Command in Palawan, told ABS-CBN TV network.

De Vera said the three marines, who were riding in a jeep when attacked, were not carrying firearms in observance of a Christmas-season cease-fire that the government unilaterally imposed, which began early Sunday.

They had planned to get food at a village market, stop at a church to pray and then pick up construction materials elsewhere to repair their rural outpost, de Vera said.

A hunt for the attackers would not violate the Dec. 16-Jan. 6 cease-fire, which allows government troops to defensively respond to rebel attacks, he said.

The rebels did not immediately issue a public reaction to the military's accusations.

The Maoist rebels have refused to declare their own Christmas truce for the past two years, claiming the military has used it to spy on and even attack them.

The guerrillas, now about 6,000-strong, have been fighting for a Marxist-led state for 39 years. They withdrew from peace talks in 2004 after accusing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's government of instigating their inclusion on U.S. and European Union terrorist lists.

The people of Philippines are justified in this legitimate struggle for social liberation. Monopoly capital in past decades has had devastating consequences for the country. The Philippines is in need of a genuine people's democracy with participation from all progressive forces.
Even so, imitating the brutal tactics of imperialists tends to alienate you from the workers.

[Dros]

Great! I wish our comrades in the Phillipines the best luck in pursuing their great People's War.

These silly government cease fires are a total joke. The Maoists never agreed so they shouldn't be surprised. I don't know why but I still laugh every time the boureois military leaders talk about Communists as "inhumane".

Great success.

[Bilan]

How is this a 'great success'?
Do you see a mass uprising?

[Palmares]

Anybody know more about the history of this struggle? I've only ever heard snippets of it.

Oh, and I like it how the maoists don't rest for Christmas, haha.

[RNK]

Do you see a mass uprising

Actually yes. The revolutionary movement in the Phillipines is possibly the most advanced and developed in the world. They have been actively fighting the government for something like 30-40 years and have millions of supporters. Infact, even in Filipino communities throughout the world, you will often find support for them.

Unfortunately we do not often hear of them. It isn't headline news according to the bourgeois press, despite the advanced stages of the revolutionary movement. Just as unfortunate, the Philippines is one of the regimes most actively propped up by the United States and has been since the Second World War. Right now the situation is stable; the movement does not show any signs of it dissipating, however, it also doesn't show many signs of great advancement..

[Bilan]

Ah, well, touche, RNK!
Any sources?

[Saorsa]

Even so, imitating the brutal tactics of imperialists tends to alienate you from the workers.

Um, explain to me exactly how the killing of soldiers in the service of the capitalist stae is " imitating the brutal tactics of imperialists"? I can assure you, as I personally know people who have been to the Philippines (as well as Nepal and India) and seen first hand the People's Wars led by the Maoists, the workers are not in any way alienated by their actions.

Useful links for finding info on the New Peoples Army (miltary wing of Communist Party of the Philippines), and the Philippino people's war.

link (http://www.philippinerevolution.net)

Green Guerillas - doco on the NPA and it's work to defend indigenous mountain tribespeople (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eh5LnGQtbc4)

That's a start, the rest may take some research.

[SouthernBelle82]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:17 am
Great! I wish our comrades in the Phillipines the best luck in pursuing their great People's War.

These silly government cease fires are a total joke. The Maoists never agreed so they shouldn't be surprised. I don't know why but I still laugh every time the boureois military leaders talk about Communists as "inhumane".

Great success.
I agree. The cease fire worked great with Israel when they attacked Lebanon... (sarcasm) So yeah they don't work unless both sides agree and enforce it.

[Lenin II]

Troops had been ordered to hunt down the attackers, the military officials said. "This is an inhuman act," Lt. Col. Jacinto de Vera, spokesman for the military's Western Command in Palawan, told ABS-CBN TV network.
What do you want to bet if the uniformed scum had shot three communists, they would be singing a different tune?

They had planned to get food at a village market, stop at a church to pray and then pick up construction materials elsewhere to repair their rural outpost, de Vera said.
Oh, that's rich. Stopping at a church. "And on the way to the farmer's organic food market, the soldiers also planned to drop off clothes for orphans with diseases, cure cancer and hug babies."
Clearly a spin. how did they know where the soldiers were headed or what they planned to do?


