# Will we learn to fight?



## DeepStoat (Dec 12, 2009)

Will we fuck.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 12, 2009)

yeah we'll learn to fight, things are getting more polarised  these days


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2009)

learning how to avoid a kettle would be a good start.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 12, 2009)




----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 12, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> learning how to avoid a kettle would be a good start.



The kettle is fuck all. We need to know how to scare teh cunts off from forming a kettle.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2009)

As I've said before around here, I believe anarchists could better spend their time running laps and doing press ups than dropping banners off bridges and squabbling in pubs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> The kettle is fuck all. We need to know how to scare teh cunts off from forming a kettle.


surely the thing to learn is how to prevent them forming a kettle. which can be done quite easily by spreading out. take, for example, the g20. instead of presenting the cops with a static crowd, it would have been better to spread out, enlarging the perimeter and making it impossible to surround the demonstrators. whereas the bloody fools stopped at bank making it a piece of piss for the filth to complete their plan.

once people have taken that simple lesson on board, then you can start to scare them.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 12, 2009)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 12, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> surely the thing to learn is how to prevent them forming a kettle. which can be done quite easily by spreading out. take, for example, the g20. instead of presenting the cops with a static crowd, it would have been better to spread out, enlarging the perimeter and making it impossible to surround the demonstrators. whereas the bloody fools stopped at bank making it a piece of piss for the filth to complete their plan.
> 
> once people have taken that simple lesson on board, then you can start to scare them.



^This. In the past I've spotted kettles forming (they can be quite sneaky, coppers appearing gradually and spreading out before filling in the gaps) and tried to warn people, only to have them spout some shit about 'standing our ground'. Yeah, you're gonna be standing it for a lot longer than you planned. And on someone else's terms, which means it doesn't count. 

It has long been my dream to kettle a kettle. This would be risky to say the least, as the sandwiched coppers would most likely go batshit with the batons before you can say 'preventing public disorder'. The trick here would be, as non-violently as possible, to simply relieve them of their batons and see how brave they are when they're on level terms with the opposition.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 12, 2009)

My experience leads me to suggest never doing what stewards or organising types suggest, delay everything as much as possible and act as randomly as possible,


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Ralph Masters said:


> My experience leads me to suggest never doing what stewards or organising types suggest, delay everything as much as possible and act as randomly as possible,



Coppers do not like randomness. They cannot handle it. Chaos and spontaneity are the biggest advantages that right-thinking folk have over the forces of cuntery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

Ralph Masters said:


> My experience leads me to suggest never doing what stewards or organising types suggest, delay everything as much as possible and act as randomly as possible,


i'd say, don't get involved in arguing with stewards, it's something which takes up time and prevents you looking about and properly gauging the situation. stewards are an obstacle to go around.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Coppers do not like randomness. They cannot handle it. Chaos and spontaneity are the biggest advantages that right-thinking folk have over the forces of cuntery.


the two greatest advantages we have are mobility and surprise. should these be surrendered, then nasty things like kettles and baton charges happen.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 13, 2009)

another tactic is relish the moment, give out false information as to your aims and objectives  impede as many people as possible, it doesn't matter who they are, disorganisation and stasis are our only effective tools


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

Ralph Masters said:


> another tactic is relish the moment, give out false information as to your aims and objectives  impede as many people as possible, it doesn't matter who they are, disorganisation and stasis are our only effective tools


the problem here is that we ARE disorganised, but not in a good way, and people on our side who hear rumours may treat them as gospel and act on them with lamentable consequences.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 13, 2009)

we need so many rumours that nothing is believed, Only then,  people will start to act on their own initiative, and only then  protests will become  truly dynamic and unstoppable forces, the consequences of such action will bring about a diverse and adaptable alternative to the regime we live under at present


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

Ralph Masters said:


> we need so many rumours that nothing is believed, Only then,  people will start to act on their own initiative, and only then  protests will become  truly dynamic and unstoppable forces, the consequences of such action will bring about a diverse and adaptable alternative to the regime we live under at present


on the contrary if there are rumours deliberately spread some people will believe them. it would be better if people learned secrecy and discipline and avoided being drawn into stupid worthless marches - if people hit hard at times and places of their own choice they'd do better than fucking about working on deception operations.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> the problem here is that we ARE disorganised, but not in a good way, and people on our side who hear rumours may treat them as gospel and act on them with lamentable consequences.



The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> on the contrary if there are rumours deliberately spread some people will believe them. it would be better if people learned secrecy and discipline and avoided being drawn into stupid worthless marches - if people hit hard at times and places of their own choice they'd do better than fucking about working on deception operations.



you're right about the silence, but we naturally blabber, so it's better to blabber uncertainty than rigid and breakable plans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.


by the time the army's deployed onto the streets of london people will have learned an awful lot more about rioting.


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 13, 2009)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.



*Rolls up sleeves*

Come on then you fuckers


----------



## yield (Dec 13, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.



There would be intermediary stages before the army are committed.  

Armed police for one. Tanks on the streets of London would bring down the Government. 

Most people don't want to fight for what they believe in anyway.

"The tree of liberty..." etc etc


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> the two greatest advantages we have are mobility and surprise. should these be surrendered, then nasty things like kettles and baton charges happen.



Brilliant comedy 



> NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> surely the thing to learn is how to prevent them forming a kettle. which can be done quite easily by spreading out. take, for example, the g20. instead of presenting the cops with a static crowd, it would have been better to spread out, enlarging the perimeter and making it impossible to surround the demonstrators. whereas the bloody fools stopped at bank making it a piece of piss for the filth to complete their plan.
> 
> once people have taken that simple lesson on board, then you can start to scare them.



But this isn't about fighting. It's about playing games. Kettle, no kettle.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 13, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ^This. In the past I've spotted kettles forming (they can be quite sneaky, coppers appearing gradually and spreading out before filling in the gaps) and tried to warn people, only to have them spout some shit about 'standing our ground'. Yeah, you're gonna be standing it for a lot longer than you planned. And on someone else's terms, which means it doesn't count.
> 
> It has long been my dream to kettle a kettle. This would be risky to say the least, as the sandwiched coppers would most likely go batshit with the batons before you can say 'preventing public disorder'. The trick here would be, as non-violently as possible, to simply relieve them of their batons and see how brave they are when they're on level terms with the opposition.



Don't your cops use tear gas?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> the two greatest advantages we have are mobility and surprise. should these be surrendered, then nasty things like kettles and baton charges happen.



So you're fighting the cops at some demonstration. How do you know when you've won?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 13, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.



Except, the cops will never get beaten.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Except, the cops will never get beaten.



Of course they wont, because if it ever kicked off in any serious way (and I seriously doubt it would even get that far considering the amount of apathy in the general public) most of the armchair revolutionaries will suddenly have something else to do (washing their hair, have to take the dog for a walk, mum's said dinners ready, homework to do etc etc etc)


----------



## dylans (Dec 13, 2009)

Poll Tax Riot



The exploited. Boys in Blue + Poll Tax Riot


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Don't your cops use tear gas?



Very very rarely, at least in canister form. Every plod has a wee can of CS spray to use on individuals mind you. In public order situations they tend to go for the batons first, being as these require less accuracy and so are better suited to coppers who've got the red mist and wish to indiscriminately injure as many people as possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Will we fuck.



Off to Nepal you go then - away from the hopeless proles and in search of proper spectacular fighting like in the films and that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2009)

I have to say this danish pre-emptive arrest law is worrying. Seems to effectively remove the ability to hold a protest.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Except, the cops will never get beaten.



