Encouraging violence is against the rules.

Discussion in 'Protest Advice' started by NathanielFrihet, Jun 25, 2009.

  1. violent but non-lethal

    there is little distinction between "non-violent" sabotage and violent resistance.
    if you use self-defense against a bassij, it is violence. if you use caltrops to
    bring down motorcycles, it is an application of violence. If you damage power
    or communications infrastructure, it is violent interruption of essential community

    make no mistake, sabotage and disabling of collective civilian infrastucture like
    power are banned under the geneva convention. these are violent acts of war.

    the real question is, how much violence are you willing to use?
    are you seeking lethal levels, seeking to hurt enemy personnel
    a corporeal way, or are you applying force to material things?
    how permanent or crippling an effect do you seek to impress?

    once you come to terms with this, you see that there is no difference
    between light and heavy sabotage save a subtle power threshold which
    needs only a slight moral impetus to cross.

    power outages, phone outages, these are transient and minor disturbances.
    the cost incurred to the enemy is not astronomical, and the carry-over is that
    it affects you too.

    you might as well go for more permanent, crippling damage,
    that would target state powers and leave you unscathed.

    switch to guerila tactics. avoid direct battle. strike in stealth.

    they can't police streets, borders, infrastructure, and gas pipelines all at the same time.
    force them on the defensive. make them lose sleep over it.

    keep the pressure on. speed up the war of attrition
  2. Bard Member

    Under the table tactics

    The MEK used strategies that would have been called war if they had been done
    by "sovereign" nations. Since they were not a country, they ended up being
    called "terrorists". In fact, during World War II many operations were
    conducted in secret by government entities. Those operations could not be
    discussed here.

    Many of the methods that have been openly advocated on this board would be
    illegal in most countries, but they are mostly irritants, not lethal.

    Now, what if somebody posted how to jimmy second story windows inside
    guarded compounds, with the idea of conducting secret and very "personal"
    unwanted "visits" on significant occupants. In my opinion, enough of those
    visitations would bring down any regime.

    The bottom line here, is would such instructions be allowed to stand on this
    forum? Betcha 007 film clips would be deleted, too.

    We live in a world of political correctness. Unfortunately, the enemy does not
    recognize such limitations, except that they label things as being something
    other than what they actually are.

    Defeat Theocracy Now!
  3. The Laws of War allow that resistance fighters who carry their weapons in the open, regardless of whether they are uniformed or not, are considered 'lawful combattants' and therefore are guaranteed POW rights under international conventions.

    The Laws of War are not the same as the Criminal Codes.

    So far, the Mods have drawn a distinction between self-defence and pre-emptive attack.
  4. the Asymmetry of Interference

    "Leave Iran to the Iranians - do not interfere" and similar
    slogans have been bombarded all over activist media, some
    of it by the Islamic Regime as a warning to the meddling West,
    and some of it by nationalistic protesters and reformists on
    the streets.

    The real question is, to what extent is there foreign
    intervention, by whom, and should there be more of it?
    what is the difference between intervention and support?

    certainly foreign powers have had a hand in shaping Iran's
    destiny and history, often with mitigated or catastrophic results,
    but while sovereignty may apply amongst nation-states in
    the political arena, a generalized call to inaction or laissez-faire
    seems misguided to me. the key to understanding activism is
    to separate the spheres political from the communal and social.

    Now, totalitarian regimes such as the theocracy, because they
    represent a monopoly of authority, have a real problem seeing
    the difference between official foreign state policies and any
    action from the other estates, be it the spheres of commerce,
    media, or private advocacy.

    When a journalist writes a column lambasting the Ayatollah,
    this is not a foreign state intervention. when a company cancels
    its siemens or nokia contract, this is not a destabilization attack.
    when individuals take a moral act of conscience and decry their
    solidarity for the persecuted masses in Iran, this is not an organized
    zionist conspiracy.

    since Martin Luth King jr's civil rights movement, Mahatma Gandhi's
    Civil Disobedience, and Bernard Kouchner's Droit d'Ingérence we have
    been redefining the role of private conscience acting on the public.
    the public here, means without respect for borders, sovereignty,
    or any of the artificial boundaries we enforce between human beings.

    Conscience is a universal and human virtue which does not stop at a
    frontier line in the desert. It is for these reasons, as an exercise
    of private acts of conscience, that a journalist writes, a CEO sanctions,
    a pop star denounces, and a citizen tweets or joins a hunger strike.