Even so, imitating the brutal tactics of imperialists tends to alienate you from the workers.

This incredibly reactionary claim is usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."
2) Niave belief in bourgeoisie human rights.
Both have no place in Marxist theory. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the working masses, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.

[Proletarian Unity]

Good work by the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army.

[jake williams]

This incredibly reactionary claim is usually based on one of the following:
1) the Judeo-Christian-based belief that two "wrongs" do not make a "right."
2) Niave belief in bourgeoisie human rights.
Both have no place in Marxist theory. It is quite easy to "condemn" the actions of persecuted communists against the bourgeoisie imperialist machine, isn't it? While the ruling classes use any violent and brutal method they want, we must endlessly seek the liberation of all the working masses, unless of course it hurts someone. Then of course, the revolution must be dropped immediately as "unjust." Ridiculous drivel.
First, about "two wrongs don't make a right".

In the strict sense, it's correct - if harm occurs, and you do more harm, you haven't done something good. Now, it may happen that an act that causes harm also does more good, and moreover is the only/best method available to achieve that end. That doesn't negate the harm, however, but merely mitigates it. It's this that is the shortsightedness of "two wrongs don't make a right".

I think it's extremely important for the most fundamental of moral reasons that we not forget that, if we, say, shoot or even imprison a capitalist, we are causing harm to a conscious, feeling person who isn't just totally meaningless. It might be the obviously most moral act, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm.

It's possible, though not necessarily comfortable, to acknowledge that revolutionary activity for moral reasons must occur, but still causes extreme harm to lots of people, and significant harm to even more people, and that this isn't just totally trivial. And of course, it should regularly prevent activity to which we might be tempted, on the balance of what effects it would have (and remember that the effects of actions are complex, as defenders of the nuclear bombing of Japan never do).

[blabla]

Little by little in every country the people will cast off their capitalist yoke!

Good for them!

[Lenin II]

First, about "two wrongs don't make a right".

In the strict sense, it's correct - if harm occurs, and you do more harm, you haven't done something good. Now, it may happen that an act that causes harm also does more good, and moreover is the only/best method available to achieve that end. That doesn't negate the harm, however, but merely mitigates it. It's this that is the shortsightedness of "two wrongs don't make a right".

I think it's extremely important for the most fundamental of moral reasons that we not forget that, if we, say, shoot or even imprison a capitalist, we are causing harm to a conscious, feeling person who isn't just totally meaningless. It might be the obviously most moral act, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm.

It's possible, though not necessarily comfortable, to acknowledge that revolutionary activity for moral reasons must occur, but still causes extreme harm to lots of people, and significant harm to even more people, and that this isn't just totally trivial. And of course, it should regularly prevent activity to which we might be tempted, on the balance of what effects it would have (and remember that the effects of actions are complex, as defenders of the nuclear bombing of Japan never do).

Ok, I apologize if I was a little snappy. I've been arguing with Trotskyites and left communists all day. :p You have a legitimate point here. It was not my intention to portray orthodox Marxist-Leninists as bloodthirsty animals, but rather to point out the very real uses of violence.

[kromando33]

First, about "two wrongs don't make a right".

In the strict sense, it's correct - if harm occurs, and you do more harm, you haven't done something good. Now, it may happen that an act that causes harm also does more good, and moreover is the only/best method available to achieve that end. That doesn't negate the harm, however, but merely mitigates it. It's this that is the shortsightedness of "two wrongs don't make a right".

I think it's extremely important for the most fundamental of moral reasons that we not forget that, if we, say, shoot or even imprison a capitalist, we are causing harm to a conscious, feeling person who isn't just totally meaningless. It might be the obviously most moral act, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm.

It's possible, though not necessarily comfortable, to acknowledge that revolutionary activity for moral reasons must occur, but still causes extreme harm to lots of people, and significant harm to even more people, and that this isn't just totally trivial. And of course, it should regularly prevent activity to which we might be tempted, on the balance of what effects it would have (and remember that the effects of actions are complex, as defenders of the nuclear bombing of Japan never do).
I disagree, capitalists are meaningless people, and disagree nothing but to be put up against the wall.