What do you think a riot is? Beaten, maybe not. But if the newsmen are calling it a riot, it means the police have lost any semblance of control over the situation


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> What do you think a riot is? Beaten, maybe not. But if the newsmen are calling it a riot, it means the police have lost any semblance of control over the situation


no it doesn't, it means some hack has seen a scuffle. the number of things which are called riots by the press compared with the number of things which see widespread disorder - something in the region of 30:1


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> So you're fighting the cops at some demonstration. How do you know when you've won?


i'd have to say it would be something like the poll tax riot or june 18 - when the police lose it and surrender control of the streets for some time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Will we fuck.



It depends what you mean by "fight", doesn't it?
We know from the Poll Tax that "ordinary folk" are willing to organise and resist, with direct physical force if necessary, but in my humble opinion we have the same problems now as we've had for the last hundred or more years, which are:
1) That there are vanguardists who attempt to hijack movements for their own ends.
2) That we have a "fluffy" tendency who believe that all battles should be fought on a battleground of the enemy's choosing, and refuse to acknowledge that sometimes a few broken establishment heads or buildings are worth more than a thousand petitions and demos.
3) That the established parties will always sell-out their membership in the interests of business
4) That unfortunately, things have to be near a "tipping point" of socio-economic fucked-upness before some people realise that it's time to retaliate. This isn't because they're "ignorant", but because we ("the people") have our lives saturated with their ("the establishment's") propaganda, and sometimes it's easier to accept it at face value than to acknowledge that they've been fucking you over.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ^This. In the past I've spotted kettles forming (they can be quite sneaky, coppers appearing gradually and spreading out before filling in the gaps) and tried to warn people, only to have them spout some shit about 'standing our ground'. Yeah, you're gonna be standing it for a lot longer than you planned. And on someone else's terms, which means it doesn't count.
> 
> It has long been my dream to kettle a kettle. This would be risky to say the least, as the sandwiched coppers would most likely go batshit with the batons before you can say 'preventing public disorder'. The trick here would be, as non-violently as possible, to simply relieve them of their batons and see how brave they are when they're on level terms with the opposition.



Given the amount of body armour the twats wear under their overalls, "level terms" is relative. Training people to go for "weak spots" (underarms and armpits, rear of thighs and calfs) would be problematic but doable, I suppose.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Coppers do not like randomness. They cannot handle it. Chaos and spontaneity are the biggest advantages that right-thinking folk have over the forces of cuntery.



That's because their (so-called "riot police") training is mostly constructed around set pieces where they use standard tactics based on their enemy's *historical* tactics, to take and hold ground. This does leave them prone to an enemy who either engages in random responses or has a better understanding of strategy and tactics than their "general".


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> no it doesn't, it means some hack has seen a scuffle. the number of things which are called riots by the press compared with the number of things which see widespread disorder - something in the region of 30:1



Yes yes, but we know a proper riot when we see footage of it. I imagine the G20 non-fluffies got the riot label despite just being what I would call 'a bit rowdy with justification'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> the two greatest advantages we have are mobility and surprise. should these be surrendered, then nasty things like kettles and baton charges happen.



One of the effective tactics I saw at Wapping, once the police would start "tightening up" the perimeter, was people hitting them randomly, seemingly out of nowhere, sometimes using the highly-effective "flying wedge" to punch through cordons of old bill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.



What a fine understanding of the British constitution you display.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> by the time the army's deployed onto the streets of london people will have learned an awful lot more about rioting.



Well, there's an issue to be addressed here.
As far as I recall, the British military can't be deployed except under special powers (as in the six counties), and those special powers have to be voted through parliament, which means "the people" would not only have time to learn more about rioting, but also about how to defend themselves. 
After all, if the government cedes their part of the social contract, why wouldn't we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Brilliant comedy



Not really. Mobility and surprise worked excellently against the police at Wapping.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But this isn't about fighting. It's about playing games. Kettle, no kettle.



Naive.
If the kettle is rendered ineffective, it's a very good bet that the police will react aggressively. Their training dictates pushing forward n the face of resistance, rather than backing off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Don't your cops use tear gas?



Only in spaces where it won't likely get them too. 
In a kettle you're "boxed in" by old bill. Any deployment of CS into a crowd of protesters resisting a kettle would effectively dismantle the kettle, and most of the coppers won't hang on to their batons and shields if they get a snoutful of that stuff, they'll drop 'em because they'll be too busy wanting to scrub their eyes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Of course they wont, because if it ever kicked off in any serious way (and I seriously doubt it would even get that far considering the amount of apathy in the general public) most of the armchair revolutionaries will suddenly have something else to do (washing their hair, have to take the dog for a walk, mum's said dinners ready, homework to do etc etc etc)



Any idea just how many left activists and anarchists are ex-military? More than become right-wing activists or coppers.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Off to Nepal you go then - away from the hopeless proles and in search of proper spectacular fighting like in the films and that.



One day it _will_ come to violence, like it or not. It's not just a case for far off lands.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any idea just how many left activists and anarchists are ex-military? More than become right-wing activists or coppers.



shhh, it is better that they believe all leftists to be pacifist vegan yoghurt weavers.

That way they don't see it coming


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

It already is violence deepstoat - just not your idea of white hats vs black hats.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> shhh, it is better that they believe all leftists to be pacifist vegan yoghurt weavers.
> 
> That way they don't see it coming


----------



## TheDave (Dec 13, 2009)

What exactly would physical confrontation with the police achieve? A few cracked skulls and a busy day at the PR office in the met at best.

Either arm yourselves or fuck off home you bunch of pansy arse wannabe revolutionaries.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ^This. In the past I've spotted kettles forming (they can be quite sneaky, coppers appearing gradually and spreading out before filling in the gaps) and tried to warn people, only to have them spout some shit about 'standing our ground'. Yeah, you're gonna be standing it for a lot longer than you planned. And on someone else's terms, which means it doesn't count.
> 
> It has long been my dream to kettle a kettle. This would be risky to say the least, as *the sandwiched coppers would most likely go batshit with the batons before you can say 'preventing public disorder'*. The trick here would be, as non-violently as possible, to simply relieve them of their batons and see how brave they are when they're on level terms with the opposition.


^ I've tried calling them 'cowards in it for the money who are well protected with padding on' but they didn't like it, in fact they chased me frequently through the streets of Dover for that some years ago.

I have never seen coppers need an excuse to go batshit with batons either


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Except, the cops will never get beaten.



I've seen cops beaten


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2009)

TheDave said:


> What exactly would physical confrontation with the police achieve? A few cracked skulls and a busy day at the PR office in the met at best.
> 
> Either arm yourselves or fuck off home you bunch of pansy arse wannabe revolutionaries.


Ho ho ho and its not father christmas.  Revolutions need large numbers of the population prepared to contest the streets, revolutionarries picking up the gun unfortunately separate us from the masses and is not a good idea until the class struggle starts to get 'spicy'. That is not to say I am against revolutionary training today, I am not. Infact, I did construct an Anarchist Olympics some years ago, with a list of 'competitions'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

How many people turned up?


----------



## cogg (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> How many people turned up?


Him and his dog but the dog fucked off.


----------



## Shevek (Dec 13, 2009)

I am quite anarchistic but not really into physical violence. The issue of violence I find problematic. Could we really take on the army?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Shevek said:


> I am quite anarchistic but not really into physical violence. The issue of violence I find problematic. Could we really take on the army?



Guerilla warfare by a few can wear down a conventional army.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Not that i would advocate such a thing of course.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Go on then. Make the dream real.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Guerilla warfare by a few can wear down a conventional army.



Do it. Argue for it.

You silly child.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Do it. Argue for it.
> 
> You silly child.



One day you won't have the option of living your relatively comfy life.

The fight will come to you ready or not.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 13, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> ^This. In the past I've spotted kettles forming (they can be quite sneaky, coppers appearing gradually and spreading out before filling in the gaps) and tried to warn people, only to have them spout some shit about 'standing our ground'. Yeah, you're gonna be standing it for a lot longer than you planned. And on someone else's terms, which means it doesn't count.
> 
> It has long been my dream to kettle a kettle. This would be risky to say the least, as the sandwiched coppers would most likely go batshit with the batons before you can say 'preventing public disorder'. The trick here would be, as non-violently as possible, to simply relieve them of their batons and see how brave they are when they're on level terms with the opposition.



A few seasoned demo veterans with sharp eyes and sparingly used megaphones can go a long way.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Do it. Argue for it.
> 
> You silly child.



'Silly child' I've had a first hand taste of guerilla warfare. Have you?

What will it emotional involve? Physical stress? Constantly fearing for you life.

Being prepared is a responsibility for every anarchist in this country


----------



## yield (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> 'Silly child' I've had a first hand taste of guerilla warfare. Have you?
> 
> What will it emotional involve? Physical stress? Constantly fearing for you life.
> 
> Being prepared is a responsibility for every anarchist in this country



You're having a laugh aren't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> One day you won't have the option of living your relatively comfy life.
> 
> The fight will come to you ready or not.




Pathetic fantasy.

 Do some real politics.


----------



## Shevek (Dec 13, 2009)

I would advocate anarchist solutions but I wouldn't emphasise violence. 

Shevek


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Pathetic fantasy.
> 
> Do some real politics.



We are in a very unpretictable times, climate change, economic crisis yet to bite. This can get rather tasty.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 13, 2009)

Violence just gives them the excuse to get worse. Wouldnt rule it out for self defence but there is usually a more intelligent way.

As for kettling: It is one of the things under heavy review post-Tomlinson and at Manchester EDL / ant EDL demos the police were employing a kind of kettle you could get out of but not back in to.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> We are in a very unpretictable times, climate change, economic crisis yet to bite. This can get rather tasty.



Possibly, you're still a fantasist.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Possibly, you're still a fantasist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Your posts. Your position. Your politics. Look up.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Please talk sense as your abuse is awfully heartbreaking


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Your posts. Your position. Your politics. Look up.



You don't have the balls to do much apart from slag people off on this site.

Well done to you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Oh please, your maosist arselicking crap of many years is documented. My opposition to such pathetic bullshit is equally well documented. Now go and do your politics. Go and do it. No? Not going to? Haven't bothered yet

No you're rather hang about here and sully the name of classwar with your shitty politics.


----------



## spring-peeper (Dec 13, 2009)

TheDave said:


> What exactly would physical confrontation with the police achieve? A few cracked skulls and a busy day at the PR office in the met at best.
> 
> Either arm yourselves or fuck off home you bunch of pansy arse wannabe revolutionaries.



What it will achieve is the world once again looking at the UK and wondering if their soccer hooligans will ever grow up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

spring-peeper said:


> What it will achieve is the world once again looking at the UK and wondering if their soccer hooligans will ever grow up.



What sort of person are you?


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, there's an issue to be addressed here.
> As far as I recall, the British military can't be deployed except under special powers (as in the six counties), and those special powers have to be voted through parliament, which means "the people" would not only have time to learn more about rioting, but also about how to defend themselves.
> After all, if the government cedes their part of the social contract, why wouldn't we?



The police force was only created in the UK because the army wouldn't fire on British rioters and protestors. It's unlikely that unrest at that level wouldn't spread to the army as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> The police force was only created in the UK because the army wouldn't fire on British rioters and protestors. It's unlikely that unrest at that level wouldn't spread to the army as well.


a problem with your simplistic analysis is that there is not 'a' police force, but 43, and there were substantially more when the police force*s* were established piecemeal in the nineteenth century. oh, and i would be interested to know just when the army 'wouldn't fire'. if they were happy to in derry in 1972, why wouldn't they be in london in 2010?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Oh please, your maosist arselicking crap of many years is documented. My opposition to such pathetic bullshit is equally well documented. Now go and do your politics. Go and do it. No? Not going to? Haven't bothered yet
> 
> No you're rather hang about here and sully the name of classwar with your shitty politics.



Fuck right off. As per usual nothing to say apart slagging off of others.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Take up arms. Do it. Yeah...


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> a problem with your simplistic analysis is that there is not 'a' police force, but 43, and there were substantially more when the police force*s* were established piecemeal in the nineteenth century. oh, and i would be interested to know just when the army 'wouldn't fire'. if they were happy to in derry in 1972, why wouldn't they be in london in 2010?



I say Pickers old bear, the peelers really are a hideous bunch of oiks, dammee eh what old fag?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Take up arms. Do it. Yeah...



As an ex scout i believe in being prepared. Are you?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

more feet stamping from BA?


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> if they were happy to in derry in 1972, why wouldn't they be in london in 2010?



Because that was several years into an armed conflict in another country against an enemy that they'd been taught to believe were evil. Slightly different to being shipped back from Afghanistan and asked to attack people who were your family, neighbours and friends until the previous day.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

No, i'm not an ex-scout. How this impacts on your phantasy politics i'm only too aware. 

*BUT I'M IN CLASS WAR NOW MUM!*


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Oh please, your maosist arselicking crap of many years is documented. My opposition to such pathetic bullshit is equally well documented.


are you sure you're having a pop at the right man? cos he's only been about since august, which ain't 'many years'.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> a problem with your simplistic analysis is that there is not 'a' police force, but 43, and there were substantially more when the police force*s* were established piecemeal in the nineteenth century. oh, and i would be interested to know just when the army 'wouldn't fire'. if they were happy to in derry in 1972, why wouldn't they be in london in 2010?



By Gad Pickers old toad, you haven't got in such a bate since old Stinky rogered you in the dorm after Greats prep eh what?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

,


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure you're having a pop at the right man? cos he's only been about since august, which ain't 'many years'.



I'm sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

maomao said:


> Because that was several years into an armed conflict in another country against an enemy that they'd been taught to believe were evil. Slightly different to being shipped back from Afghanistan and asked to attack people who were your family, neighbours and friends until the previous day.



and where did the army refuse to open fire on rioters?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I'm sure.


fair enough.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure you're having a pop at the right man?



Tally ho Pickers, that's the tonic, give the damned toffs bally hell old fruit!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 13, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Tally ho Pickers, that's the tonic, give the damned toffs bally hell old fruit!



Dwyer: do not reply to, mention, hint at or refer to in any way, Pickman's model.

(and of course, vice versa)


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> and where did the army refuse to open fire on rioters?



My corks Pickers old tart, I should say it wasn't since Beaky and Smithers cornered you in the refrectory after Cakers luncheon...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 13, 2009)

I assume that that was cross-posted.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Oh please, your maosist arselicking crap of many years is documented. My opposition to such pathetic bullshit is equally well documented. Now go and do your politics. Go and do it. No? Not going to? Haven't bothered yet



I don't trust you to give you an honest answer.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

If you don't support the men and women of Nepal who are fighting for the very basic human rights, yer scum.

I hate the leaders always have but the cadres are far braver and more normal than you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Off you go then. Oh you're *still* here? 5 years later.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> If you don't support the men and women of Nepal who are fighting for the very basic human rights, yer scum.
> 
> I hate the leaders always have but the cadres are far braver and more normal than you.



If i had the opportunity to fight with a random cadre from the PLA or a miserable anarchist from Bristol, i'd stick the normal people of Nepal.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm sure they'd welcome you and your nuttiness with open arms. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Off you go then. Oh you're *still* here? 5 years later.



