Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Fort Hood....

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Cocytus, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. Rabbit

    Rabbit Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    203

    1

    0

    Oct 26, 2009
     
    Sorry, that makes you exactly the same. You're a soldier without a flag and how is that better? If you kill those who are going to kill, then you too deserve to be killed by your own logic. Your position is inconsistent.

    My point is that they are human beings. They have been mislead. Help them with words and information, not bullets. Otherwise you really are no better than they are. You're both killing for what you think is right.
     
  2. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    oh yeah, love my star spangled underwear :)

    -the anxietist
     
  3. ASA

    ASA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    888

    0

    0

    Nov 2, 2009
     
    No Rabbit, you r imposing how you think it should be done without a group setting mandate and your way isn't wrong but the sentiment that other means aren't worthy is wrong in itself, u can have ya cake and eat it or else we'l always be at each others throats rather than being focussed on the ends, freedom.

    wat do u call a freedom fighter? a terrorist
    wat dou call a pacifist? useless
    WRONG
    people fighting for the same thing
     
  4. oneleggedpunk

    oneleggedpunk Experienced Member Experienced member


    79

    0

    0

    Nov 4, 2009
     
    I'm dim, you've just gave a good reason to have troops in the first place, and most revolutionaries end up becoming the tyrants they once fought against. You don't have to use violence to cause revolution, Ghandi seemed to do Ok. Oh and just incase you was wondering my "warmonger" jibe was at Cocytus because that is what he was sounding like to me. Anyway i'm off to listen to my Crass records because it's better than listening to the hate and bile being preached by some here.
     
  5. Cocytus

    Cocytus Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    304

    0

    7

    Oct 14, 2009
     
    Again, Peaceful protest proves nothing, Violent revolution ends problems by ending the peoples lives that cause the problem.

    Anyone who says wanting fucked up people dead is facist is a fucking cowardly moron.

    If thrown into a situation, during a revolt, you would be the first to buckle and allow yourselves to be arrested.
    What the fuck kind of revolution is that?
    A failed one.
    What kind of true anarchist gives into the state, at any given time when the FEAR they have struck into so many of your hearts is right in your face?
    A non anarchist.
    This goes for any kind of progressive movement towards any kind of a bettering of the world.
    You have to be willing to die for something, to ever make a fucking change, if not, then your WORSE than a Nazi, A cop, A soldier, A rapist, A baby toucher, etc.
    Because by not having the guts to actually physically stand up to these scumbags, makes you an ENABLER of the crimes they have commited.

    Enjoy the ride, youll be getting of very very soon hopefully.
     
  6. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    Well perhaps there would be "love lost" or you would mourn if it was someone you actually knew and cared for. A big fuck you goes out to anyone who wishes death upon said person I know.
    That said, I don't agree with said person on any political issues, and I don't agree with them on most core beliefs, however said soldier wouldn't do something like post images of dead people and boast about killing. I know this because said soldier would not lose their "humanity" even when confronted with that psychological climate, said soldier wasn't raised the same way those others were by the looks of it. I hope not anyway, this in itself is rather frightening. But it DOESN'T MATTER because when I look at images of faces lying around in the sand, trails of blood and brain matter strewn about, I see this person's face in place of the stranger who I don't know. Seeing images of dead people and body parts and shit doesn't make me wish death upon anyone else. All it does is make me wish peace among everyone instead of more death like some of you are suggesting is somehow a good thing despite your supposed reverence for life I am sure you think you have.
    You are a fucking idiot if you simply take sides in any war.
    You are a fucking idiot if you wish death upon individuals on a certain side of a war.
    FIGHT WAR NOT WARS

    First of all, in many middle eastern countries, a lot of people have zero respect for life. If you get in a car wreck, passersby will stop and look at your bleeding and mutilated body until you die instead of trying to help you. Why? Because they figure if you die within 15 minutes or so, Allah wants you. And if you are a foreigner chances are they will be much less inclined to help you. In fact I bet a lot of people in the middle east are heavily xenophobic, even more so than in western countries like the U.S.

    That said, yes it appears the same as any other explaination of some "collateral damage" occuring, I don't see it any differently than when they explain how innocent Iraqis or Afghanis were killed and it is "collateral damage". I alluded with the word innocent because they were not in theatre yet. It's just all the same and I am not swayed by any political factors that may have an effect on how other idiots view what happened at Fort Hood as being either better than when Iraqis or Afghanis die like what some of you claim, or worse which is what many Americans probably think.
     
  7. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    You are fucking kidding me right?
    I don't want to die you idiot.
    And no this doesn't make me an enabler of the crimes they have committed, because I am unable to stop it in the first place you idiot.
     
  8. oneleggedpunk

    oneleggedpunk Experienced Member Experienced member


    79

    0

    0

    Nov 4, 2009
     
    Ghandi helped defeat a Empire and never raised a gun, where as Stalin raised arms and became one of the most ruthless tyrants in history.
     
  9. Jack

    Jack Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    1

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    Oh god that's hilarious. You do know that Gandhi didn't do shit that actually helped, and in fact spent alot of his time discouraging people from defending themselves. Chauri Chaura did more for the Indian independence struggle than Gandhi's entire existance. In fact, Gandhi was a (petit bourgeois) "socialist", yet India simply became another bourgeois democracy, because he didn't use force to actually implement socialism, so India became a capitalist country. He also didn't acheive his goal of a united India, encompassing Muslims as well, instead it was divided into 2 (now 3) countries, something he opposed but could do shit about because he was a pacifist.

