do i have to repeat?
revolutionaries are not terrorists.
they have a goal, like an army, to defeat an enemy
terrorists kill indiscriminately to make their demands.
terrorists achieve goals by creating terror.
revolutionaries achieve goals by fighting and taking objectives.
like any army.

In urban environments you are forced to mix the two.

not true.
it's more likely the opposing force (ie the oppressive government) is likely to kill innocents.
as revolutionaries use guerrilla tactics, and mix with the civilian population.

Guerrilla tactics are found almost always in rural environments, which is why the urban struggle resembles terrorism more than open war. If you look at how 'guerrilla' tactics were used in the Vietnam War against the GI's in urban settings, you'll see that things such as bombings, traps, assassinations, etc, are much more common.

Terrorism can be used by revolutionary forces, but a struggle in a metropolitan area is one that is very difficult to not only wage, but to cultivate. They rarely devolve into civil war.

During the course of an open-revolutionary conflict, it is not uncommon for 'revolutionaries' to raid and plunder rural people.

how do i explain this an a way you can possibly understand
revolution doesn't work without support from the population.
this is why the IRA failed when they resorted to terrorist tactics.

the Vietnam War was not a fucking revolution, it was a war between the capitalist south, and mostly the US, and the communist north.
revolution is the overthrow of a government, not a war between two governments.

And I think I more than you would know what a fucking revolution is buddy

yeah? and how the fuck is that?

Because I spend my free time reading the works of various 'revolutionaries' for kicks.

right
and that makes you an expert.
i have yet to see proof of that.

You were talking about Guerrilla tactics. So I described how a fighting force used them in an urban environment because you can't grasp the fact that in metropolitan area revolution and terrorism basically become the same fucking thing

i'm talking about the differences between revolutionaries and terrorists you fucking moron.
terrorism:
political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes
revolution:
overthrow of government: the overthrow of a ruler or political system

end of argument

And during revolution, revolutionaries are not able to use terrorist tactics when they appear in an area where open warfare would lead to their destruction?

You know - like destroying railways or blowing up specific buildings?

to achieve military objectives.

not create terror.

Terrorists use the terror they create to achieve goals, too. Terrorism is a means - more often than not people who engage in terrorism have a GOAL. They don't just blow shit up for shits and giggles - some do, maybe, but not most.

Do you even RAF?

god damn it
revolutionaries are not terrorists
and terrorists are not revolutionaries.
sometimes the line blurs, like the IRA, but it is not common.
that's it
that's all.

That was my fucking point you dumb fuck

but it happens much more often than you claim that it does, the RAF is a prime example, and the FLQ, IRA and ELF are other examples. The entire concept of propaganda of the deed exhibits this synthesis.

not saying there isn't instances of it
but it's not the objective

The objectives of terrorism isn't to kill civilians either. Terrorism is a medium that can be used in order to enact social change. It's political violence.

The goal of the RAF was not to kill random people. It was to establish Leninism. The ALF is classified as a terrorist organization and they have not killed a single person to my knowledge.

Also, I should note: In an urban environment, terrorism is pretty much the only thing revolutionaries can do.

do i have to repeat?
revolutionaries are not terrorists.
they have a goal, like an army, to defeat an enemy
terrorists kill indiscriminately to make their demands.
terrorists achieve goals by creating terror.
revolutionaries achieve goals by fighting and taking objectives.
like any army.

In urban environments you are forced to mix the two.

not true.
it's more likely the opposing force (ie the oppressive government) is likely to kill innocents.
as revolutionaries use guerrilla tactics, and mix with the civilian population.

Guerrilla tactics are found almost always in rural environments, which is why the urban struggle resembles terrorism more than open war. If you look at how 'guerrilla' tactics were used in the Vietnam War against the GI's in urban settings, you'll see that things such as bombings, traps, assassinations, etc, are much more common.

Terrorism can be used by revolutionary forces, but a struggle in a metropolitan area is one that is very difficult to not only wage, but to cultivate. They rarely devolve into civil war.

During the course of an open-revolutionary conflict, it is not uncommon for 'revolutionaries' to raid and plunder rural people.

how do i explain this an a way you can possibly understand
revolution doesn't work without support from the population.
this is why the IRA failed when they resorted to terrorist tactics.

the Vietnam War was not a fucking revolution, it was a war between the capitalist south, and mostly the US, and the communist north.
revolution is the overthrow of a government, not a war between two governments.

And I think I more than you would know what a fucking revolution is buddy

yeah? and how the fuck is that?

Because I spend my free time reading the works of various 'revolutionaries' for kicks.

right
and that makes you an expert.
i have yet to see proof of that.

You were talking about Guerrilla tactics. So I described how a fighting force used them in an urban environment because you can't grasp the fact that in metropolitan area revolution and terrorism basically become the same fucking thing

i'm talking about the differences between revolutionaries and terrorists you fucking moron.
terrorism:
political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes
revolution:
overthrow of government: the overthrow of a ruler or political system

end of argument

And during revolution, revolutionaries are not able to use terrorist tactics when they appear in an area where open warfare would lead to their destruction?

You know - like destroying railways or blowing up specific buildings?

to achieve military objectives.

not create terror.

Terrorists use the terror they create to achieve goals, too. Terrorism is a means - more often than not people who engage in terrorism have a GOAL. They don't just blow shit up for shits and giggles - some do, maybe, but not most.

Do you even RAF?

god damn it
revolutionaries are not terrorists
and terrorists are not revolutionaries.
sometimes the line blurs, like the IRA, but it is not common.
that's it
that's all.

That was my fucking point you dumb fuck

but it happens much more often than you claim that it does, the RAF is a prime example, and the FLQ, IRA and ELF are other examples. The entire concept of propaganda of the deed exhibits this synthesis.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

Indeed, as they tried to destroy the kulaks (wealthier peasants in the Ukraine) what resulted was famine. Stalin is to have been deliberately enslaving the Ukrainians for the welfare of everyone else, according to sources.

This is where folly in Marxist thought lay. It requires an unreal amount of precision. Marx might as well be a fiction writer, envisioning the creation of a nation.

He never envisioned the creation of a nation. STALIN DID.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.
What Stalin and Lenin faced in the conquered Russian Empire was a vast network of different ethnicity and cultures; people who must be catered to.

They did their best to destroy the groups which directly threatened the nation (kulaks), but created different "autonomous regions," as Stalin put it, to create a more stable nation.

What would you philosophize as a course of action in such a scenario? The fact that Communism rose in Russia created problems outside of Marx's writings. His books were more directed for the already developed nations of the West in which ethnicity would not play such a major role.

Exactly. So trying to create a framework that is ultimately flawed from day one is stupid. Marx said such a thing would be impossible. And he was right.

Indeed, as they tried to destroy the kulaks (wealthier peasants in the Ukraine) what resulted was famine. Stalin is to have been deliberately enslaving the Ukrainians for the welfare of everyone else, according to sources.

This is where folly in Marxist thought lay. It requires an unreal amount of precision. Marx might as well be a fiction writer, envisioning the creation of a nation.

He never envisioned the creation of a nation. STALIN DID.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

He's another unorthodox Leninist piece of scum. Fuck the fourth international, fuck socialism in one country. And fuck the morons who buy into all that shit. You all contradict Marx and y'all are just fucking dumb.

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. "

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.
What Stalin and Lenin faced in the conquered Russian Empire was a vast network of different ethnicity and cultures; people who must be catered to.

They did their best to destroy the groups which directly threatened the nation (kulaks), but created different "autonomous regions," as Stalin put it, to create a more stable nation.

What would you philosophize as a course of action in such a scenario? The fact that Communism rose in Russia created problems outside of Marx's writings. His books were more directed for the already developed nations of the West in which ethnicity would not play such a major role.

Exactly. So trying to create a framework that is ultimately flawed from day one is stupid. Marx said such a thing would be impossible. And he was right.

Indeed, as they tried to destroy the kulaks (wealthier peasants in the Ukraine) what resulted was famine. Stalin is to have been deliberately enslaving the Ukrainians for the welfare of everyone else, according to sources.

This is where folly in Marxist thought lay. It requires an unreal amount of precision. Marx might as well be a fiction writer, envisioning the creation of a nation.

He never envisioned the creation of a nation. STALIN DID.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

Which is probably all this will escalate to is words. From what I've read, China isn't even supportive of these nuclear tests. They'd really be against the wall if they tried something.

His theories on the nation was revered by Lenin, which is what rose him in his cabinet.

I smell a Trotskyite dog. How's the Fourth International working out for you?

Fuck Trotsky too.

He's another unorthodox Leninist piece of scum. Fuck the fourth international, fuck socialism in one country. And fuck the morons who buy into all that shit. You all contradict Marx and y'all are just fucking dumb.

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. "

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.
What Stalin and Lenin faced in the conquered Russian Empire was a vast network of different ethnicity and cultures; people who must be catered to.

They did their best to destroy the groups which directly threatened the nation (kulaks), but created different "autonomous regions," as Stalin put it, to create a more stable nation.

What would you philosophize as a course of action in such a scenario? The fact that Communism rose in Russia created problems outside of Marx's writings. His books were more directed for the already developed nations of the West in which ethnicity would not play such a major role.

Exactly. So trying to create a framework that is ultimately flawed from day one is stupid. Marx said such a thing would be impossible. And he was right.

Indeed, as they tried to destroy the kulaks (wealthier peasants in the Ukraine) what resulted was famine. Stalin is to have been deliberately enslaving the Ukrainians for the welfare of everyone else, according to sources.

This is where folly in Marxist thought lay. It requires an unreal amount of precision. Marx might as well be a fiction writer, envisioning the creation of a nation.

He never envisioned the creation of a nation. STALIN DID.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

were*

It really does. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm really starting to believe that as time goes by. But I think this is something we can be pretty hopeful about. Like you said, no one wants a nuclear war. Not even North Korea.

We've gotten 'close' to nuclear war before, and it never escalated beyond simple words. One thing impressive about North Korea is the way they alter history. It reminds me very much of 1984.

Which is probably all this will escalate to is words. From what I've read, China isn't even supportive of these nuclear tests. They'd really be against the wall if they tried something.

Comrade Stalin and those who succeeded him built a culturally conservative society. By that, I mean, they did not tolerate homosexuality, transgenders, and other filth; they saw that such things destroyed the nation; the foundation on which the proletariat is built.

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

- Joseph Stalin

Compare what he said to the mindset of modern politician and liberals.

>implying Stalin wrote anything valid

Stalin was a counter revolutionary who obstructed to progress and development of the proletariat. He, and Lenin, both went against traditional Marxist methodology and fucked up big time.

His theories on the nation was revered by Lenin, which is what rose him in his cabinet.

I smell a Trotskyite dog. How's the Fourth International working out for you?

Fuck Trotsky too.

He's another unorthodox Leninist piece of scum. Fuck the fourth international, fuck socialism in one country. And fuck the morons who buy into all that shit. You all contradict Marx and y'all are just fucking dumb.

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. "

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.
What Stalin and Lenin faced in the conquered Russian Empire was a vast network of different ethnicity and cultures; people who must be catered to.

They did their best to destroy the groups which directly threatened the nation (kulaks), but created different "autonomous regions," as Stalin put it, to create a more stable nation.

What would you philosophize as a course of action in such a scenario? The fact that Communism rose in Russia created problems outside of Marx's writings. His books were more directed for the already developed nations of the West in which ethnicity would not play such a major role.

Exactly. So trying to create a framework that is ultimately flawed from day one is stupid. Marx said such a thing would be impossible. And he was right.

Indeed, as they tried to destroy the kulaks (wealthier peasants in the Ukraine) what resulted was famine. Stalin is to have been deliberately enslaving the Ukrainians for the welfare of everyone else, according to sources.

This is where folly in Marxist thought lay. It requires an unreal amount of precision. Marx might as well be a fiction writer, envisioning the creation of a nation.

He never envisioned the creation of a nation. STALIN DID.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

were*

*aligned, not in line

You too, huh? I live in Texas and my girlfriend lives in Mississippi. I didn't get any sleep back when they had those floods a couple years ago. All we can really do is hope for the best, and remain calm.

I really do hate that feeling. It's the hopelessness, and the fact that we have no control over what could happen.

makes a motherfucker think, you know?

It really does. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm really starting to believe that as time goes by. But I think this is something we can be pretty hopeful about. Like you said, no one wants a nuclear war. Not even North Korea.

We've gotten 'close' to nuclear war before, and it never escalated beyond simple words. One thing impressive about North Korea is the way they alter history. It reminds me very much of 1984.

Which is probably all this will escalate to is words. From what I've read, China isn't even supportive of these nuclear tests. They'd really be against the wall if they tried something.

Exactly. I'm just also trying to look at this from an optimistic view. I m a really paranoid person and something like this first time hearing about it does scare me. Hell, I am still quite a bit scared. I'm just trying to remain calm as possible, because i freak out badly, you know?

Totally get it. Girlfriend lives in Florida. Every time there's a hurricane I'm plastered to the T.V or on some news source.

You too, huh? I live in Texas and my girlfriend lives in Mississippi. I didn't get any sleep back when they had those floods a couple years ago. All we can really do is hope for the best, and remain calm.

