Naxalites v. Corporate Shills

[lord of flies]

BBC Article

Maoist rebels have killed at least 72 Indian soldiers in a series of attacks on security convoys in the central state of Chhattisgarh, police say.

 

Troops were on patrol in dense jungle in a remote part of Dantewada district when rebels opened fire on them and set off explosives, police say.

 

Rescue teams were also ambushed. Police say fighting is continuing.

 

It is the biggest loss of life security forces have suffered since launching a recent offensive against the rebels.

 

Nearly 50,000 federal paramilitary troops and tens of thousands of policemen are taking part in the operation in several states.

 

Thousands of people have died during the rebels' 20-year fight for communist rule in large swathes of rural India, known as the "red corridor".

 

'Trap'

 

Details of the attacks in Dantewada district remain sketchy. Reports say fighting is still going on in the area.

 

Police say the rebels initially attacked a convoy of the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the Talmetla area.

 

However, India's Home Minister P Chidambaram said it appeared that the forces had "walked" into a rebel ambush.

 

"Something has gone very wrong. They seem to have walked into a trap set by the [Maoists] and casualties are quite high," he said.

 

RK Vij, a spokesman for the CRPF, told the BBC that 67 bodies of security personnel had been recovered from the site of the fighting.

 

"The injured troops have been evacuated by helicopter. More reinforcements have been sent," Mr Vij said.

 

The rebels also attacked troops sent to rescue their colleagues, police said.

 

"Fighting is still carrying on in the area, and we're having great difficulty getting news from there," police official Ashok Dwivedi told the Reuters news agency from Chhattisgarh state capital, Raipur.

 

Talks call

 

The latest attacks come two days after rebels killed at least 10 policemen and injured 10 more in a landmine attack on a police bus in the eastern state of Orissa.

 

The rebels say they will step up attacks unless the government halts its offensive against them.

 

Mr Chidambaram has said troops will intensify the offensive if the rebels do not renounce violence and enter peace talks.

 

The Maoists want four senior leaders freed from jail and the offensive halted before any talks.

 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has described the Maoist insurgency as India's "greatest internal security challenge".

 

The Maoists say they are fighting for the rights of the rural poor who they say have been neglected by governments for decades.

The Naxalites are Marxist rebels with significant Maoist influence. The Indian government is attempting to drive local peoples off their ancestral lands so that they can sell rural, resource-rich west India down the river to corporate ****s. The Naxalites are a guerilla movement that opposes this.

 

Who do you support?

[I want teh kotor 3]

The government. Why? Because they're the ****ing government, and the other dudes are rebels. The fact that they're Commie rebels doesn't help.

[lord of flies]

The government. Why? Because they're the ****ing government, and the other dudes are rebels. The fact that they're Commie rebels doesn't help.

Libertarian supports the seizure of land without recompense by the government. News at eleven.

[I want teh kotor 3]

The government. Why? Because they're the ****ing government, and the other dudes are rebels. The fact that they're Commie rebels doesn't help.

Libertarian supports the seizure of land without recompense by the government. News at eleven.

 

Libertarian opposes communists. News at eleven.

[lord of flies]

Libertarian opposes communists. News at eleven.

"How dare these people defend their lands via violent means, if they do so under the premises of an ideology I DON'T LIKE."

[Slowtrain]

You can't blow people away because you don't like their politics. Down that road there is only chaos and death. Doesn't matter what side you are on.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Slowtrain

[I want teh kotor 3]

Libertarian opposes communists. News at eleven.

"How dare these people defend their lands via violent means, if they do so under the premises of an ideology I DON'T LIKE."

 

The irony of this situation just struck me: if it were a Communist government seizing land, they'd be jumping up and down in joy. Anyway:

 

I strongly disagree with what the Indian govt. is doing here. Its theft, pure and simple.

 

They are, however, the lesser of two evils here. The rebels are going about their opposition in a way that is utterly unacceptable. Murder is NOT the way to address government grievances- that's the way of brutes and savages. The government's theft is less bad than the rebels' murder and violence.

[lord of flies]

You can't blow people away because you don't like their politics. Down that road there is only chaos and death. Doesn't matter what side you are on.

Actually, you can. And it has proven to be a fairly effective tactic. But that's irrelevant, because the Naxalites are engaged in armed resistance as part of a policy of rational self defense, rather than because they "don't like" the politics of India.

The irony of this situation just struck me: if it were a Communist government seizing land, they'd be jumping up and down in joy.

The irony of the situation is that if it were a Communist government, you would be totally behind the actions of the Naxalites.