    Also, India wasn't released because of Gandhi or his movement. It was released because it wasn't economically viable to maintain ownership over it, and because the British government didn't want a revolution there where people like Bhat Singh (who did more for Indian independence than Gandhi) could take power. The Indian Communist Party was experiencing rapid growth and influence because of the independence struggle, and if the British didn't give up it's likely India would have had a Communist national liberation struggle. It was also just after the second World War, meaning that Britain was already experiencing economic disaster so couldn't afford to support the Raj as well as themselves. The British were not threatened by Gandhi, they released India of their own inhibition, not because Gandhi "defeated" them.

    Also, he was an anti-black racist.
     
  10. Cocytus

    Cocytus Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    304

    0

    7

    Oct 14, 2009
     
    Not for nothing, but since everyone is deciding to call me a nazi, everyone does know that he was the most sucessful leader in history in turning a country from war stricken poverty, into most of the most forward moving nations in the world right?

    He was a madman definately, and alot of his ideals were unjust and heinous, but the progress the Japanese and the Nazis made in many technological fields would have never been made without thier crimes.

    Medical advancements for one, Unit 731s top ranking officers were spared being tried for crimes against humanity, in return for turning over thier documents of medical testing on humans.
    Same with the germans.

    The italians, well, what have we ever done except make pizza and artwork and plauge the planet with christianities ignorance and lies?
     
  11. oneleggedpunk

    oneleggedpunk Experienced Member Experienced member


    79

    0

    0

    Nov 4, 2009
     
    You're right it was because it was'nt economically viable for the British to hold on to India anymore and my argument may be a bit thin there(perhaps i needed to do a bit more homework). Tell me then where has there been an armed revolution that has benefitted the whole population and not enslaved people to someone elses ideals.
     
  12. Cocytus

    Cocytus Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    304

    0

    7

    Oct 14, 2009
     
    such is the curse of humanity
     
  13. Jack

    Jack Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    1

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    No matter the system, even Anarchist, someone's ideals are in place. It's impossible to acheive ideological uniformity in society because it just is.

    There have been armed revolutions that didn't "enslave" other people, Spain 1936, Germany 1918, Hungary 1918, Russia 1917 (February, not October), etc. The problem is that there haven't been many Anarchist revolutions (the ones I mentioned were Socialist, so Anarchists were a large part of them, but they weren't specifically Anarchist save Spain).

    If you don't want another power to take control, you have to fight them. If you let them take power without a fight then you are just as guilty of putting them there as you would be if you supported them. Because pacifism is tacit support for the state.
     
  14. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    you sure use a lot of military terms for one who claims to hate the military so much.

    -the anxietist
     
  15. dwtcos

    dwtcos Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    642

    1

    3

    Oct 22, 2009
     
    last time i checked it was those who possess cowardice that solve there problems with triggers and those with strength that solve there problems with words.
     
  16. oneleggedpunk

    oneleggedpunk Experienced Member Experienced member


    79

    0

    0

    Nov 4, 2009
     
    The revolutions you mention, not one of them lasted more than a year or two so i don't think they're very good examples.

    This made me laugh. never a truer word said, just look at some of the views and ideals posted on this thread.
     
  17. Spider

    Spider Experienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    Just out of interest cocytus, what problems are you trying to solve? You say by killing the people who cause problems you can solve the problems, but which problems exactly. I know personally my major issue with capitalism is that it puts more weight on money than on human life, you seem to be doing the same thing with your ideals. Same with Fascism. Almost by definition it is putting forward one set of ideologies and crushing any and all opposition to them.

    It seems you are seeking to replace something with itself, which is a largely erroneous exercise, and will cost a lot of lives for little gain if you succeed, which you won't.
     
  18. ASA

    ASA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    888

    0

    0

    Nov 2, 2009
     
    angola 3, violence proponets pick ya battles, movin on, geez louise
     
  19. Jack

    Jack Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    1

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    That does have some validity, but not enough to disprove it. They were still armed revolutions and socialist revolutions. But the point is that they were all armed struggles that emancipated the working class, they didn't "enslave" people to ideas.
     
  20. Cocytus

    Cocytus Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    304

    0

    7

    Oct 14, 2009
     
    Im not about enslaving anyone to ideas, its just that I see the whole anarcho movement as a whole as very feeble and weak within the punk scene, maybe its because Ive been into this for more than half my life and have watched it weaken as Ive grown older?

    I dont really align myself to one set structure of ideals, my personal views are an amaglamation of alot of different views/tactices/ideals that I have related to and formed my own views out of.

    Back to the point of this thread though, in all seriousness, you canot claim to be a forward thinking person, or an anarchist, and support the troops.

    End.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Fort Hood
  1. Peter Scott
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    204
  2. la chiva
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,630
  3. L-Train the Anarchist
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    3,175
  4. AnThraXzin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,781
  5. punkmar77
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    5,141
  6. DEADCOP_ONaROPE
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    15,911
  7. DEADCOP_ONaROPE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,340
  8. DET IRONSIDE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,144