Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

Polarization of the classes? Been a while since Modern European History at the college level.

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

He advocates terrorism against a majority that disagrees with his views, in this very thread. That is no better than the behaviour of the BNP or EDL. In fact, it's a lot worse.

So the Résistance will now be redefined as a terrorist group? What about the Jewish ghettos rebellions?

... Oh who am I kidding, the dude won't even enter the proverbial arena of debate.

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

Polarization of the classes? Been a while since Modern European History at the college level.

In a sense, not quite yet though, there still remains an small chance of social mobility, although this seems to be becoming less and less likely. Which doesn't bode well if you follow the Marxist trail of thought as that path leads to revolution, and reform is generally less bloody than revolt, so would be preferable for everyone.

EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:I have always been of the opinion that it isn't about black and white, but in fact haves and have nots.

In the broad sense that is true, but in the American South, the KKK were oftentimes just as poor as the blacks they were attacking.

On the Macro level though, One side wanting to keep what it has against the other side wanting a better piece/fairer shot sums up most conflict through the ages

Hate to get too Marxist, but the bourgeoisie have always engaged in a divide and rule policy, by cultivating hatred between different parts of the poor it keeps them from unifying and actually realising the unfairness of the system.

Polarization of the classes? Been a while since Modern European History at the college level.

In a sense, not quite yet though, there still remains an small chance of social mobility, although this seems to be becoming less and less likely. Which doesn't bode well if you follow the Marxist trail of thought as that path leads to revolution, and reform is generally less bloody than revolt, so would be preferable for everyone.

One can hope. I heard that a pig with wings was seen in Cardiff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them.

Don't forget their fellow Sud Americano Maoist/Marxist groups: FARC and Shining Path.

treadhead1944 wrote:One can hope. I heard that a pig with wings was seen in Cardiff.

Did it escape from that advert about cheap free range meat?

We are getting to the point of Victorian levels of social inequality, without some serious wealth distribution this society will tear itself apart, especially as unemployment rises with the cybernisation of manufacturing. Its a problem that needs to be addressed before it becomes too late.

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

I didn't. But according to his post la Résistance would still have to be redefined as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous. (actually, more accurately, the jewish ghetto rebellions would have, technically the Résistance didn't oppose a duly elected government... but it was pretty popular amongst the middle and higher class)


also

I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

The extreme left? Me? What the hell? Anyhow, again, this is the problem with trying to make a fascist government fit on the left-right political spectrum : it doesn't fit. The deep values of fascism might be more in line with the traditionnal right than the left, but that's all there is to it, a parrallel of origins. Fascism is closer to terrorism than any political affiliation normally associated with a position on the left-right spectrum.

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:One can hope. I heard that a pig with wings was seen in Cardiff.

Did it escape from that advert about cheap free range meat?

We are getting to the point of Victorian levels of social inequality, without some serious wealth distribution this society will tear itself apart, especially as unemployment rises with the cybernisation of manufacturing. Its a problem that needs to be addressed before it becomes too late.

I think it was actually a woman on her way to a fancy dress party.

Unfortunately I think the too late was 1945. All those veterans coming home and having kids. As one of the unemployed I can attest to that fact. The tensions are not far different than the tensions that caused the race riots here in the states in the middle to late 60's. The difference now is that the racial component seems to be absent now. Crushing poverty has crossed all boundaries.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

I didn't. But according to his post la Résistance would still have to be redefined as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous.

The French Resistance were a terrorist group, they were a group that engaged in terrorist actions. Whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists is entirely subjective. Not all terrorism is bad, but it is all terrorism.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:I have no problem with standing up for your race, and I think it's very sad that if you do so and you are white immediately you must be evil. The same is not true of blacks, latinos, and natives. There's also a fine line between standing up for your race and being a supremacist.

I think you made a lot of good and reasonable points, but this is the one I would be wary of. There are two reasons why people standing up as proud of their White or Anglo/Nordic or Northern European heritage are viewed differently than people standing up as being proud of their Black, Hispanic, or Native American heritage.

The latter reason is, I think, why most folks' gut reaction to a white person standing up for his race is looked at as disturbing and suspicious. Because point 1 means there's little or no practical need or call to stand up in defense of white people/culture, and point 2 means even a non-hateful person using the same language that the hatemongers and terrorists do is making himself look like one of them.

Perfectly reasonable points. The only answer I have is inside what I wrote:

AustonT wrote: I want to know who will be there to advocate for my kids white, latino, AND native heritage as whites become the minority.

Eventually 1 will no longer be true, and 2 will be no more true than it is of any other racial group. It's an unavoidable eventuality. knowing the nature of people no group of any color or stripe will stop at equality. I live in the real world. White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck.

