Why not declare war on terror?

In my intro-thread, I wrote about how far-right groups and lone-wolfs have been involved in terrorism in Norway, Sweden, Italy, the US during the last year. But I forgot Germany, a rather nasty case involving the "national socialists underground" a small organization on a long-lasting killing spree.

So I was thinking... Why not re-decleare war on terror? We continue the tradition from the Bush-era, with some minor changes.

It will be a lot of high drama, elite-police-squads knocking down doors, and loads of new folks on Guantanamo

Or even better: We could find some Dracula-style castle in Eastern Europe somewhere, and place them there. It is important to do it with style.

This sounds like some crazy authoritarian fetish. You actually suggested locking up fascists in Bran Castle, I presume your methods of torture on them will be no less gruesome than was Vlad's?

Counter-revolutionaries (whether fascist, liberal or whatever) will be taken care of either in an open war or be taken into custody and jailed by the revolutionaries themselves. There is no need to create a Stasi like organization to seek out anyone who may have sympathized with right wing organizations in the past.

I'm sure many reactionaries are sitting at home in front of their computer screen getting a hard on about how they're going to lock all us lefties up in camps come their "day of redemption", what makes you any better?

Nothing. I am just angry because they mock Mussolini and Franco and stuff. Trying to be all "socialist" for some reason.

Al-Qaida have not bombed anyone for a long time, and now we are in a wave of lone-wolf terrorism. (another reason to be angry at the new and degenerated far-right)

Why not change the war on terror to fit with the new times? Every tradition needs to be adapted once in a while.

No need for torture in my opinion. I never understood this Bushist fetish with water and loud music in cramped rooms. I am very open-minded about Human-rights, and the possibility of adapting inprisonment to fit with the standard.

Why should far-rightists be left alone, when radical muslims are not?

Confusion wrote:Why should far-rightists be left alone, when radical muslims are not?

Scapegoating Muslims is a tactic of the reactionaries. Any "far-rightist" that is willing to lay down his arms and be assimilated into the new society should be left alone. I believe the user CeltIberian here said that the revolutionaries should have no problem directing nationalist minded people into accepting a socialist program and assimilating them into the new society. I agree with this.

Any counter revolutionary is a threat to the revolution, it matters very little whether they look up to Mussolini or von Mises.

Pantheon there is just one problem.

Counter-revolutionaries wouldn't be fighting an open war.
It would obviously be a guerrilla war which would require something better than a conventional army. Unless the counter-revolutionaries had the numbers, support, as well as the supplies and tactics to fight a conventional war and win I highly doubt it would happen.

I am an authoritarian so my stance is obvious against dissidents, but this doesn't classify against just reactionary Muslims. Instead this would go against all reactionary groups that raise arms which either are actively fighting within the nation itself, or attempting to acquiring support,funding, and weaponry from outside the country.

Scapegoats have nothing to do with it, this is a real problem and cannot be solved by some bombs, and an army like fighting an imperial power.
Instead it requires agencies which could infiltrate such groups, and I also feel that a prison would be necessary to extract information.

How to get such information though out of captives is something I cannot think of though, other than torture(not reliable since eventually a person will admit to anything to make it stop) what options are there? I mean after you're in prison for committing crimes for a terror group(ANY group which uses terror to reach its final goal) what do you have to lose?

If an agency were formed it shouldn't be targeting past members which are no longer associated, it should be against current members, and the people whom supply them. Past members are merely resources that could be used for information about other members of the group that may not have given up.

This isn't something that can really be avoided, in a post-revolutionary country it is a necessity since imperialists will try to topple it through a variety of methods.

Balkan Beast wrote:Counter-revolutionaries wouldn't be fighting an open war.
It would obviously be a guerrilla war which would require something better than a conventional army. Unless the counter-revolutionaries had the numbers, support, as well as the supplies and tactics to fight a conventional war and win I highly doubt it would happen.

Perhaps open war was the wrong term to use; you are correct that it would assume the form of Guerilla and urban warfare.

I am an authoritarian so my stance is obvious against dissidents, but this doesn't classify against just reactionary Muslims. Instead this would go against all reactionary groups that raise arms which either are actively fighting within the nation itself, or attempting to acquiring support,funding, and weaponry from outside the country.

I just didn't appreciate the equating of radical Muslims with "right wing reactionaries", considering as often as I find myself in disagreement with radical Islamists, I find them to be of a remarkably higher order than current day right wing reactionaries in the United States.

Scapegoats have nothing to do with it, this is a real problem and cannot be solved by some bombs, and an army like fighting an imperial power.
Instead it requires agencies which could infiltrate such groups, and I also feel that a prison would be necessary to extract information.

Perhaps a special force for extracting information and rooting out counter revolutionaries; what I am opposed to is the rounding up of people simply for having personal views that might be considered reactionary. Such ideas are absurd.

How to get such information though out of captives is something I cannot think of though, other than torture(not reliable since eventually a person will admit to anything to make it stop) what options are there? I mean after you're in prison for committing crimes for a terror group(ANY group which uses terror to reach its final goal) what do you have to lose?

When fighting a war, I would say extract the information by any means necessary. For those who commit crimes against the revolution execution is really the only way to safeguard the revolution.

If an agency were formed it shouldn't be targeting past members which are no longer associated, it should be against current members, and the people whom supply them. Past members are merely resources that could be used for information about other members of the group that may not have given up.

All's you need do is cut off the head. No need to ruthlessly extirpate peons of said organizations, though the organizations themselves should be banned.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I just didn't appreciate the equating of radical Muslims with "right wing reactionaries", considering as often as I find myself in disagreement with radical Islamists, I find them to be of a remarkably higher order than current day right wing reactionaries in the United States.

They could be compared to other religious fanatics of other faiths but in my opinion they are little different from any other type of terrorist.
They are both reactionary, radical Islamists are just more extreme in their tactics and their end goal. What you consider a right wing reactionary in the states though I cannot say anything about, that's too broad to comment on.

Perhaps a special force for extracting information and rooting out counter revolutionaries; what I am opposed to is the rounding up of people simply for having personal views that might be considered reactionary. Such ideas are absurd.

This is why I dislike previous "communist" countries. To put down someone because of their views is something that should never be done, if they take actions to implement them though that use violence, or spread unrest that is an entirely different matter.

When fighting a war, I would say extract the information by any means necessary. For those who commit crimes against the revolution execution is really the only way to safeguard the revolution.

I suppose I could agree with this, but what goes against the revolution has not been the same in different countries.
For example in China, not meeting a recruitment quota during the civil war could land you imprisoned/executed.

All's you need do is cut off the head. No need to ruthlessly extirpate peons of said organizations, though the organizations themselves should be banned.

This can be said for some organizations, but many operate with independent cells that have little contact with the upper hierarchy, so basically a hydra.

Sorry for the long time it has taken me to reply to this, I have been rather busy lately.

Balkan Beast wrote:They could be compared to other religious fanatics of other faiths but in my opinion they are little different from any other type of terrorist. They are both reactionary, radical Islamists are just more extreme in their tactics and their end goal. What you consider a right wing reactionary in the states though I cannot say anything about, that's too broad to comment on.

I only consider them to be a step above bourgeois imperialism due to the fact that they are at least fighting for some higher ideal, rather than crass material and economic motives. I dislike many aspects of their radicalism, but simply find it to be a step above burning down nations and throwing Mickey D's on the street corner.

This is why I dislike previous "communist" countries. To put down someone because of their views is something that should never be done, if they take actions to implement them though that use violence, or spread unrest that is an entirely different matter.

Agreed, though I can't say I wholly dislike all previous Communist/Socialist nations.

I suppose I could agree with this, but what goes against the revolution has not been the same in different countries.
For example in China, not meeting a recruitment quota during the civil war could land you imprisoned/executed.

You are right, conditions could be different in every country. As for what will be considered counter-revolutionary here in the States, I can't say exactly. Only those actions which are aimed at bringing down the revolution and the newly formed worker's State.

This can be said for some organizations, but many operate with independent cells that have little contact with the upper hierarchy, so basically a hydra.

Perhaps a couple, I am very familiar with the tactic of operating in cells. To say that the majority of reactionary groups in the USA (again, I am not sure where you're from, probably the Balkans), operate in such a manner is probably an overestimation of their organizing ability.

Pantheon Rising wrote:I only consider them to be a step above bourgeois imperialism due to the fact that they are at least fighting for some higher ideal, rather than crass material and economic motives. I dislike many aspects of their radicalism, but simply find it to be a step above burning down nations and throwing Mickey D's on the street corner.

I dislike it also but I consider them one in the same. Islamists just infuriate me more

Agreed, though I can't say I wholly dislike all previous Communist/Socialist nations.

I like some qualities of all of them, as I do with the ideologies they had(even though quite a few didn't stay true to the doctrine).

You are right, conditions could be different in every country. As for what will be considered counter-revolutionary here in the States, I can't say exactly. Only those actions which are aimed at bringing down the revolution and the newly formed worker's State.

I suppose it varies on the situation. There is a fine line though between combating revolutionaries, and just being a tyrannical power like the previous governments.

Perhaps a couple, I am very familiar with the tactic of operating in cells. To say that the majority of reactionary groups in the USA (again, I am not sure where you're from, probably the Balkans), operate in such a manner is probably an overestimation of their organizing ability.

I am from Serbia, expat'd to the states. I do not consider american reactionaries to operate in this manner, they after all are not dealing with hardships other than the "extinction of their race". I assume you mean the fascists and neo nazis, their organization capabilities are pitiful in comparison to actual groups that fight for their cause instead of just whining about jews, red scum, and so on.

As for the Corporations though, they are a powerful force to be reckoned with, they are the reactionaries that would cause serious problems not marginal groups of extremists that do little more than occassionaly beat political opponents/minorities, and host concerts.

But my knowledge of these groups in the United States in limited, the only thing they could really be compared to are groups like the AFA, and those militias in the states. But the groups that actually operate training camps, and have some kind of arsenal are a minimal minority of an already small minority.