You don't keep an eye on international politics. Doesn't that suit your brand of backyard anarchism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> If i had the opportunity to fight with a random cadre from the PLA or a miserable anarchist from Bristol, i'd stick the normal people of Nepal.


i'd choose the pla, cos the chinese have some top gear


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I'm sure they'd welcome you and your nuttiness with open arms. What could possibly go wrong?



Too late for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> You don't keep an eye on international politics. Doesn't that suit your brand of backyard anarchism?



I do as it goes. You didn't go then? Of course you didn't.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd choose the pla, cos the chinese have some top gear



Skag?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Too late for that.



Well who are you selling your arms and experience to now?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I do as it goes. You didn't go then? Of course you didn't.



Oh I did.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Well who are you selling your arms and experience to now?



Arms?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Skag?


you do know the pla is the chinese army?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Oh I did.


No, you didn't. You had a rich white man tourist experience. You neither fought in nor armed the maoist armies - and you've done _nothing_ to further either of those aims since coming back here. You're an emtpy fucking space. Do what you talk about.

How does that help us construct an independent w/c political response then?

Class war? Fuck off.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, you didn't. You had a rich white man tourist experience. How does that help us construct an independent w/c political resposne then?
> 
> Class war? Fuck off.



Bollocks. We help found an orphanage for war orphans, with the help of some guerillas.

So good fuck yourself and your lazy projections.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Work for the most vunerable fuckers on the planet. That is Class War. Not bravado on the Intenet.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Bollocks. We help found an orphanage for war orphans, with the help of some guerillas.
> 
> So good fuck yourself and your lazy projections.




Link i up then. Don't see how that changes anything either way. Arm the army or support them/ Follow your politcs through  -don't offer some benedictine _charity_ as a substitute.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

I do follow my politics through, luckily a peace accord was signed shortly after I arrived.

I met my trainer.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Work for the most vunerable fuckers on the planet. That is Class War. Not bravado on the Intenet.



I think you need to understand what class war said about _charity_ - then leave the group if you have any principles. Or if you can drag yourself off your pathetic bloody knees. Given that you only joined so you could say that you are in class war...not expecting much...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I do follow my politics through, luckily a peace accord was signed shortly after I arrived.
> 
> I met my trainer.



_I'd have shot so many of dem otherwise._


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Link i up then. Don't see how that changes anything either way. Arm the army or support them/ Follow your politcs through  -don't offer some benedictine _charity_ as a substitute.



So the kids left over by your version of civil war will be left to look after themselves?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> _I'd have shot so many of dem otherwise._



I was very pleased with the peace, trust me.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Yes, i hate kids. Where's your gun? What relavance does this squalid fetish you have to the UK in 2009?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I was very pleased with the peace, trust me.



Dem lucky, dem could have got many killed.

jesus christ.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I think you need to understand what class war said about _charity_ - then leave the group if you have any principles. Or if you can drag yourself off your pathetic bloody knees. Given that you only joined so you could say that you are in class war...not expecting much...



Charity is a sticking plaster keeping Capitalism hanging in there. But if you went there and saw the kids working hard labour from the age of 4, malnurished nobody in my Class War would say fuck em.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> So the kids left over by your version of civil war will be left to look after themselves?




Where's my link chairman?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i hate kids. Where's your gun? What relavance does this squalid fetish you have to the UK in 2009?



I'm not a nationalist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Charity is a sticking plaster keeping Capitalism hanging in there. But if you went there and saw the kids working hard labour from the age of 4, malnurished nobody in my Class War would say fuck em.



So what? What is this piss-poor reportage supposed to mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I'm not a nationalist.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I'm not a nationalist.




Nor am i. What relation does this squalid fetish you have to the UK in 2009?


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> So what? What is this piss-poor reportage supposed to mean?



It says that if you ignore the most vunerable people and don't help, even a bit when you have the opportunity, you're a cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Puppies too.

Class War


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Nor am i. What relation does this squalid fetish you have to the UK in 2009?



Since when has supporting fighting extreme social injustice equate to a 'squalid fetish'?


----------



## Ralph Masters (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> It says that if you ignore the most vunerable people and don't help, even a bit when you have the opportunity, you're a cunt.



we'd be forever in the ditch


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Since when has supporting fighting extreme social injustice equate to a 'squalid fetish'?



Puppies too.

Did you wear your fighting extreme social injustice bib?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

What relation does this stuff  have to the UK in 2009?

Tell me now.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Puppies too.
> 
> Did you wear your fighting extreme social injustice bib?



I advise you to read up on the coniditions and abuse women have had to tolerate in Nepal. Maoism has given them rights and justice.

But that's wrong cos the man on the internet says it is.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> What relation does this stuff  have to the UK in 2009?
> 
> Tell me now.



Why should it have


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

That's right, now i'm supporting those abuses. 

Get out of class war. You bring nought but shame on the name.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Join the greens - your natural home. Stop fighting it. 

Class war 
 You utter moron.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

And you're the working class hero of our time.

Go Internet warrior!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

That's your post?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2009)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

There's many room in this mansion yet Where's he gone?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Why didn't you arm the INLA deep stoat?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2009)




----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Why didn't you arm the INLA deep stoat?



I thought that was your team?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I thought that was your team?


Nonsensical post. Question not answered.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I thought that was your team?



No, this is butchers' team:


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Nonsensical post. Question not answered.



Made perfect sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

I do believe you'e been drinking idris. Remember Ben Barka. Friendly warning.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Are you handicapped?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Made perfect sense.


No, why didn't you arm the INLA? Why don't you support the IRSP now - right now? Or do you admit your armed fantasies are just  a country boys delight.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I do believe you'e been drinking idris. Remember Ben Barka. Friendly warning.



And while we're on the subject, a toast to that fine beverage, vodka and coca-cola.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, why didn't you arm the INLA? Why don't you support the IRSP now - right now? Or do you admit your armed fantasies are just  a country boys delight.



Didn't the INLA end up killing more irish than british soldiers?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Yes.That's it.

Why didn't you arm them charity case?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Didn't the INLA end up killing more irish than british soldiers?



That's kind of the point, you see.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Didn't the INLA end up killing more irish than british soldiers?


anyone who killed airey neave can't be all bad.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2009)

Or the McWhirter. Up he goes. World record, measure that etc

edit: oh the PIRA got Ross. Apols


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Or the McWhirter. Up he goes. World record etc


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Yes.That's it.
> 
> Why didn't you arm them charity case?



I'm all for local smack dealers coming unstuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I'm all for local smack dealers coming unstuck.


direct action against drugs


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> direct action against drugs



Smack and crack.

The rest is personal choice.


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (Dec 13, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Will we fuck.




How can we learn to physically fight the system.Sorry waste of time only fuck witts do this

Better to start building from community social centres, soup runs,etc


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really. Mobility and surprise worked excellently against the police at Wapping.


Nah just reminded me of the sketch 



ViolentPanda said:


> Any idea just how many left activists and anarchists are ex-military? More than become right-wing activists or coppers.



I know (although I'm sure some would try to convince us of the opposite here) I just find that the majority here who big themselves up on the net about how it'll be come the revolution are of the armchair variety, revolutionary Walts


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> How many people turned up?



It was an article that coincided with the Olympics, I didn't actually organise an event.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A few seasoned demo veterans with sharp eyes and sparingly used megaphones can go a long way.



And somebody watching Sky news and BBC News 24 channels... I remember watching the Wombles et al and police movements around John Lewis/Oxford Street many years ago when I had gone into a pub for some respite...


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Since when has supporting fighting extreme social injustice equate to a 'squalid fetish'?



You have my sympathy Deep Stoat. It looks awfully like an attempt at bullying to me by BA, overbearing pap at least. He really does have a problem with those who disagree with *his* analysis, which is lightweight recycled crap anyway


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2009)

There's something terribly terrily wrong when you can't laugh at weepy maoists in Class War...


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> There's something terribly terrily wrong when you can't laugh at weepy maoists in Class War...



What do you do for living BA?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2009)

Football coach for the underpriveliged.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Football coach for the underpriveliged.



Bleeding heart liberal.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2009)

I suppose i am really


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Football coach for the underpriveliged.








I thought you were in Bristol b/a?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2009)

Rovers supporters.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Football coach for the underpriveliged.



That cannot be true can it? How the fek do you manage to post all the fekking time then? DO you have a hand held laptop (type?) while you are coaching?


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 14, 2009)

I already know how to fight. Thread is like alphabetti-spaghetti btw.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2009)

Lots of letters - no real content?


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 14, 2009)

That. Acronym-tastic too.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of the effective tactics I saw at Wapping, once the police would start "tightening up" the perimeter, was people hitting them randomly, seemingly out of nowhere, sometimes using the highly-effective "flying wedge" to punch through cordons of old bill.



Useful. I have long thought that we need an anarcho praetorian guard with the political nous of the Friends of Durruti to 'step things up a notch'.


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

moon23 said:


> The streets are a side-show, so you beat the police, then as your prize you have to take on the army. Good luck with that.


yes this .. the BNP withdrew form the streets to go door to door .. we must do the same .. take over the estates pubs and clubs


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Off to Nepal you go then - away from the hopeless proles and in search of proper spectacular fighting like in the films and that.


 this


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

The Black Hand said:


> ^ I've tried calling them 'cowards in it for the money who are well protected with padding on' but they didn't like it, in fact they chased me frequently through the streets of Dover for that some years ago.
> 
> I have never seen coppers need an excuse to go batshit with batons either



Kent constabulary is full of violent psychopaths at the best of times. Up until the 90s they had a policy of trying to recruit as many ex-forces as possible, specifically ex-guards and paras.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2009)

Apols to deep stoat if i went a bit OTT last night - you manged to pick an issue that really gets to me though - and that was made worse by you being in CW when it was CW who helped kicked a massive hole in the dominant myth of a passive w/c.


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Guerilla warfare by a few can wear down a conventional army.


 grow up .. this insurrectionary bullshit just plays into the hands of the state .. do what they can't deal with and take over from below


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Pathetic fantasy.
> 
> Do some real politics.


 indeed and dangerous


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> If i had the opportunity to fight with a random cadre from the PLA or a miserable anarchist from Bristol, i'd stick the normal people of Nepal.


and yet again ignore the ordianry people of the UK . fool


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

Shevek said:


> I would advocate anarchist solutions but I wouldn't emphasise violence.
> 
> Shevek



Nevertheless, violence needs to be taken account of.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

To preserve peace, prepare for war.

History shows again and again that popular revolutions are likely to be put down by external aggression and all the no pasaran fervour isn't a match for a man who knows how to use a rifle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

maomao said:


> The police force was only created in the UK because the army wouldn't fire on British rioters and protestors. It's unlikely that unrest at that level wouldn't spread to the army as well.



Well, that's not the "only" reason they were created, but yes, soldiers (squaddies, anyway) can't be depended on to open fire on their own, which is why militias were often deployed instead of soldiers from the standing army regts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> a problem with your simplistic analysis is that there is not 'a' police force, but 43, and there were substantially more when the police force*s* were established piecemeal in the nineteenth century. oh, and i would be interested to know just when the army 'wouldn't fire'. if they were happy to in derry in 1972, why wouldn't they be in london in 2010?



The sad and simple answer to that (besides the fact that the parachute regt were to blame for BS, rather than "the army" [i[per se[/i]) is most probably that the people of the six counties (Catholics more than Protestants) came to be perceived as "them" rather than "us", whereas the peoples of the mainland are reflected in just about every regt except the Jockos.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Kent constabulary is full of violent psychopaths at the best of times. Up until the 90s they had a policy of trying to recruit as many ex-forces as possible, specifically ex-guards and paras.


 That is interesting information.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> If you don't support the men and women of Nepal who are fighting for the very basic human rights, yer scum.


Does support necessarily have to be refracted through support of the Maoist insurgency?


> I hate the leaders always have but the cadres are far braver and more normal than you.


Isn't that rather dogmatic? After all, what do you actually know about "the leaders" other than what the media have told you? Perhaps they're not, as good communists, leaders at all?


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> grow up .. this insurrectionary bullshit just plays into the hands of the state .. do what they can't deal with and take over from below



Socialism From Below - where have I heard that before? And the idea is not a bad thing. What D02 is saying is very like the New Left who said 'we must take over the culture forming positions within society'.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Apols to deep stoat if i went a bit OTT last night - you manged to pick an issue that really gets to me though - and that was made worse by you being in CW when it was CW who helped kicked a massive hole in the dominant myth of a passive w/c.



Nae bother. I was pissed as a fart when I started the thread anyways.


----------



## DeepStoat (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't that rather dogmatic? After all, what do you actually know about "the leaders" other than what the media have told you?



I know more than what's been presented in the media. I've met a few leaders and further contacts higher up.

The cadres, from what I've seen, think they're fighting for revolution, the leaders are pushing for bourgeois parliamentarianism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> grow up .. this insurrectionary bullshit just plays into the hands of the state .. do what they can't deal with and take over from below



You're missing a rather large point in your rush to not "play into the hands of the state".
That point being that insurrection is a tool like any other. Sometimes it's necessary to use the tool, sometimes it isn't. It makes good sense, however, to leave the tool in your toolbox rather than throwing it away. Why cede territory to the state before you've even started tackling them? They're not going to be wary about using violence against you, either overtly or covertly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> To preserve peace, prepare for war.
> 
> History shows again and again that popular revolutions are likely to be put down by external aggression and all the no pasaran fervour isn't a match for a man who knows how to use a rifle.



Precisely.
It's arguable that the great social concessions post-WW2 were partially a result of the state not wishing to be faced, _a la_ the 1920s, with the possibility of insurrection by working people who'd had military training.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I know more than what's been presented in the media. I've met a few leaders and further contacts higher up.
> 
> The cadres, from what I've seen, think they're fighting for revolution, the leaders are pushing for bourgeois parliamentarianism.



Same old same old, then.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Nae bother. I was pissed as a fart when I started the thread anyways.



now kiss and cuddle.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Precisely.
> It's arguable that the great social concessions post-WW2 were partially a result of the state not wishing to be faced, _a la_ the 1920s, with the possibility of insurrection by working people who'd had military training.


 And guns.

There was a tank held back by somebody after WW1 (ask Dave Douglass for story) so there was bound to be a lot of small arms kept back too.


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

CUMBRIANDRAGON said:


> How can we learn to physically fight the system.Sorry waste of time only fuck witts do this
> 
> Better to start building from community social centres, soup runs,etc


spot on


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're missing a rather large point in your rush to not "play into the hands of the state".
> That point being that insurrection is a tool like any other. Sometimes it's necessary to use the tool, sometimes it isn't. It makes good sense, however, to leave the tool in your toolbox rather than throwing it away. Why cede territory to the state before you've even started tackling them? They're not going to be wary about using violence against you, either overtly or covertly.



ok that is right to an extent, but when we barely control anything in society, when progressive ideas are at the historical lowest under capital even thinking about it seems ridiculous. 

and the fact remains peaceful revolution is almost always better. And it happens. The esatern bloc countries systems surrendered with barely a bullet being fires as the opposition had created its cultural hegemony .. it is this we must do and do now. 

and revolutions where militias are key to fighting tend to be authoritarian and the militia / army rarely thne gives up power 

no, we need to undermone capitalism by taking away its social and cultural basis .. fighting it simply helps it renew 

not that few street skirmishes donlt help but they HAVE to be popular .. if they are not the do more damage than than good


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 14, 2009)

maomao said:


> The police force was only created in the UK because the army wouldn't fire on British rioters and protestors. It's unlikely that unrest at that level wouldn't spread to the army as well.


i'm still waiting  for you to substantiate your claim about the army not firing on rioters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

The Black Hand said:


> And guns.
> 
> There was a tank held back by somebody after WW1 (ask Dave Douglass for story) so there was bound to be a lot of small arms kept back too.



