American embassy bombing in Turkey blamed on communists, NOT Islamic terrorists - Polidicks

[quote](CNN) -- The suicide bombing in Ankara Friday is a reminder to counterterrorism agencies that it's not just jihadist groups who threaten Western governments and their interests overseas. Pockets of the extreme left and extreme right still consider political violence legitimate -- among them the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party in Turkey. Turkish authorities have blamed the U.S. Embassy attack on the group, better known as DHKP-C, and are in the process of identifying the bomber. Analysts say it is likely the attack had two aims -- to embarrass the Turkish government and to demonstrate the group's hostility to the deployment of Patriot anti-missile batteries on Turkish soil. Several members of the group are thought to be close to the Syrian regime. DHKP-C has a relationship with the Turkish Kurdish separatist group PKK, which is also close to the Syrian government. About one-third of the PKK's fighters are said to be Syrian, according to regional analysts. DHKP-C is viscerally hostile to the Turkish state, the United States and NATO, and has had links with the far-left in Europe.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/world/europe/turkey-explosion-terror-group/index.html?hpt=wo_c1[/url]

Stop that, damnit, we have a bad enough reputation as it is as Communists :v:

That sounds kinda lazy there. I mean nowadays it's either Terrorists, or Communists. Just a personal thought on it.

i feel like the way the article is worded they are trying to associate the bombing with syria in some way...? i mean members might have had ties to syria, but how much you wanna bet they might have had ties in russia, iraq, and the balkans as well?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39466903]i feel like the way the article is worded they are trying to associate the bombing with syria in some way...? i mean members might have had ties to syria, but how much you wanna bet they might have had ties in russia, iraq, and the balkans as well?[/QUOTE] The article does say it has ties to communist groups in the Balkans as well.

Why do I expect the repubs to completely lose their shit?

Just going out and stating this now. Militant communist groups =/= all communists

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;39467230]Just going out and stating this now. Militant communist groups =/= all communists[/QUOTE] No shit? [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;39466901]That sounds kinda lazy there. I mean nowadays it's either Terrorists, or Communists. Just a personal thought on it.[/QUOTE] Technically, they're all terrorists given that they bomb places like that.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467256]No shit? [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] Technically, they're all terrorists given that they bomb places like that.[/QUOTE] Not everybody is as smart as you. I hate it when people associate communism with shit like this when they know nothing about communism itself.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39467266]Not everybody is as smart as you. I hate it when people associate communism with shit like this when they know nothing about communism itself.[/QUOTE] People who associate communism with this stuff is most likely 14 year old edgy scene kids who think anarchy is cool.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467376]People who associate communism with this stuff is most likely 14 year old edgy scene kids who think anarchy is cool.[/QUOTE] Or in general, they associate it with the 'empire of evil'. So basically 1/2 of the US, pretty vague though.

I can't wait for the king of no true scotsmans to come here and preach about this not being real communism. It will happen!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467376]People who associate communism with this stuff is most likely 14 year old edgy scene kids who think anarchy is cool.[/QUOTE] hey man i'm a libertarian/anarchist and i don't think this stuff is cool!

This feels out of place post-USSR.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39467429]Or in general, they associate it with the 'empire of evil'. So basically 1/2 of the US, pretty vague though.[/QUOTE] Great job. You just complained about people generalizing communism and then proceeded to generalize half of an entire country.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;39467606]Great job. You just complained about people generalizing communism and then proceeded to generalize half of an entire country.[/QUOTE] Well that is the attitude I've usually seen from republicans. I did admit it was pretty vague.

While I'm not abstractly opposed to the idea of revolutionary violence myself, the extreme left has had a longer history of terrorism than most other groups. The first and third waves of terrorism were leftist- Anarchists from 1880 until 1930, and communist paramilitaries and conspiracies from 1945 until 1990. And of course, FARC, ELN, PKK, Naxals, NPA, and the like, are still active. So yea, we don't have the best track record. At the risk of placing myself on some watchlist: But what can you expect from revolutionary insurgencies? Yes, they give the political branch of leftism a bad name, but why is it necessarily bad that these groups are enacting the doctrine from a ground level? When it was the CNT-FAI, POUM, and Spanish Communist Party fighting the Falangists, we'll all cheer and hip-hip hooray; and when it's the IWW and CIO fighting the good fight in the streets in Haymarket and Ludlow, then we all give each other a pat on the back- but when it's the same tactics used against the capitalist state or an imperialist power by a guerrilla group, then it's all of a sudden "giving us a bad name"? At which point does it become "bad" violence and "good" violence? It seems to me that the distinction lies only in when the existing culture deems that the fight produced the values that we want. Obviously, we hail the CNT-FAI and CPS as heroes and the CIO and IWW as the good guys because we've since adopted the same stance as them in the popular American, capitalist culture. But that makes me question, then, why revolutionaries and doctrinaires of leftism would as much utter "destroy the capitalists as a class" and "workers' revolution" in the same sentence as "peaceful political reform" and "respect for property and the state". I'm no revolutionary myself, but it seems contradictory that those who believe in the concept, keep it only as an abstract, and chastise those who take revolutionary action to achieve these revolutionary goals. I see the same sort of attitude towards the black bloc, and anarchists who seek to destroy property for the sake of sabotaging capitalist economics. Not that I'm condoning this bombing, or really any bombing or violence. These are just my thoughts.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;39466901]That sounds kinda lazy there. I mean nowadays it's either Terrorists, or Communists. Just a personal thought on it.[/QUOTE] Terrorists are terrorists. These just happened to be terrorists of the Communistic variety, rather than the Islamic brand.

Interesting footnote for terrorism: The "suicide bomber" concept was invented by communist guerrillas (in Sri Lanka if I recall correctly).

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39467696']-snip-[/QUOTE] Sorry if I'm taking this wrong but it sure sounds like you're trying to condone an embassy bombing. Do you realize bombing an embassy does NOTHING? If anything, it causes the country hosting the embassy to crackdown harder! Bombing an embassy is the pinnacle of a bad idea, by bombing an embassy you risk reprisals and beefing up of security. [editline]4th February 2013[/editline] You also act like that there weren't American and British legions formed to defend Spanish interests in the Peninsula during their civil war, if the US/UK/France had an issue with it they would enact laws and stop them.

[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39467754]Sorry if I'm taking this wrong but it sure sounds like you're trying to condone an embassy bombing. Do you realize bombing an embassy does NOTHING? If anything, it causes the country hosting the embassy to crackdown harder! Bombing an embassy is the pinnacle of a bad idea, by bombing an embassy you risk reprisals and beefing up of security. [editline]4th February 2013[/editline] You also act like that there weren't American and British legions formed to defend Spanish interests in the Peninsula during their civil war, if the US/UK/France had an issue with it they would enact laws and stop them.[/QUOTE] no what he is arguing(i think) is that we might have an inconsistent view of violence in our culture. was the violence of the revolutionary war acceptable? what about the violence of the civil war? would a slave revolt be an acceptable use of violence?

