What does leftpol think about terrorism? It wouldn't be so bad if a few terrorists slaughter the porkies and cops!

What does leftpol think about terrorism? It wouldn't be so bad if a few terrorists slaughter the porkies and cops!

Attached: otww.jpg (697x680 24.18 KB, 71.98K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/GuerrillaWarfareAndMarxism
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_partisans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Modern_definitions
blazingpress.com/spotify-executive-among-one-dead-sweden-terrorist-attack/
web.archive.org/web/20130912060513/http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-05-08/film/uwe-boll-interview/
youtube.com/watch?v=rGflu3TbREo

A. Stop being edgy.
B. Terrorism is whatever the government deems it to be.
C. Most terrorists are the government or funded by them.
D. Any political violence must be supported by the public before executing.

A. Stop being a anxious slave to the capitalist system.
B. No, terrorism is violence for political purposes.
C. No, like i said terrorism is violence for political purposes, that means that terrorism can be right-wing or left-wing.
D. It does not have to, especially since most people from the United States are so brainwashed, that it will not come to a communist mass movement anyway.

A great deal of historical evidence shows that it tends to not get the public on your side very effectively.

A. Find the nearest notable rich person near you and go shoot them up then.
B. Contemporary definition overrules conservative definition.
C. You fucking idiot that's not what I meant.
D. Then whatever amount comes will be swept up and probably will be shot down by reactionaries. Enjoy.

Ok then socialism is social-democracy and communism is Juche.

I already did.
What do you mean by that.
And what did you mean by that, idiot?
How should it be shot down?
What do you mean by that, express yourself clearly, fool!

No you did not

A few people picking up guns and waging war against the government does not equal a revolution and should not even be attempted unless a significant amount of the masses are supporting you or your action would be supported by them. Groups like the RAF are adventurist with little to no connection in the people they claim to be fighting for. Armed means for taking power are hypothetically completely justifiable and valid but should only be employed as a last resort and when it is necessary given the conditions. Notice also when Marxists like Mao talk of guerilla warfare or people’s war they always talk of the masses themselves, not conspiratorial mini-armies:


also:
archive.org/details/GuerrillaWarfareAndMarxism
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm

I'm not going to ask for evidence as that's incriminating FBI tier shit and I'll take your word for it.
Most groups you call terrorists are funded by the US government, maybe not all but a major part, look it up.
If the majority of people will fight for power after collapse your communism won't survive.

Wrong. Terrorism is non-state sanctioned violence. Taking up arms in self defense against a state is terrorism.

Violence performed by an internationally recognized state entity = war

Violence performed by an individual, non-state actor, political party, partisan = terrorism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_partisans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Modern_definitions

Seems like effective praxis desu.

There's a spectrum between terrorism, insurgency, and conventional war, and most successful left-wing revolutions went through an insurgent phase first.

Not that going for random mass-casualty al-Qaeda/ISIS style attacks works, that just turns proles against you, but carefully applied political violence, including bombings against certain targets, is absolutely a part of effective revolutionary activity.

It's mostly spectacle, but I'm not against it. The common people need a little entertainment, and one time in billions, it's more purpouseful than this.

But I did!

The purpose of terrorism is to demonstrate its power and to show the proletarians that they can defend themselves against this system.

It's not all bleak, sometimes the terrorists actually kill someone of no value by shear coincidence:

blazingpress.com/spotify-executive-among-one-dead-sweden-terrorist-attack/

Other than that, I don't think I've ever heard of a modern radical group that targeted landlords, hedge fund managers, various other capitalists and right wing politicians.

It's sad when even in the most masturbatory self righteous and congratulatory liberal fantasies of Hollywood and TV, we never see a vigilante going after the true hegemony of society and when we do it's a villain like Bane or a parody like that Uwe Boll movie with an anarchist giving guns to kids at a coffee shop.
Fight Club and Mister Robot which are more positive examples wouldn't dare think of committing any real harm to those that instigate it over the masses on a daily basis.

>Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.
That is a good definition.

Terrorism is distinguished from other forms of violence, whether by state or non-state actors, in its somewhat random targets implying that (at least among certain groups) anyone, anywhere, anytime, could be struck by it. The purpose of terrorism is to harass until demands are met. Terrorism is different from strikes against specific targets with the intent of crippling or eliminating various (e.g.: leadership, intelligence, security, infrastructure, supply) enemy capabilities.

This

And this. I'd be all for assassination of porkies, bombing of military bases, sabotage of oil terminals, etc., some good old fashioned "propaganda of the deed" stuff so that maybe next time something like NoDAPL rolls around it won't be composed entirely of noguns fags that get steamrolled.
I think you're missing a different one. I didn't detect the slightest whiff of sarcasm, and I don't think any was intended:
web.archive.org/web/20130912060513/http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-05-08/film/uwe-boll-interview/
>I wanted the movie to be a little radical. Of course, I don't want people to get shot for real, but I want them [Wall Street executives] to get scared. In a way, they deserve to be miserable. In the film, the [killer] gets away in the end and says "I'll keep doing it." So this is my message to them: Don't think you're safe.

Attached: assault on wall street poster.jpg (1400x2100, 571.41K)

I think you should kill yourself you pathetic larping loser.

You can do that without resorting to terror-tactics. Look at the Black Panthers

Attached: D5BE93F5-1D12-42A2-815F-9A781C5B1746.jpeg (2079x1447 117.86 KB, 725.05K)

The Black Panthers ended up failing though. Now look at black America.

it would be ok if its not by Vietcong-supported porkies like OP's pic related

Everyone who came before ended up failing. Besides, the Panthers sure as hell didn't hurt black Americans. The people who subverted, imprisoned, and killed them did.

Attached: 628adee6b85538f71e34efc2e82808a05c1f4668353e8fe68c0dfadc9957b4a2.png (1263x545, 183.75K)

I grew up idly lumping them in with the likes of spooky kooks like the NoI. But on actually looking closely at their history, behavior, ideological statements, and prominent figures, I was amazed to see how clean they were of racebaiting, vulgar nationalism/anticolonialism, LARPy lack of strong theory, petty crime, weak internal coherence, sectarianism among the left, or even knowing involvement with the types of people I declaimed.

BPP wasn't just excellent for a black rights group, but probably one of the only sterling specimens of the New Left clear into the 1970s when it was all going to pot.

*laughs in J. Edgar Hoover*

eco-terrorism is always justified

You're not fooling anyone cia.

Attached: DpYFcKrWwAABF3a.png (500x514, 32.3K)

Killing people is bad.
As a rule of thumb, death is bad.

You’ll never get anywhere with this type of liberal mindset

Do you really find "death is bad" objectionable?

Death for who? Indiscriminate killing is bad tactics but there are people who would be better off dead. I wish someone would make a leftist gang who went around and committed raids on White Nationalist meetings for example. Some people deserve to die, period.

No person "deserves" death.
We all deserve a good life by virtue of being living, breathing human beings.
If you think some limited group of people are better off "gone" because their very existence hinders the attainment of good living by everyone else, then something akin to banishment (or, if there really is no choice, imprisonment) is a better solution.
Killing people is bad.

These are all idealistic opinions. You think that, but that doesn’t mean it means shit. Killing is required, not because I like killing, it’s just how history is. Blood is the lubricant for the gears of history and your liberal mindset will be laughed at when shit hits the fan.

"killing is required because it's just is" is not a good argument.
Killing people is bad. What leftists (and really, ideally, all people, but many right-wingers are a bit of a lost cause) should be aiming towards is achieving a humane society where everyone's basic human dignity is upheld. Killing people goes directly against that cause, and so must be avoided if necessary.
It may be an "idealist" position, but despite Marxist memes there is nothing wrong with idealism. You can be both a utopian and a pragmatist, picking the right course of action in trying to get as close as possible to an impossible utopia.

It's okay if you think killing may be necessary in specific, exceptional circumstances. Those can and should be debated. What's important is that those circumstances must remain exceptional: Killing is and must remain a bad thing, only done reluctantly (if it's done at all).

Killing is wrong, and bad. There should be a new, stronger word for killing like badwrong or badong. Yes, killing is badong.

>>>/FBI/

Post pics or you didn't.

Killing should be taken only as a response to killing, especially when there is no other practical recourse. Porkies kill, whether directly (through union suppression death squads in South America, for instance) or indirectly through the intentional callousness of their economic activities (pollution, defective products, theft, denial of vital services, etc.), and without any plausible system in place to stop them. Nearly all WNs, for instance, are just LARPers or petty criminals regularly harassed and suppressed by the liberal authorities, in need of nothing more than being ignored, mocked, or perhaps an occasional beating when they get physical themselves and the cops aren't around to do it for you.

Violence is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

I'll kill you and your whole family, you pathetic bootlicker!

its good, actually

This

Go for it; the National Lawyer's guild will cover your ass like they did with the Weather Underground and Antifa

...

...

Not with that attitude comrade

youtube.com/watch?v=rGflu3TbREo