While guns are helpful, IMO it's people acting in concert with discipline (and the possibility of them having strategic and tactical _nous_) that frightened the crap out of the establishment.


----------



## Zaskar (Dec 14, 2009)

Only each other in my experience ( insert obvious python gag ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> ok that is right to an extent, but when we barely control anything in society, when progressive ideas are at the historical lowest under capital even thinking about it seems ridiculous.


I'm hardly proposing it as a first line of engagement, I'm just saying that setting out that you're happy to play by their rules when even *they* won't stick to them is foolish. 


> and the fact remains peaceful revolution is almost always better. And it happens. The esatern bloc countries systems surrendered with barely a bullet being fires as the opposition had created its cultural hegemony .. it is this we must do and do now.


The majority of the Eastern Bloc countries had two things going for them when the Iron Curtain fell: _Solidarnosc_ having laid a lot of groundwork in making the leaders of the various satellite states think about how *they* would react to mass dissent, and the whole _perestroika_ vibe that made the peoples of the satellite states believe that Gorby would see them right.
Peaceful revolution should always be the aim, but one needs to bear in mind the violence with which the state may resist, and be prepared, if necessary, to address it.


> and revolutions where militias are key to fighting tend to be authoritarian and the militia / army rarely thne gives up power


Who's talking about militias?


> no, we need to undermone capitalism by taking away its social and cultural basis .. fighting it simply helps it renew
> 
> not that few street skirmishes donlt help but they HAVE to be popular .. if they are not the do more damage than than good


In effect you're saying "look lads, if you can't be sure this'll buy the cause good PR, don't do it.

I'd say that you've lost before you start.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm hardly proposing it as a first line of engagement,
> A) I'm just saying that setting out that you're happy to play by their rules when even *they* won't stick to them is foolish.
> 
> The majority of the Eastern Bloc countries had two things going for them when the Iron Curtain fell: _Solidarnosc_ having laid a lot of groundwork in making the leaders of the various satellite states think about how *they* would react to mass dissent, and the whole _perestroika_ vibe that made the peoples of the satellite states believe that Gorby would see them right.
> ...



A) Totally.
B) Completely.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 14, 2009)

i get the feeling at the moment that if we ever end up picking up rifles its more likely to be in self defence rather than the final push needed for a successful popular revolution


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2009)

smokedout said:


> i get the feeling at the moment that if we ever end up picking up rifles its more likely to be in self defence rather than the final push needed for a successful popular revolution



I agree, but who's to say that people defending themselves and their communities wouldn't be the thing that set off a popular revolution? We just don't know, but we should be prepared for *anything*, because it's dead certain that the ruling classes will be prepared to *do anything* to retain power.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 14, 2009)

So we've got to be spontaneous and secret, well organised and adept at disinformation, assertive and aggressive in defence?

That's a reasonable definition of the State isn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

Balbi said:


> So we've got to be spontaneous and secret, well organised and adept at disinformation, assertive and aggressive in defence?
> 
> That's a reasonable definition of the State isn't it?



except we will do it for the people and not the elite


----------



## Balbi (Dec 14, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> except we will do it for the people and not the elite



The people being those few allowed into the secret spontaneity? 

We should have some sort of handshake


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

Mate, don't invite the icepick.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 14, 2009)

Personally if you didn't go to NSB, you don't have the sort of character needed for this sort of organisation.

We're like the radical Eton


----------



## yield (Dec 14, 2009)

Balbi said:


> So we've got to be slow and secretive, disorganised and misinformed, arrogant and aggressive in defence?
> 
> That's a reasonable definition of the State isn't it?



Fixed for you.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Dec 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> In effect you're saying "look lads, if you can't be sure this'll buy the cause good PR, don't do it.
> 
> I'd say that you've lost before you start.



But using their 'PR' makes it effective against them - that's how the cultural basis would be removed, nullified. Propaganda falls back upon propaganda... Hard to pull-off, though.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Kent constabulary is full of violent psychopaths at the best of times. Up until the 90s they had a policy of trying to recruit as many ex-forces as possible, specifically ex-guards and paras.



Well they were trying to fight fire with fire


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> While guns are helpful, IMO it's people acting in concert with discipline (and the possibility of them having strategic and tactical _nous_) that frightened the crap out of the establishment.



Plus guns are a bit hard to come by these days (despite all the friend of a friend knows some Russian bloke etc etc stories that abound) thanks to all those recent changes to the laws.

Nothing so pliable as an unarmed population (and before anyone starts I'm not advocating US style gun laws)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2009)

Balbi said:


> So we've got to be spontaneous and secret, well organised and adept at disinformation, assertive and aggressive in defence?
> 
> That's a reasonable definition of the State isn't it?



Not really. The state's intent is instrumental. Everything it does is predicated on perpetuating itself and its mechanisms. People acting as a community to resist are being *slightly* more altruistic than that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2009)

Balbi said:


> The people being those few allowed into the secret spontaneity?


You seem to be mistaking the idea of being disciplined, and of acting in a way that doesn't draw attention, with vanguardist pretensions and being "secret".
As if vanguardists would ever get involved in anything where there was a chance in hell they'd actually have to fight! 


> We should have some sort of handshake


"We", comrade?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2009)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> But using their 'PR' makes it effective against them - that's how the cultural basis would be removed, nullified. Propaganda falls back upon propaganda... Hard to pull-off, though.



I wasn't talking about using their PR against them, I was talking about what appears to be durutti's acceptance of only opposing the establishment on the establishment's terms, and his willingness to avoid anything that might give his cause bad PR.

Please read what I've actually written next time, *before* committing an act of intellectual onanism over it. Thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Well they were trying to fight fire with fire



Mmmm, because the Kent constabulary had so many armed insurrectionists to worry about, didn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Plus guns are a bit hard to come by these days (despite all the friend of a friend knows some Russian bloke etc etc stories that abound) thanks to all those recent changes to the laws.
> 
> Nothing so pliable as an unarmed population (and before anyone starts I'm not advocating US style gun laws)



Try telling that to bendy rubber Gandhi and his comrades. They did quite well without guns. 

Mind you, you can bet that if there were money in it, some enterprising twat would find a way to bring arms in. They always do.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Mmmm, because the Kent constabulary had so many armed insurrectionists to worry about, didn't it?



I was thinking more of pissed up squaddies on Friday and Saturday nights


----------



## Fuchs66 (Dec 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Try telling that to bendy rubber Gandhi and his comrades. They did quite well without guns.


That was a far far different situation, I'm not saying peaceful protest hasnt got its uses, I think it's very useful IF the movement has a broad support from the public, which is not the case in the UK at this time and I cant see that changing in the near future


ViolentPanda said:


> Mind you, you can bet that if there were money in it, some enterprising twat would find a way to bring arms in. They always do.



True if the incentive is there someone will always find a way, BUT is it there?


----------



## Balbi (Dec 15, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> "We", comrade?



No, not you. You're clearly not one of 'us' tovarisch


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2009)

Balbi said:


> So we've got to be *spontaneous and secret, well organised and adept at disinformation, assertive and aggressive in defence*?
> 
> That's a reasonable definition of the State isn't it?