White supremacist jew-haters like some people on Stormfront tend to blame the jews for everything they dislike and this would include the end of Stormfront. A shutdown of Stormfront would be blamed on ZoG (supremacist lingo for "zionist occupied government") as part of some massive jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race. Extremists would feel threatened and some might act out. So shutting down Stormfront would only make extremists more bitter, more aggravated and more convinced that there is some great enemy that is out to get them.

dæl wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Melissia wrote:EPL = Columbian guerrillas fighting for communist rule by murdering anyone who disagrees with them, despite the fact that their government is democratic and has elections regularly.

It's an insult to "La Résistance" to compare the two..

I didn't. But according to his post la Résistance would still have to be redefined as a terrorist group, which is ridiculous.

The French Resistance were a terrorist group, they were a group that engaged in terrorist actions. Whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists is entirely subjective. Not all terrorism is bad, but it is all terrorism.

Then I'll proudly be a terrorist the day the fascists enter the Parlement. Funny, tho, how terrorism can thus become the only moral position to be held...

Amusing, then, that you advocate facism of a sort.

again, back to ''violence isn't fascism''.

Although my last post wasn't completly sincere. Terrorism is the use of terror for political means. La Résistance didn't specifically use terror. If somebody tells me that they beleive that it was terrorism, then I'll claim to be part of the same type of terrorism. But that's more an admission done to get the conversation moving then an admission of truth.

Kovnik Obama wrote:again, back to ''violence isn't fascism''.

I wasn't talking about violence, but oppression of those you think are inferior.

War causes terror, ergo is terrorism?

Inferior how? Intellectually? Hell yes they are. We are talking about people that assemble to plan and enact raids, murder, rape, and all that inside the safe confines of a paramilitary organisation. Not only do we know that that's what they do, their even willing to tell us, when we ask them, 'do you wish to see all jew dies?', most of the time 'Yes!'. And I should respect these peoples right to voice publicly their opinion, and seek others and form organizations?

If a group of admitted pedophile were to organise marches in kids playgrounds, would we be justified in taking away their fondamental right to assemble? Of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:War causes terror, ergo is terrorism?

Well, it's supposed to be the specific use of terror for political gains. Soldiers don't go around with trophy racks full of human skulls in RL... (at least not anymore)


If War is saying : ''If you don't do x or y, you and your government wont be safe''
then Terrorism is saying : ''If you don't give me x or y, not a single soul in your country will be safe''

of course, in RL, things can get blurry, like in the use of certain horrible methods by Russian troops in Chechenya...

AustonT wrote:knowing the nature of people no group of any color or stripe will stop at equality. I live in the real world.

Possibly so. I think I'm a bit more optimistic than you on this. And I live in the real world too.

AustonT wrote:White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck.

True. Especially at long as white hate groups continue to wave their hateful flags. We have continual reminders (like Stormfront) that these scumbags are still around and would like to go back to the good old days when they could lynch a black guy for looking funny at a white woman. Or just because they felt like it, and they could pretend he did.

AustonT wrote: I want to know who will be there to advocate for my kids white, latino, AND native heritage as whites become the minority. Eventually 1 will no longer be true, and 2 will be no more true than it is of any other racial group. It's an unavoidable eventuality.

I can't forsee a day any time soon when 1 is no longer true. Even a numeric minority can hold onto political and police/military power easily as long as they have money. Money and political power being rather self-perpetuating. Now America certainly isn't South Africa, but their old government provides a very dramatic example of how powerful a numerical minority can be.

2 no longer being true I'll believe when I see it. I think we've made progress in the last fifty years, and I can't see any Other Ethnicity Supremacist organizations ever having the power to do the kinds of things the KKK did in this country.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Inferior how? Intellectually? Hell yes they are. We are talking about people that assemble to plan and enact raids, murder, rape, and all that inside the safe confines of a paramilitary organisation. Not only do we know that that's what they do, their even willing to tell us, when we ask them, 'do you wish to see all jew dies?', most of the time 'Yes!'. And I should respect these peoples right to voice publicly their opinion, and seek others and form organizations?

If a group of admitted pedophile were to organise marches in kids playgrounds, would we be justified in taking away their fondamental right to assemble? Of course.

Paedophilia is illegal as is murder, political viewpoints are not, sophism doesn't mean people will agree with you blindly. And when exactly did these people become a paramilitary organisation? When did they last engage in a military action? And to claim these people are inferior intellectually is wrong too, just because someone is less cultured it does not make them less intelligent, this may drastically affect your world view but there are people in the world as intelligent as yourself.

One of the French Resistance's goals was terror, they wanted their occupiers to not go out alone at night, and thus to have to attribute more resources to patrols.

If you had any clue about what fascism really is, you would know that enabling racial paramilitary organisation is the first step they take after assembling and reaching critical mass.

Racial pogroms started in Germany way before the Nazi party actually got elected. That's how they form a militia that's willing to go ahead and kill people after.

One of the French Resistance's goals was terror, they wanted their occupiers to not go out alone at night, and thus to have to attribute more resources to patrols.

