The philosophy of “Kill the terrorists and their families” is still fucked up even when leftists do it people.
Then you’d be an enemy I guess. By any means necessary means any. If you are comfy enough to “sit out” the revolution and passively condone the current system of mass violence and exploitation because it makes you feel bad then I guess you can have fun being on the receiving end of revolutionary terror.
The whole idea that revolution is some moral decision and that you get to judge it morally is fucking peak liberalism. “We will make no excuses for the terror” doesn’t mean “when they go low, we go high”
Apparently not wanting to unnecessarily bathe in the blood of innocents is too high of a price to ask I guess.
Nobody wants to bathe in the blood of innocents you lib. People are saying exactly what Marx said, which is that we shall make no excuses for the terror. Maybe read the On Violence chapter of Wretched of the Earth by Fanon.
Violence is power. Period. If the other side is willing to use extreme indiscriminate violence but you’re sticking by your principles, you will lose. And when you lose, things won’t go back to normal. They will execute you, rape, murder and enslave your loved ones all because you want to be 100% sure you don’t make an oopsie woopsie and burn down a house that some fascist’s hellspawn lives in.
If the only way to win is for me to murder someone only because they just so happen to be related to someone else who’s bad, I suppose I’ll lose then.
To clarify: I acknowledge that odds are some innocent casualties are inevitable, I’m just saying not to go out of your way to do so and make it a priority.
Good to know your own personal comfort is the most important thing in the world
I’m sorry this isn’t some video game you can max out your honor points in. I’ll be sure to find a bloodless revolution that did not act in a brutal way when confronted with brutality, and I’ll send you their way.
You act like it’s physically impossible to not go out of your way to kill people’s families when, in fact, it very much is.
Counterpoint: Romanovs
give me a break. even the mighty lib chomsky realizes terror can be moral and justified and the only option available to the undergunned and undermanned oppressed.
he’s a lib but hes right here. the example he often uses is the sandinistas who were morally in the right and morally justified and hes correct.
sandinista good us imperialism nuking japan bad those are two different things
Look at some of the tactics used during Westward expansion. When the Native Americans were able to successfully defend territory, the settlers began waging war on the land. Destroying crops, slaughtering Buffalo, and spreading Smallpox. What would you do in response to having your whole way of life threatened with indiscriminate violence and terror?
Natives defending themselves against genocide/extermination isn’t exactly the same thing as the hypothetical revolution that’s always talked about here.
Let’s consider our modern day police force. How should the separated children held captive by ICE feel about the officers who detained their family? Do you think they support the officers going home to their families while they suffer in desolation?
This isn’t really relevant since the officers are the actual perpetrators deserving of retribution. I’m talking about the idea of automatically punishing their families as well.