They are, however, the lesser of two evils here. The rebels are going about their opposition in a way that is utterly unacceptable. Murder is NOT the way to address government grievances- that's the way of brutes and savages. The government's theft is less bad than the rebels' murder and violence.

lol like you don't support castle law. The Naxalites have no way to defend themselves other than through violence. What else are they going to do? Nonviolent resistance has been tried, quite a bit, by these tribes, but it hasn't worked out. Voting is obviously not going to work because a lot of people in India ultimately do not give a **** about the people who are getting forced off their land, enough that parliamentarianism is never going to work out (not that it's a very effective tactic anyway).

[Slowtrain]

You can't blow people away because you don't like their politics. Down that road there is only chaos and death. Doesn't matter what side you are on.

Actually, you can. And it has proven to be a fairly effective tactic. But that's irrelevant, because the Naxalites are engaged in armed resistance as part of a policy of rational self defense, rather than because they "don't like" the politics of India.

 

 

If you want to give them that much credit, that's cool.

 

In the end though it always boils down to not liking someone's politics and the way they run the show. Which is legitimate. Solving the problem with a firearm, however, is not. It's not OK when the US government does it; it's not OK when the Naxalites do it.

[lord of flies]

If you want to give them that much credit, that's cool.

 

In the end though it always boils down to not liking someone's politics and the way they run the show. Which is legitimate. Solving the problem with a firearm, however, is not. It's not OK when the US government does it; it's not OK when the Naxalites do it.

I believe this is an excellent representation of what was being talked about in a previous thread titled "An interesting analysis of liberalism."

He may condemn CEO's for oppressing, dispossessing and starving millions in India but he reserves his real hatred for the revolutionaries who shoot them.

There is a firm, clear moral difference between the imperialists suppressing native peoples, and the natives fighting back against the imperialists. In this case, the Indian government is doing what is effectively old-style imperialism, forcing native peoples off ancestral land via violent means to steal their ****. The natives are completely justified in applying force in response.

[Slowtrain]

I believe this is an excellent representation of what was being talked about in a previous thread titled "An interesting analysis of liberalism."

He may condemn CEO's for oppressing, dispossessing and starving millions in India but he reserves his real hatred for the revolutionaries who shoot them.

 

 

Yeah, I read that in the other thread. I thought it was stupid then; I think it's stupid now.

 

There is a firm, clear moral difference between the imperialists suppressing native peoples, and the natives fighting back against the imperialists. In this case, the Indian government is doing what is effectively old-style imperialism, forcing native peoples off ancestral land via violent means to steal their ****. The natives are completely justified in applying force in response.

 

I'm not arguing the validity or lack thereof of their political gripes. Everybody has poltical gripes; everybody thinks there's are more valid than everyone else's. SOP for humanity, you know.

 

My issue is that once one accepts and validates killing in the name of an ideology, any ideology, they can't complain when others do the same.

 

Personally, I think that applauding the death of a hundred human beings under any circumstances is pretty much not OK.

[Tigranes]

The government. Why? Because they're the ****ing government, and the other dudes are rebels. The fact that they're Commie rebels doesn't help.

 

I'm starting to think kotor is the hidden antithesis to LOF.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am for the Naxalites in this, but I don't think they will win. If you are facing an opponent that is far stronger than you, seeking to take what you have then destroy what they covet. In this case, instead of fighting government forces, make the land they want to take unusable.

[lord of flies]

Yeah, I read that in the other thread. I thought it was stupid then; I think it's stupid now.

That's because you have no cohesive moral system. Unless you count "a bloo bloo, killing is bad." Which I don't.

I'm not arguing the validity or lack thereof of their political gripes. Everybody has poltical gripes; everybody thinks there's are more valid than everyone else's. SOP for humanity, you know.

 

My issue is that once one accepts and validates killing in the name of an ideology, any ideology, they can't complain when others do the same.

 

Personally, I think that applauding the death of a hundred human beings under any circumstances is pretty much not OK.

Well, "personally" I think that going "a bloo bloo" over some colonialist douchebags getting killed when they try to steal people's lands is dumb and ****ty.

[Gorgon]

If the Maoists somehow managed to win and overthrow the established order the country would be run by a small cadre of nationalist-Marxists who would mobilise the people in enormous public works projects and generally run the economy into the ground. If a guerilla movement rejects democracy, dialogue, power sharing, etc. it's difficult to get anywhere negotiating with them, cf. FARC.

[Walsingham]

If the Maoists somehow managed to win and overthrow the established order the country would be run by a small cadre of nationalist-Marxists who would mobilise the people in enormous public works projects and generally run the economy into the ground. If a guerilla movement rejects democracy, dialogue, power sharing, etc. it's difficult to get anywhere negotiating with them, cf. FARC.

 

What he said.

 

As usual LoF mocks himself far more effectively than we could ever hope to.

[lord of flies]

If the Maoists somehow managed to win and overthrow the established order the country would be run by a small cadre of nationalist-Marxists who would mobilise the people in enormous public works projects and generally run the economy into the ground. If a guerilla movement rejects democracy, dialogue, power sharing, etc. it's difficult to get anywhere negotiating with them, cf. FARC.

*posts insane reinterpretation of reality under an unlikely condition irrelevant to the current discussion*

 

*pretends he is correct because of it*

 

The Naxalites basically just want the Indian government to stop pushing tribes off their land. They reject the election process in India because it's ****ty and doesn't do **** for the people they are trying to defend. They are willing to engage in dialogue if the Indian government was really willing to; but they're not, and that's why they (the Indian government/police) are calling for the Naxalites to give up violence and enter "peace talks" while they keep Naxalite leaders in prison and keep the offensive going.

[Gfted1]

Thousands of people have died during the rebels' 20-year fight for communist rule in large swathes of rural India, known as the "red corridor".

 

Long term civil wars like this blow my mind. 20 YEARS! Seriously? Arent there like a billion plus people in India? Why dont they mobilize, oh I dunno, 100,000-200,000 of their troops and go stomp a mudhole in the rebels? This could have been over in 6 months.

[Slowtrain]

forget it.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Slowtrain

[lord of flies]

Thousands of people have died during the rebels' 20-year fight for communist rule in large swathes of rural India, known as the "red corridor".

 

Long term civil wars like this blow my mind. 20 YEARS! Seriously? Arent there like a billion plus people in India? Why dont they mobilize, oh I dunno, 100,000-200,000 of their troops and go stomp a mudhole in the rebels? This could have been over in 6 months.

- someone who does not understand guerilla warfare, 2010.

[Gfted1]

Thousands of people have died during the rebels' 20-year fight for communist rule in large swathes of rural India, known as the "red corridor".

 

Long term civil wars like this blow my mind. 20 YEARS! Seriously? Arent there like a billion plus people in India? Why dont they mobilize, oh I dunno, 100,000-200,000 of their troops and go stomp a mudhole in the rebels? This could have been over in 6 months.

- someone who does not understand guerilla warfare, 2010.

 

Oh yes, right, because stomping a mudhole in a poorly armed group of "guerilla" warriors never works. Well except for the North and South American Indians, Palistinians, Jews, France, etc... I mean, thats just the last 250 years, do we need to go further back in history?

[lord of flies]

Oh yes, right, because stomping a mudhole in a poorly armed group of "guerilla" warriors never works. Well except for the North and South American Indians, Palistinians, Jews, France, etc... I mean, thats just the last 250 years, do we need to go further back in history?

Guerilla warfare relies on the tacit acceptance of the majority of the populace in the areas it operates. To attack with brutality and strength against such a foe requires overwhelming and genocidal force, and given that there are a lot of people in the Red Corridor and the disproportionate and unwarranted application of violence is what gives the Naxalites their local support, there is no way to successfully apply it against them.

 

All your examples involve a smaller, "foreign" populace being crushed by a larger, militarized populace. India is not about to make a settler state out of the red corridor.

[Pidesco]

Oh yes, right, because stomping a mudhole in a poorly armed group of "guerilla" warriors never works. Well except for the North and South American Indians, Palistinians, Jews, France, etc... I mean, thats just the last 250 years, do we need to go further back in history?

 

Actually, if you're fighting an irregular war you need, at least, to take out ten of their numbers for every 1 of yours who dies, to have a decent chance of winning the war. Although, if the irregulars have the complete support of the general population, you might as well call it quits and throw in the towel right at the start. Whether they are well armed or not doesn't really matter. They can do all the damage they need with home made bombs, AK47s and RPGs.

 

20th century irregular warfare is hell for conventional armies.

[Gfted1]

Although, if the irregulars have the complete support of the general population, you might as well call it quits and throw in the towel right at the start.

 

Recent history doesnt seem to bear this out. Every example I provided had the "complete support of the general population" (who wants to be conquered?) yet they all got their asses handed to them. The North and South American Indians outnumbered their conquerers millions to one, had home field advantage, had logistical and supply advantage and still lost. Why did they lose? Because they were out gunned. That and a little problem with smallpox.

[Pidesco]

Although, if the irregulars have the complete support of the general population, you might as well call it quits and throw in the towel right at the start.

 

Recent history doesnt seem to bear this out. Every example I provided had the "complete support of the general population" (who wants to be conquered?) yet they all got their asses handed to them. The North and South American Indians outnumbered their conquerers millions to one, had home field advantage, had logistical and supply advantage and still lost. Why did they lose? Because they were out gunned. That and a little problem with smallpox.

 

 

The wars between American Indians and European colonizers were conventional warfare, not irregular warfare.