That's a perfectly acceptable action in wartimes. They didn't blow up schools to acheive this effect. They blew up military convoy. Again, not terrorism because it's actually aimed at the occupier.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:knowing the nature of people no group of any color or stripe will stop at equality. I live in the real world.

Possibly so. I think I'm a bit more optimistic than you on this. And I live in the real world too.

AustonT wrote:White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck.

True. Especially at long as white hate groups continue to wave their hateful flags. We have continual reminders (like Stormfront) that these scumbags are still around and would like to go back to the good old days when they could lynch a black guy for looking funny at a white woman. Or just because they felt like it, and they could pretend he did.

It goes more like:
I live in the real world;White advocacy will always bear the weight of white hate on it's neck. but you know w/e.

Mannahnin wrote:
I can't forsee a day any time soon when 1 is no longer true. Even a numeric minority can hold onto political and police/military power easily as long as they have money. Money and political power being rather self-perpetuating. Now America certainly isn't South Africa, but their old government provides a very dramatic example of how powerful a numerical minority can be.

2 no longer being true I'll believe when I see it. I think we've made progress in the last fifty years, and I can't see any Other Ethnicity Supremacist organizations ever having the power to do the kinds of things the KKK did in this country.

I'm glad you said that. This guy disagrees. He thinks another ethnicity supremacist can rise to power and become just as racist and hateful as the white minority that previously held power.

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

Yeah Mel, the bloke basically said "freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with me, and if they don't I will silence them"

Sounds pretty fething "extreme" to me!

If you had any clue about what fascism really is, you would know that enabling racial paramilitary organisation is the first step they take after assembling and reaching critical mass.

Oh so they aren't a paramilitary organisation, but according to a historical chain of events, they might become one, so should be treated like one.

That's a perfectly acceptable action in wartimes. They didn't blow up schools to acheive this effect. They blew up military convoy. Again, not terrorism because it's actually aimed at the occupier

Terrorism isn't dependent on whether a target is civilian or military, the Sept.11th attack on the Pentagon was an act of terrorism as much as the attack on the WTC.

Edit, just read page 4.. I guess you get it now eh?

mattyrm wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Albatross wrote:The extreme Right deserves to have it's views aired, just like anyone else. I mean, the extreme Left, irrelevant and cranky as it is, is still allowed to go about its business, and one only needs to examine Kovnik's views (someone quoted them, so I saw them, unfortunately) to see see how tolerant, peaceful and respectful of individual freedom they are.

How are his views "extreme left"?

Yeah Mel, the bloke basically said "freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with me, and if they don't I will silence them"

Sounds pretty fething "extreme" to me!

Did I threaten you for disagreeing? No? Well... There's your boat, it's taking water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Oh so they aren't a paramilitary organisation, but according to a historical chain of events, they might become one, so should be treated like one.

Terrorism isn't dependent on whether a target is civilian or military, the Sept.11th attack on the Pentagon was an act of terrorism as much as the attack on the WTC.

Yes it is. '' Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).''

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yes it is. '' Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).''

No mate,

UN Security Council wrote:criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature

Ergo, doesn't matter whether the target is civilian or military.

Generally speaking, though, we treat people who target military personnel differently than those who target civilians. If you do both you're clearly a terrorist, but if you limit your targets to military ones, that's historically been considered more morally defensible.

Isn't specified. ''a group of person'' isn't a military institution. You can't read a contrario every single article of law. And my point isn't rendered moot by one definition, since my quote specified that there is no such thing as a single definition of terrorism, but that most of them don't include targetting military targets.

Mannahnin wrote:Generally speaking, though, we treat people who target military personnel differently than those who target civilians. If you do both you're clearly a terrorist, but if you limit your targets to military ones, that's historically been considered more morally defensible.

Absolutely, there is morally good terrorism. France in the early 40s, South Africa under apartheid, even Syria today.

Kovnik Obama wrote:Isn't specified. ''a group of person'' isn't a military institution. You can't read a contrario every single article of law. And my point isn't rendered moot by one definition, since my quote specified that there is no such thing as a single definition of terrorism, but that most of them don't include targetting military targets

It doesn't specify farmers as a group of people either, or miners, or civil servents, or...

No you can't read every law, but if your going to copy paste a wikipedia page you might do well to read it all the way through. Which point? The point that attacking a military target can never be constituted as terrorism?

It doesn't specify farmers as a group of people either, or miners, or civil servents, or...

Yet it specifies civilian groups. If 'group of persons' already cover that, why is it mentionned? Because the text itself doesn't mean much, you must go and see the jurisprudence which enact the law to see what is defined as a 'group of persons'.

The point that attacking a military target can never be constituted as terrorism?

No, the point that there can be civilian attacks on military targets without it constituting terrorism. Which is what your disputing. Again, you miss the point of 'use of terror'. The point of putting up bombs on military convoy isn't to cause terror in the soldier's hearth, it's to make it stop beating. The point of blowing up a market while there's military in it? Well, that's terror AND elimination of targets. The point of blowing up a market when there's no military personnel in it? Terror.