That is an *anarcho praetorian guard with the political nous of the Friends of Durruti* necessary to 'step things up a notch'. 

This invisible dictatorship already exists and I am policing the gates of entry like St Paul


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> grow up .. this insurrectionary bullshit just plays into the hands of the state .. do what they can't deal with and take over from below



It also provides the state with the perfect PR opportunity to discredit all anarchists as extremists, terrorists etc. I would guess when you say Anarchism to someone around 9/10 people associate it with just random violence, or an absence of any order. Untill 9/10 people associate it with sefl-determiniation, freedom from oppression and real democratic principles you are onto a loser. The same can be said with Socialism.

 Guerrilla movements are ONLY successful when they have the populist backing of the people. If most people supported the cause and there was an oppresive system that did not allow for any means of democratic infulence then that's when Guerrilla movements arise. When there is a system of democracy in place that people have some faith in (however flawed it maybe) then not attempting to work with it will result in an immediate political fail.

This immature macho-posturing on a web board is naive and dangerous. Deepstoat comes accross as an angry teenager. Rather than indulging in wank fantasies about using violence and force to topple an exploitative system try actually going out and talking to some ordinary people and changing grass-roots public opinion. As Durruti says it's in the pubs, estates and social clubs where this battle is being fought. 

At the moment the BNP are pissing all over everyone, even the numbskulls have cottoned on that street violence or mass protesting is a relic of the past.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> A) At the moment the BNP are pissing all over everyone, even the numbskulls have cottoned on that (B) street violence or mass protesting is a relic of the past.



A) It is not aas clear as it seems I think; http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10016256&postcount=2785

101 wards have been contested since 27th August 2009 up to the 26th of November 2009.

The BNP stood in 21 wards, their average % in these wards was 10.576% However if you minus the Boston case, as an exceptional case (a large vote was split between everybody in this case) then their average vote is 9.22%.

The average BNP vote cast spread over all 101 wards is 2.199%.

The BNP did NOT contest SIX wards where they had stood before, which is a high drop out/turnover rate, of approx 25% of the 27 wards where the BNP have had some presence.

If you count these wards with the 21 wards they stood in, then their vote has risen .4%. Again, minusing the exceptional Boston case where their vote was artificially inflated then their voting trend is DOWNWARDS, -0.2423%. Which is an interesting statistic.

B) There is plenty of street violence happening in the world, and mass protesting still happens as often as it did before I would say. Didn't the largest protest in the the UK EVER take place in 2003 (those people are still here). 

What you are talking about is an included electoral position, with accomodated and 'declasse' political outlooks. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence, some that is 'academic serious', which shows levels of violence are rising within society eg. violence _by_ women.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2009)

The Black Hand said:


> A) It is not aas clear as it seems I think; http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10016256&postcount=2785
> 
> 101 wards have been contested since 27th August 2009 up to the 26th of November 2009.
> 
> ...



I don't think the apparent emerging downward trend is particularly a reflection on the BNP's tactics but rather the increased opposition to them. Yes thee was the biggest protest ever in 2003, but it wasn't succsefull in affecting the political change it sought. 

In 2003 you had a mass protest arise as an event becuase you had popular backing. You need to win popular backing first before any change is possible and talking about street violence is not going to help achieve it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> A) I don't think the apparent emerging downward trend is particularly a reflection on the BNP's tactics but rather *the increased opposition to them. *
> B) Yes thee was the biggest protest ever in 2003, but it wasn't succsefull in affecting the political change it sought.
> 
> In 2003 you had a mass protest arise as an event becuase you had popular backing. You need to win popular backing first before any change is possible and talking about street violence is not going to help achieve it.



A) That is a good thing.

B) I think it was confrontation that helped to build the large anti globalisation cycle of struggles on the late 1990s, early 'naughties'. I do not think street violence is necessarily counter productive, but it can be. I certainly know of no groups/nobody who does, or proclaims to do, regular street violence. It just isn't possible with the levels of state technology and policing. So in some respects your point is a red herring.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> I was thinking more of pissed up squaddies on Friday and Saturday nights



Not when the Ghurkas are in town, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2009)

Balbi said:


> No, not you. You're clearly not one of 'us' tovarisch



If by "us", you mean "a member of the Bolshevist hordes", then you'd be right, _zalupa_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> It also provides the state with the perfect PR opportunity to discredit all anarchists as extremists, terrorists etc.


Because, of course, they and their media organs don't already, do they? 


> I would guess when you say Anarchism to someone around 9/10 people associate it with just random violence, or an absence of any order. Untill 9/10 people associate it with sefl-determiniation, freedom from oppression and real democratic principles you are onto a loser. The same can be said with Socialism.


In which case it's a matter of education, not one of supinely conforming so that "the man" won't stigmatise you, because he *will* whatever you do!


> Guerrilla movements are ONLY successful when they have the populist backing of the people.


Are you sure you don't mean *"popular"* backing?


> If most people supported the cause and there was an oppresive system that did not allow for any means of democratic infulence then that's when Guerrilla movements arise.


No, that's when *you* believe that guerrilla movements should arise. Of course, if everyone *did* wait until "most people supported the cause" or "there was an oppressive system that did not allow for *any means*" (my emphasis), then nothing would ever get done, because a situation where "most people" get a say within this society is pie in the bloody sky, and waiting until we're denied *any mean* of dissent is the counsel of an idiot!! 


> When there is a system of democracy in place that people have some faith in (however flawed it maybe) then not attempting to work with it will result in an immediate political fail.


We don't have "a system of democracy in place" in any meaningful way. The system we have, of "parliamentary democracy", is a pseudo-democratic institution that does pretty much (with a few accommodations along the way as the franchise broadened) what it has done since Cromwell's time: assured that the exercise of power remains firmly in the hands of a minority.
How can you "work with" a system that doesn't even compel your representative to follow the majority will of their constituents?


> This immature macho-posturing on a web board is naive and dangerous.


Says the spokesperson for "more of the same, please".


> Deepstoat comes accross as an angry teenager. Rather than indulging in wank fantasies about using violence and force to topple an exploitative system try actually going out and talking to some ordinary people and changing grass-roots public opinion. As Durruti says it's in the pubs, estates and social clubs where this battle is being fought.


Which has kind of been the point, alongside the fact that if you start achieving noticeable success, the state will be all over you like a rash, playing "divide and conquer" in your community, undoing your grass-roots work if they find it at all threatening or if they can't control it. Being prepared to resist if that happens isn't "macho posturing", it's good sense in a climate where governments have spent the best part of 30 years eroding our rights under the guise of "security".


> At the moment the BNP are pissing all over everyone, even the numbskulls have cottoned on that street violence or mass protesting is a relic of the past.


No, you'll find that the hard-core of "numbskulls" were expelled from the BNP. Those that are left are more dangerous precisely because they for the most part know that violence has a time and a place rather than being an omnipresent facet of their political behaviour.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because, of course, they and their media organs don't already, do they?



Of course they will, which is why making their job easy is stupid.



> In which case it's a matter of education, not one of supinely conforming so that "the man" won't stigmatise you, because he *will* whatever you do!



 Yes I agree it's also about education. 



> Are you sure you don't mean *"popular"* backing?



Yes I was using it interchangeably, which is sloppy of me.




> No, that's when *you* believe that guerrilla movements should arise. Of course, if everyone *did* wait until "most people supported the cause" or "there was an oppressive system that did not allow for *any means*" (my emphasis), then nothing would ever get done, because a situation where "most people" get a say within this society is pie in the bloody sky, and waiting until we're denied *any mean* of dissent is the counsel of an idiot!!