    So while "Western" states operating on the political should stay away,
    their citizens have every right to express their support, lend out a hand.
    this is what a democracy really means. the right to direct action.

    This action can be subtle or severe, simply a moral show of faith,
    a journalistic transmittal and publication of censored information,
    or even counsel in strategies and courses of action to help Iranians
    on the ground.

    Recent days have seen staged protests by bassij vigilantes with symbolic
    mock executions of moderate arabic leaders symapthetic to the West, those
    against hamas, hezbollah; and spumming the old diversionary propaganda
    rhetoric about gaza, zionism, etc. In response to accusations of meddling,
    can't we then shout at the sepah and mullahs: "Leave Gaza to Palestinians?".
    This is the quid-pro-quo of the sponsorship of terror financed by tyranny.

    Here I would like to adress the hypocrisy of all these wretched islamist
    states when it comes to this discourse. Under the virtue of so-called
    islamic charity and muslim brotherhood states like Iran and Syria
    continue to support violent extremist factions abroad. This relationship
    is so direct that Iran is now trucking back and flying back columns
    of armed militias, from lebanon, azerbaijan, afghanistan, wherever.
    Tehran is crawling with foreign fighters from hezbollah, hamas, taliban,
    who are organized, lodged, equipped and armed by the islamic regime.

    Make no mistake, these thugs are not here for free. They were directly
    financed, supported, aided and abetted by Iran and have come back to help
    the iron hand that feeds them. Even if the fighters are not paid directly
    in cash, an exchange of favours, of future aid in their own domestic
    jihads are tacitly on the table. These are not noble freedom fighters.
    These are mercenaries, assassins, jackals of the worst kind.

    Which is the greater interference: pro-democracy activists exercising
    private conscience and showing their solidarity, or essentially organized
    armies of foreign zealot mercenaries, paid to come here and enforce the
    tyranny of a failed state in its last spiteful breath?

    I can honestly say I don't think western media opinion is a licensed
    state propaganda effort: there's enough of a divergence of opinion
    to show this. But there is no doubt the foreign bassij militias are
    a sponsored act of inter-state repression on the part of the Iranian
    regime and its equally undemocratic and belligerent friends.

    Forget these slogans.

    Free your conscience.

    Fight for all freedoms.
  5. Ray Murphy Member

    Who cares? - the mistreatment of Iranian citizens, residents and visitors by the regime, is disturbing us who are outside of Iran, and we're in a position to do something about it.
  6. Bard Member

    There must be some professionals among the good guys

    On a dark and stormy night place a suitable transmitter on the bedroom window
    sill of one or more of the bad guy leaders. If possible, place it under the bed.

    One of those government satellite reception-blocking transmitters might do the
    trick. Whatever is used, it should be something that would cause an uproar.

    Remember the "race horse in the bed" scene from one of the Godfather movies?

    Defeat Theocracy Now!
  7. Regardless of whether or not to promote violence, there is no right to bear arms in Iran. You either have a permit allowing you to bear arms, which has an extensive background check and selection process, or you illegally own a firearm. If you are caught with a firearm and don't have a permit, the punishment is death by hanging. And not the typical noose hanging; they tie your neck and pull you up slowly by a crane. Also, don't think for a second that the Iranian gov't wouldn't hesitate to annihilate millions of their own people just to send a message. I've grown up listening to my parents' stories of the ruthlessness of this government, and have also witnessed firsthand victims as well as their families. They throw you in Evine, they torture you, they beat you till you pee blood, they skin your family members in front of you if you are too old to be beaten up. They starve you for days, then proceed to feed you a shitload of uncooked rice. They then force as much water down your throat as possible, causing all the rice you ate to gain in size. This causes your stomach to explode. You die. This has been ongoing for the past 30 years; it will take much more then a couple peaceful protests and a "green movement" to cause any real change.
  8. Locked. There isn't any need for more discussion on an issue that is not going to change.
  9. Jay Reynolds Member

    I'm not advocating violence or anything, but how could protesters defend themselves?
  10. With cameras; still cameras, video recording cameras.

    Never protest alone! Never! Always protest with others that carry and use cameras. Audio a good idea too, in case of a conversation taking place that would be important to record for future reference.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Tangerine Member

    If you post something against the law, the authorities can require the site owners to hand over your information, and YOU get V&. I just wanted to correct that for you.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins