What does leftpol think about terrorism? It wouldn't be so bad if a few...

Michael Scott
Michael Scott

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

Attached: urz.jpg (71.98 KB, 697x680)
Attached: otww.jpg (24.18 KB, 66x170)

All 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/

Isaiah Howard
Isaiah Howard

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.

Isaiah Fisher
Isaiah Fisher

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.

Daniel Murphy
Daniel Murphy

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

Benjamin Nelson
Benjamin Nelson

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.

Adrian Hernandez
Adrian Hernandez

Contemporary definition overrules conservative definition.
Ok then socialism is social-democracy and communism is Juche.

Bentley Brooks
Bentley Brooks

Find the nearest notable rich person near you and go shoot them up then.
I already did.
Contemporary definition overrules conservative definition.
What do you mean by that.
You fucking idiot that's not what I meant.
And what did you mean by that, idiot?
Then whatever amount comes will be swept up and probably will be shot down by reactionaries. Enjoy.
How should it be shot down?
What do you mean by that, express yourself clearly, fool!

Sebastian Young
Sebastian Young

I already did
No you did not

Jose Long
Jose Long

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:

The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; only mobilizing the masses and relying on them can wage it.
What is a true bastion of iron? It is the masses, the millions upon millions of people who genuinely and sincerely support the revolution. That is the real iron bastion, which it is impossible, and impossible, for any force on earth to smash. The counter-revolution cannot smash us; on the contrary, we shall smash it. Rallying millions upon millions of people round the revolutionary government and expanding our revolutionary war, we shall wipe out all counter-revolution and take over the whole of China.

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

Liam Gonzalez
Liam Gonzalez

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

Landon Reyes
Landon Reyes

terrorism is violence for political purposes.

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

On the lawfulness of armed resistance movements in international law, there has been a dispute between states since at least 1899, when the first major codification of the laws of war in the form of a series of international treaties took place. In the Preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II on Land War, the Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.

More recently the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, referred in Article 1. Paragraph 4 to armed conflicts "… in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes…" This phraseology contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant.[4] Hence depending on the perspective of a state's government, a resistance movement may or may not be labelled a terrorist group based on whether the members of a resistance movement are considered lawful or unlawful combatants and whether they are recognised as having a right to resist occupation.[5] Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Modern_definitions

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.[1] It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants.

Henry Martinez
Henry Martinez

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.

Grayson Richardson
Grayson Richardson

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.

Oliver Smith
Oliver Smith

But I did!

Matthew Wilson
Matthew Wilson

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

Adam Flores
Adam Flores

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.

Luke Barnes
Luke Barnes

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.

It's mostly spectacle, but I'm not against it.
This
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.
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.
a parody
that Uwe Boll movie
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/
Did you ever think you were treating Assault's over-the-top murder-revenge finale a bit too seriously?
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 (571.41 KB, 1400x2100)

Cameron Allen
Cameron Allen

I think you should kill yourself you pathetic larping loser.

Dylan Jones
Dylan Jones

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

Attached: F607D408-A1E0-4A3C-9AD4-B170302DC5D0.jpeg (725.05 KB, 2079x1447)
Attached: D5BE93F5-1D12-42A2-815F-9A781C5B1746.jpeg (117.86 KB, 630x828)

Robert Torres
Robert Torres

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

Lincoln Morgan
Lincoln Morgan

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

Gabriel Allen
Gabriel Allen

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.

Christopher Adams
Christopher Adams

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

Jaxson Perry
Jaxson Perry

the Panthers sure as hell didn't hurt black Americans
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.

Angel Sanchez
Angel Sanchez

*laughs in J. Edgar Hoover*

John Moore
John Moore

eco-terrorism is always justified

John Collins
John Collins

You're not fooling anyone cia.

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

Zachary Cooper
Zachary Cooper

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

Angel Cook
Angel Cook

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

Brayden Cox
Brayden Cox

Do you really find "death is bad" objectionable?

Luis Bell
Luis Bell

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.

Samuel Lopez
Samuel Lopez

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.

Evan Rogers
Evan Rogers

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.

Easton Watson
Easton Watson

"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).

Easton Johnson
Easton Johnson

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

Jacob Jackson
Jacob Jackson

/fbi/index.html

Jeremiah Thomas
Jeremiah Thomas

Post pics or you didn't.

Adam Lee
Adam Lee

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.

Oliver Perez
Oliver Perez

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

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit