It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[Kuciwalker]

che, that post is half as long as the rest of the page

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
che, that post is half as long as the rest of the page

Sorry.

Neo-Omega made a lot of points to which I wanted to respond.

[DinoDoc]

Now you're banned from complaining about Berz.

[chequita guevara]

I never complained about Berz. I just don't read his long posts.

[NeOmega]

Not exactly. Revolutionaries don't convince people that a revolution is needed. Objective conditions do that. Revolutionaries just try and guide it to a successful conclusion.

So you are hoping for more oppression? You'll get what you wish for, I am sure. America in 20 yearsis going to be teeming with men in black. Many soldiers coming back from Iraq are going to need to get their thrills.

I think the opposite. Staying is delaying the inevitable. Ten years from now, well still be getting hit by IEDs and such.

[q]Very likely. That doesn't mean we'll be defeated.['q]

Eventually, we will lose, or America will crumble... or we will ahev an "honorable end"... a loss.

LotM posted a thread about how al Sadr's support is drying up. His followers are smashed and demoralized, and without the Mosque, they have no money coming in. Very likely, they are finished as a force. I suspect many of the fighters will merge into the nationalist movement, however.

Of course they will, and solidarity will grow between the suppossed ethnic rifts. this is an article from today;

New Iraq Attacks Are More Sophisticated
By KIM HOUSEGO

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The scale and sophistication of militant attacks in Iraq are steadily increasing, with coordinated strikes and complicated ambushes that increasingly hit their targets, officials and analysts said Wednesday.

The spike in bloodshed - more than 200 dead in four days - has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in U.S. troops.

Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, cooperating more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.

``More thought is going into the execution of the attacks,'' said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings of Task Force Olympia, which is trying to bring stability to a swath of northeastern Iraq.

Militants now follow up roadside bomb attacks with a deluge of rocket-propelled grenades instead of fleeing, or fire off mortar rounds to lure soldiers out of their base and into freshly laid mine fields, military commanders say.

In a July attack in Samarra, for example, militants detonated a car bomb and then hammered a military headquarters with a mortar barrage as troops fled the building. Five American soldiers died.

At least 47 people were killed in a car bombing in Baghdad on Tuesday targeting would-be police recruits, the deadliest single strike in the capital in six months.

``The enemy has been able to construct IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) that are more complex, include more rounds in the form of a ``daisy chain,'' and tend to have a higher lethality,'' said Maj. Neal O'Brien of the Army's 1st Infantry Division.

O'Brien also said that an increase in the use of car bombs in the last two months coincided with an influx of foreign fighters with the bomb-making know-how in July.

``They graduated to more coordinated attacks,'' he said.

On Sunday, militants in Baghdad struck the U.S.-guarded Green Zone - the seat of the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy - with their biggest mortar and rocket barrage to date, many of them showing signs of careful aim.

Hours later, guerrillas used a car bomb to disable a U.S. patrol on a main Baghdad thoroughfare before detonating a second car bomb that wrecked a Bradley fighting vehicle sent to assist the patrol. They then opened fire on the wounded crewmen as they fled the vehicle.

``The set of attacks that occurred over the weekend were definitely more simultaneous than in the past,'' said Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for coalition forces in Baghdad.

Analysts say the plethora of armed groups behind the insurgency are increasingly working together.

``As time goes on, various gangs get together and it does become more coordinated,'' said Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert at the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations. ``Groups start small, get know-how and become more lethal over time.''

American commanders, however, insist the stepped-up attacks and the possibility of increased cooperation among militant groups are signs that the insurgents have realized time is running out for them with the onset of elections in January.

``There is a level of desperation associated with the anti-Iraqi forces, they absolutely don't want to see free elections and reconstruction projects work,'' Hastings said.

But the attacks have fueled a growing backlash against the United States and interim Iraqi Prime Minster Ayad Allawi.

``The situation is getting worse day after day and the American are still in the streets,'' said Kawakib Butris, 40, a supermarket worker in Baghdad. ``This government didn't ensure the simplest things to us like security, electricity and other services.''

In response to the growing violence, the Bush administration announced plans this week to divert about $3.5 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds for security and the training of Iraqi forces.

NATO, however, moved close to an agreement on sending hundreds of military instructors to Iraq, with France and the United States narrowing their differences Wednesday over the mission to run a training center for the country's new armed forces.

The plan will likely entail the deployment of 200-300 NATO instructors to Iraq and would complement a much larger U.S.-led operation to build new Iraqi armed forces, which are expected to total 260,000.

Iraqi police and national guardsmen have been the focus of many of the recent attacks, creating a challenge for the United States and Allawi as they strive to strengthen the Iraqi security forces.

The ferocity of the insurgency has also raised new doubts about how effectively Washington and Allawi can carry off the elections - and whether they will be able to wrest control of rebel strongholds such as Fallujah and Ramadi in time to include the cities in the process.

A full-fledged assault may be the only way to restore state authority to Fallujah and Ramadi, even though such a get-tough approach risks alienating the population.

Iraqis, a mostly conservative people, have been deeply angered by some of the practices of the U.S. military, like raiding homes and detaining women, and their failure to restore security more than a year after Saddam Hussein was ousted. While viewing the Americans as infidels or crusaders who want to destroy Islam, many have been won over by what they see as the piety and devotion of Islamic-oriented insurgents.

In places like Fallujah, a hotbed of resistance west of Baghdad, the insurgents have endeared themselves to the local population by spearheading a religious revival and taking over some law enforcement tasks.

``I was very optimistic when the Americans entered Iraq ... but then I was so shocked by their practices that I even joined Fallujah residents in their war against them,'' said Haqi Esmaiel Ibrahim, 25, an accountant at a Baghdad stationery store. ``Because of the bad security situation and kidnap cases, I had to make my two sisters quit school and stay at home.''

The Americans recently launched a series of military operations and opened negotiations with religious and tribal leaders to retake several cities that have fallen into rebel hands, yielding some positive results.

U.S. troops ended their siege of the northwest city of Tal Afar on Tuesday, saying they had cleared it of militants after 12 days of fighting killed dozens of people. The siege ended soon after neighboring Turkey said it would stop cooperating with U.S. forces in Iraq if ethnic Turks continued to be harmed in the crackdown.

On Wednesday, militants fired a rocket-propelled grenade at U.S. and Iraqi soldiers guarding a council building in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. The assault came just days after the Americans negotiated a deal with local leaders to enter the city without risk of attack.

Associated Press reporter Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.


09/15/04 19:45

Would your new Communist America ban all guns?

No, we believe in the right to own guns.

That's good to hear. Now the capitalists will be able to take the government right back... oh wait, no, they'll be impotent militias. Just "dead enders", holdouts from the Bush regime.

I determined enemy, whose motivation is revenge, who dreams and plots of ryears for vengeance, and whose life goal is to destory it's enemy,

Revenge isn't a good goal. Victory is a good goal. Revenge doesn't get us there, and might even hurt our chances.

I was talking of what motivates guerillas.

I also know this: the side with the most firepower wins.

Not always. Sometimes the side with the most firepower refuses to use it.

And why would that be? If they could not engage in total war, as the disasterous effects of bombing their own populace would hurt their cause. This once again makes the battles more personal, and an armed populace becomes a greater threat.

Your signs and chants would be nothing.

And yet with them, the Bolsheviks made a revolution.

and guns....

Yep, cuz they had guns. The government targetted them because they had guns. The whole reason the SWAT team was invented was to deal with the Black Panthers. They were gunned down in their sleep, ambushed at ralleys, murdered in their prison cells. Guns may have made them feel more macho, made their testosterone pump, but the really good work the BPP did was non-violent, like their school breakfast programs, their free grocery give aways, getting doctors to recognize sickle cell anemia as a serious disease, etc.

more mysandry......

Many groups have guns... they were targetted because they were black and had guns. But I'll cede the point, BRANDISHING weapons definitely will not get you any favors from the law enforcement people.

If revolution is to touch America, it will be imposed by those with power.

Revolution in America will come when something shakes the legitimacy of the government, such as the Great Depression or a disasterous war. That breaks people's faith in the government. At that moment, there's a window of opportunity for a mass revolutionary party to overthrow the government and create a new one.

So you hope for a poor economy, or disastrous war? What if instead you see a "velvet revolution" and America begins to becoma communist, as you dream, and religion is removed frim schools, government etc?

Then perhaps you will see the power of an armed populace. Unfortunately, it would be a christian armed populace, and your trained army, a christian army. With out an armed left wing populace.... you can do the math.

If a revolutionary party has been successful in building a mass movement, if it has won the hearts and minds of a significant part of the population and also the military, then a revolution might succeed. All of the important work of building to that point can be done without a gun.

Important indeed, but there would still be the final task....

I will, however, let you in on the fact that comrades who live in poorer white areas are buying guns, for self-defense against extreme rightists. People on the right fringe are talking about a struggle against King George, and thinking that if George is re-selected, the left will revolt and there will be a new civil war. In that case, I did suggest to the comrade that she buy a gun (or two).

You think I don't know in real life a radical socialist or two?

Civil war is a scary thought, and seems impossible, but throw in a crisis or two, another stolen election, (regardless whether it was or not) and you may have to be dealing with armed looters.

I cought two guys in the act trying to break into my car. We had a discussion, and they left. Had I had a gun, they would have gone to jail. Had they run, I'd shot them in the legs.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
che, that post is half as long as the rest of the page

uh oh... you ain't seen nothing yet....

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ned

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort.

No. The point was to protect the States against Federal Power, not the people.

No, the rights of both the States and the People are protected in the bill of rights in general, and in the 2nd Amdt in particular.

You are correct that the 2nd Amdt as interpreted by the current SCOTUS does not protect citizens' right to bear arms at the State level. But we're talking about a Federal law.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Ned

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort.

No. The point was to protect the States against Federal Power, not the people.

No, the rights of both the States and the People are protected in the bill of rights in general, and in the 2nd Amdt in particular.

You are correct that the 2nd Amdt as interpreted by the current SCOTUS does not protect citizens' right to bear arms at the State level. But we're talking about a Federal law.

Straybow, finally someone who understands the Bill of Rights.

As I said before, and as K steadfastly refused to listen, any restriction on powers in the Bill of Rights was directed to the Federal Government because that was what the Constitution was all about its allocation of powers. Thus, you should interpret the Second Amendment to read, "Congress shall pass no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms." There is no restriction on States Rights there. If the States had so interpreted the Second Amendment to restrict their rights in this regard, I am sure no state would have ratified the Bill of Rights.