It's not a matter of what I believe in, rather a debate about the semantics the terminology. I take a Guerrilla movement to mean either a popular armed resistance to an aggressive invader, or attempt by a movement of the people to overthrow a sovereign state. If you don't have popular support, it's an armed terrorist group or a military coup. 

You can't juist start using force or talking about it, if force arises it flows from a popular support and backing. 




> We don't have "a system of democracy in place" in any meaningful way. The system we have, of "parliamentary democracy", is a pseudo-democratic institution that does pretty much (with a few accommodations along the way as the franchise broadened) what it has done since Cromwell's time: assured that the exercise of power remains firmly in the hands of a minority.
> How can you "work with" a system that doesn't even compel your representative to follow the majority will of their constituents?



But unless a vast majority thinks the same you won't achive anything. 




> No, you'll find that the hard-core of "numbskulls" were expelled from the BNP. Those that are left are more dangerous precisely because they for the most part know that violence has a time and a place rather than being an omnipresent facet of their political behaviour.



Something some people on this board are yet to learn themselves.


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 16, 2009)

moon23 said:


> It also provides the state with the perfect PR opportunity to discredit all anarchists as extremists, terrorists etc. I would guess when you say Anarchism to someone around 9/10 people associate it with just random violence, or an absence of any order. Untill 9/10 people associate it with sefl-determiniation, freedom from oppression and real democratic principles you are onto a loser. The same can be said with Socialism.
> 
> Guerrilla movements are ONLY successful when they have the populist backing of the people. If most people supported the cause and there was an oppresive system that did not allow for any means of democratic infulence then that's when Guerrilla movements arise. When there is a system of democracy in place that people have some faith in (however flawed it maybe) then not attempting to work with it will result in an immediate political fail.
> 
> ...


yup


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2009)

moon23 said:


> Of course they will, which is why making their job easy is stupid.


They're going to do it *anyway*, regardless of the pacifism or otherwise of anarchists and activists. It's not about reporting fact, it's about reporting propaganda.


> Yes I agree it's also about education.
> 
> Yes I was using it interchangeably, which is sloppy of me.


It was. Consider yourself scolded. 


> It's not a matter of what I believe in...


In which case it's probably best not to state your beliefs about how "If most people supported the cause and there was an oppresive system that did not allow for any means of democratic infulence then that's when Guerrilla movements arise", because we know from history that guerrilla movements can arise from numerous other circumstances. 


> ...rather a debate about the semantics the terminology. I take a Guerrilla movement to mean either a popular armed resistance to an aggressive invader, or attempt by a movement of the people to overthrow a sovereign state. If you don't have popular support, it's an armed terrorist group or a military coup.


Oi, I like debates about the semantics of the terminology!
By "popular support", do you mean a qualified majority, a simple majority or what, btw?


> You can't juist start using force or talking about it, if force arises it flows from a popular support and backing.


I'm talking about being disciplined and as ready as possible for *anything*, which may or may not include violence. Just sitting round saying "don't talk about direct physical action until it flows from popular support and backing" is poor strategy. 
Baden-Powell had it right with the Scout motto: Be prepared.


> But unless a vast majority thinks the same you won't achive anything.


I'm not trying to "achieve" anything. I'm airing my opinions about the quality of "democracy" in the UK. I don't have any illusions that people will revolt against conditions and poor quality of governance until and unless the governance becomes so oppressive, and the social conditions so grim, that people feel they have little or nothing to lose by revolution. Nonetheless, I still say "be prepared". it does no harm and may benefit you and yours if things do go down the toilet.


> Something some people on this board are yet to learn themselves.


Some people want or need to believe that everything is easily graspable, that "bad" guys are inevitably sunk by their own pride and stupidity, and that "good" always triumphs in the end. A BNP deploying tactical _nous_ doesn't really figure as a "runner" in yellow journalism, or in what some people *want* to believe.


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 17, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm hardly proposing it as a first line of engagement, I'm just saying that setting out that you're happy to play by their rules when even *they* won't stick to them is foolish.



sorry but where did i say 'play by their rules' .. in fact it is the reverse .. it 'insurrectionism and all that stuff that is within the rules .. not the laws mind but within the rules in the sense that capital understands it and can deal with it and if it canlt directly deal with it it recuperates it ..


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Dec 17, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wasn't talking about using their PR against them, I was talking about what appears to be durutti's acceptance of only opposing the establishment on the establishment's terms, and his willingness to avoid anything that might give his cause bad PR.
> 
> Please read what I've actually written next time, *before* committing an act of intellectual onanism over it. Thanks.



In which case I would say 'bad PR' isn't always so _bad_. They do say that all publicity is good publicity, as the BNP know.

To explain what I said, PR (which means propaganda, really), or even ideological things, can be reappropriated. A bit like Chomsky and 'traditional values' or 'conservative'. There are problems with 'traditional values' but it automatically works.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 2, 2010)

Originally Posted by moon23
''At the moment the BNP are pissing all over everyone, even the numbskulls have cottoned on that street violence or mass protesting is a relic of the past.''

It do appear that some of the 'bnp or others are now active on the Daily Mail site as well, it's a possibility, judging from the comments below this article -

Outrage as Islamic extremists vow to march through streets of Wootton Bassett

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240044/Outrage-Islamic-extremists-vow-march-streets-Wootton-Bassett.html 

''North Wiltshire MP James Gray said: 'The people of Wootton Bassett are not interested in politics.''

Does that mean absolutely that none of the people living in Wooton Bassett, ever vote, that's a political act, if they don't vote, how did this M.P. get himself elected ?

''North Wiltshire MP James Gray said: Most people would say they were not qualified to comment on the rightness or wrongness.''

Are the peasants still doffing their caps and touching their forelocks ?

What one wonders about, is why the organisers of the proposed demonstration aren't joining with and getting support from the anti war movement, which would go a long way to keep 'extreme' placards/slogans in check.
After all the anti war movement, is said to have the view that the wars are 'illegal' anyway.
.....[The swp/uaf, is mentioned in dispatches/comments.]
The anti war movement should be in the leadership of any event, not trailing along behind, do people know what is meant by the word 'vanguard' ?


And further, its said that over 50 % of the population is against the wars, which may soon be in Yemen, Somalia, and Nigeria, the cost will be astronomic. 
All one needs is for the government of each country to do a  'musharraf', take the money, let the local politicians help themselves to it, and spend some on their own military.
How soon will we hear revised figure of al-quada in Yemen, up from 2-300 to 2-3 thousand, all of which will have to be paid for, opposing them that is.

A coming election, and now the leader of the conservatives is proposing a 'cross party war committee, or should that be a 'crucifix party war committee' ?

All the conservative M.P.s. voted for the invasion of Iraq, the 'new Labour party [the old one is dead and gone, R.I.P.] split, a minority against, and the Lib-Dems abstained, but now all seem to be in favour of a 'war committee'.
And still we are told that at least a quarter of all present M.P.s will not be standing in the coming election, so who will be ?
.


----------



## sabatical (Jan 3, 2010)

A little music from Nigeria ..

*Fela Kuti - Sorrow Tears And Blood -* 

Dedicated To All African War Child, The Corrupt Leaders, The Political Activists. The Struggle Continues..... 

You Tube......

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMIM5mvh_uA


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 4, 2010)

durruti02 said:


> sorry but where did i say 'play by their rules' .. in fact it is the reverse .. it 'insurrectionism and all that stuff that is within the rules .. not the laws mind but within the rules in the sense that capital understands it and can deal with it and if it canlt directly deal with it it recuperates it ..



I am not convinced an apriori position of legality is the best way to go, all it does is incorprate you voluntarily. Saying that, I am not saying 'illegality is the way to go' either. As usual I prefer a dialectical 'both' depending upon the situation.


----------