I really do hate that feeling. It's the hopelessness, and the fact that we have no control over what could happen.

makes a motherfucker think, you know?

It really does. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm really starting to believe that as time goes by. But I think this is something we can be pretty hopeful about. Like you said, no one wants a nuclear war. Not even North Korea.

We've gotten 'close' to nuclear war before, and it never escalated beyond simple words. One thing impressive about North Korea is the way they alter history. It reminds me very much of 1984.

Which is probably all this will escalate to is words. From what I've read, China isn't even supportive of these nuclear tests. They'd really be against the wall if they tried something.

Feminism in the terminology of the West is used as a weapon to destroy your societies and usher in socialism. See: Obama and Western Europe.

Whereas feminism in the terminology of the Communist Republics was to simply create more workers and give them equal rights (to a degree, of course).

Feminism, and the liberation of women, and now even the liberation of all transgender peoples, is in line with the liberation of the proletariat.

Also fuck Chavez, he's reactionary as fuck, and fuck Lenin too.

Comrade Stalin and those who succeeded him built a culturally conservative society. By that, I mean, they did not tolerate homosexuality, transgenders, and other filth; they saw that such things destroyed the nation; the foundation on which the proletariat is built.

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

- Joseph Stalin

Compare what he said to the mindset of modern politician and liberals.

>implying Stalin wrote anything valid

Stalin was a counter revolutionary who obstructed to progress and development of the proletariat. He, and Lenin, both went against traditional Marxist methodology and fucked up big time.

His theories on the nation was revered by Lenin, which is what rose him in his cabinet.

I smell a Trotskyite dog. How's the Fourth International working out for you?

Fuck Trotsky too.

He's another unorthodox Leninist piece of scum. Fuck the fourth international, fuck socialism in one country. And fuck the morons who buy into all that shit. You all contradict Marx and y'all are just fucking dumb.

"National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. "

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.

Enforcing nationalism or the concept of nationality is detrimental to the development of the working class.
What Stalin and Lenin faced in the conquered Russian Empire was a vast network of different ethnicity and cultures; people who must be catered to.

They did their best to destroy the groups which directly threatened the nation (kulaks), but created different "autonomous regions," as Stalin put it, to create a more stable nation.

What would you philosophize as a course of action in such a scenario? The fact that Communism rose in Russia created problems outside of Marx's writings. His books were more directed for the already developed nations of the West in which ethnicity would not play such a major role.

Exactly. So trying to create a framework that is ultimately flawed from day one is stupid. Marx said such a thing would be impossible. And he was right.

Indeed, as they tried to destroy the kulaks (wealthier peasants in the Ukraine) what resulted was famine. Stalin is to have been deliberately enslaving the Ukrainians for the welfare of everyone else, according to sources.

This is where folly in Marxist thought lay. It requires an unreal amount of precision. Marx might as well be a fiction writer, envisioning the creation of a nation.

He never envisioned the creation of a nation. STALIN DID.

an uncognitive group of people*

Refer to my second part. How would a cognitive group of people get along and be united, "in an emancipated proletariat?"

were*

*aligned, not in line

I doubt it would be a "hail". Not to mention they more then likely like I said are just using it as a deterrence. If they attempted a nuclear strike like that it would land them in very hot water with the rest of the world as well as our allies. I doubt it will escalate into a full nuclear war.

obviously not. Nuclear war at this point is like a Mexican standoff. No one wants that.

Exactly. I'm just also trying to look at this from an optimistic view. I m a really paranoid person and something like this first time hearing about it does scare me. Hell, I am still quite a bit scared. I'm just trying to remain calm as possible, because i freak out badly, you know?

Totally get it. Girlfriend lives in Florida. Every time there's a hurricane I'm plastered to the T.V or on some news source.

You too, huh? I live in Texas and my girlfriend lives in Mississippi. I didn't get any sleep back when they had those floods a couple years ago. All we can really do is hope for the best, and remain calm.

I really do hate that feeling. It's the hopelessness, and the fact that we have no control over what could happen.

makes a motherfucker think, you know?

It really does. They say ignorance is bliss. I'm really starting to believe that as time goes by. But I think this is something we can be pretty hopeful about. Like you said, no one wants a nuclear war. Not even North Korea.

We've gotten 'close' to nuclear war before, and it never escalated beyond simple words. One thing impressive about North Korea is the way they alter history. It reminds me very much of 1984.

Which is probably all this will escalate to is words. From what I've read, China isn't even supportive of these nuclear tests. They'd really be against the wall if they tried something.