[QUOTE=Zambiesv2;39467754]Sorry if I'm taking this wrong but it sure sounds like you're trying to condone an embassy bombing. Do you realize bombing an embassy does NOTHING? If anything, it causes the country hosting the embassy to crackdown harder! Bombing an embassy is the pinnacle of a bad idea, by bombing an embassy you risk reprisals and beefing up of security.[/QUOTE] No, no, I'm not condoning the violence. I'm just stating that it seems contradictory to say one thing and act the other. Attacking the infrastructure of an "enemy" state- perhaps because of its symbolism, or perhaps because of its function- is not necessarily against any revolutionary tenet- it would seem that it would be in line with the idea of liberation ideologies. So why does the left chastise violence today, yet hail violent revolutionaries like Lenin, Makhno, Che, Castro, Berkman, et al? Organizations like the IWW and CPA were forged from insurrection, sabotage, and violence against property and often people, and these organizations are held in high esteem for their contribution to the class struggle. I'm just posing a difficult question, is all. I'm not condoning one way or the other.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39467817'] So why does the left chastise violence today, yet hail violent revolutionaries like Lenin, Makhno, Che, Castro, Berkman, et al? Organizations like the IWW and CPA were forged from insurrection, sabotage, and violence against property and often people, and these organizations are held in high esteem for their contribution to the class struggle. I'm just posing a difficult question, is all. I'm not condoning one way or the other.[/QUOTE] i think the contradiction comes from the idea that we believe that newer methodology is either more effective or more moral to achieve revolution. galileo was a smart motherfucker and is revered in science, but if i started teaching the galilean model of planetary orbit, i would be laughed out of every school in the country. we have realized that certain ideas aren't actually correct, even though they might be noteworthy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467735]Interesting footnote for terrorism: The "suicide bomber" concept was invented by communist guerrillas (in Sri Lanka if I recall correctly).[/QUOTE] Interesting, I honestly did not know that.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39467817']No, no, I'm not condoning the violence. I'm just stating that it seems contradictory to say one thing and act the other. Attacking the infrastructure of an "enemy" state- perhaps because of its symbolism, or perhaps because of its function- is not necessarily against any revolutionary tenet- it would seem that it would be in line with the idea of liberation ideologies. So why does the left chastise violence today, yet hail violent revolutionaries like Lenin, Makhno, Che, Castro, Berkman, et al? Organizations like the IWW and CPA were forged from insurrection, sabotage, and violence against property and often people, and these organizations are held in high esteem for their contribution to the class struggle. I'm just posing a difficult question, is all. I'm not condoning one way or the other.[/QUOTE] I think violence was the only way to achieve their goals back then, especially with Lenin and the Russian Empire. Today, the world is filled with peaceful democratic societies in which they can achieve their ends without bullets but with speech.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467920]I think violence was the only way to achieve their goals back then, especially with Lenin and the Russian Empire. Today, the world is filled with peaceful democratic societies in which they can achieve their ends without bullets but with speech.[/QUOTE] But you come back to the age-old arguments: 1. The state would not allow for its abolition. 2. Democracy is rigged by capitalism, and capitalists would not allow themselves to be voted away. 3. Capitalist states have provided a means of appeasement to the working class by exploiting workers of different countries in their place. If the final goal is a workers' state, then at which point would we be able to reform, vote, or organize in such a system? Are the methods of today truly better? I would argue that the working class has choosen a life of higher safety for moderate gains, over a life of opposition for full liberation, and that social democracy or political reform will not lead us to the end goal, but rather only direct action, both in economics and in politics (though not violence or insurrection, however), would get us nearer. Is there a law-abiding method by which to achieve these goals? Can the workers seize power without undermining the system? I don't want to see the bullet anymore than anyone else, but will the ballot do?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39467920]I think violence was the only way to achieve their goals back then, especially with Lenin and the Russian Empire. [B]Today, the world is filled with peaceful democratic societies in which they can achieve their ends without bullets but with speech.[/B][/QUOTE] Quite the exaggeration.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39467997]Quite the exaggeration.[/QUOTE] A generalization, but I think a fair one compared to the world Lenin lived in.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39467983']But you come back to the age-old arguments: 1. The state would not allow for its abolition. 2. Democracy is rigged by capitalism, and capitalists would not allow themselves to be voted away. 3. Capitalist states have provided a means of appeasement to the working class by exploiting workers of different countries in their place. If the final goal is a workers' state, then at which point would we be able to reform, vote, or organize in such a system? Are the methods of today truly better? I would argue that the working class has choosen a life of higher safety for moderate gains, over a life of opposition for full liberation, and that social democracy or political reform will not lead us to the end goal, but rather only direct action, both in economics and in politics (though not violence or insurrection, however), would get us nearer. Is there a law-abiding method by which to achieve these goals? Can the workers seize power without undermining the system? I don't want to see the bullet anymore than anyone else, but will the ballot do?[/QUOTE] A ballot won't and a bullet sure as hell won't. A revolution with extremists from the proletariat leading it is not a good way to have equality and fairness, because we've seen what happens.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;39466834]Stop that, damnit, we have a bad enough reputation as it is as Communists :v:[/QUOTE] ready to get persecuted?!