Has anyone been critical of Rojava

[Heloin]

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Half the victims of the Holocaust were not Jewish, and the Cambodian Genocide wasn't targeting just any one group.

Genocide denial/apologism is bad.

1. So is a simple military campaign Genocide. If the goal is to kill as much enemy forces as possible, even in self defense.Is Killing rapist and thief in masses genocide.

2.The Holocaust also included Gypsies, Slavic people and other racial groups. It also included political dissidence, sexual deviants, artist and disabled or mentally ill people. It deserves the title of genocide because most of it was targeted at racial and ethnic groups.

3. Well, The Holodomer did not have a defined ethnic targeted at all. We are following slightly different definitions. Honestly, it affected every aspect of Soviet society negatively.

1. If your goal is only to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, probably yes since that's not the point of a war. Comparing millions of innocent people staved to death by deliberate Soviet polices to rapists doesn't shine well on you.

2. So the Cambodian Genocide doesn't deserve the title going by that logic.

3. It overwhelming effected the Ukrainian people and was a caused and exacerbated by deliberate polices by the Soviet Union.

Rojava has mostly been alright. Very encouraging bright light in the darkness that is the middle east.

*Reads OP's contributions to the thread*

... but I see the object of this thread isn't actually to discuss Rojava, but just to diss them for every single little thing they have done. Including defending themselves from ISIS. In a civil war. Yawn.

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

Not what anyone is saying.

[Communal concils]

]

1. That really depends on what you mean by atrocity. Honestly, everything a state does is a atrocity to an anarchist.

Nope.

If we talking about the government just killing people, I'll say that it depends on the person being killed. Did they do anything wrong, did they have a motive?

"It's okay for an authoritarian regime to slaughter millions of people if they kill the right people!"

The Bolsheviks were right in suppression sympathies of the white Russians. The whites failed to have great victories in the great war, they failed to improve living conditions, and did not offer even basic concessions to the working class.

TIL'd literally everyone the USSR's government ever murdered were simply all members of the White Movement and not a single innocent person.

10/10

For places for Cuba, it is even more meaningful. Especially when lot's of the dissidence are members of the Batista government. I guess the privilege rich that taked advantage of workers,shouldn't be beaten.

Which totally justifies any and all authoritarian regimes murdering innocent people as well, amirite?

Even non-socialist revolutions like the Islamic revolution of Iran were justified. The people of that regime toppled a leader that shove things into the backsides of people,and rise up against bad economic conditions.

>TFW revolutions that cause great deals of oppression are justified solely because of "muh economics"

2. Well, Famines in the USSR were of several factors. One is that Russia experience a world war and a civil war. Another is that the weather did not help, another is that their was economic miscalculations and the final main point is that the rich landlords burn their property(because if they can't have it, then one can).

Wow, you're quite literally denying the hand the Stalinist regime had in helping lead to the deaths of millions in the Holodomor. Amazing.

You have literally no fucking ground to stand on to accuse anyone of anything bad if this is the game you're playing.

3. It depends on the people being oppress. point 1 is all about that. Things are not bad for the sake of "Badness', but only the consequence are reason are the true factors.

"Oppressing millions of people is okay if you oppress the right people!"

4. So Rojava shouldn't seek out and kill ISIS sleeper cells?

Weird how I didn't say that.

I see that as Oppression of ISIS, which is good in my opinion.

That's not oppression. That's self-defense.

It's good for ISIS members to be stripped of human rights.

No.

5. Anarchist have been doing that. Marxist-Leninist have at least had gain popular support in various societies, and it still does. How come I barely see anarchist movements in the third world, and How come the anarchist have not created a society that has lasted more than 3 years. So It is the Libertarian socialist that are the true elitist.

The Zapatistas have been going on for 25 years now, and Rojava's been going on for 5, so you're entirely wrong there. Also, the fact that you don't see them doesn't mean you've made any effort to find them.

1. Simplistic Moralism

2. Simplistic Moralism. You clearly don't know that the world is not that simply. Execution and punishment are not bad in of themselves. The purpose and consequence is the only true concern. If people were rape, then the rapist should be killed. If a terrorist bombed a mass gathering, then they should face harsh conditions. Anarchist are childish. They assume that things are bad for the sake of it.Anarchist only know to mock and criticize, and they offer nothing but fairy tales.

3. Still simplistic. If you suffered from economic exploitation, then it's natural for you to feel bad. In Medieval times, Feudalism was the major system of the time. Peasants did lot's of work, and they did not get good living conditions. Feudalism was a economic system that prevented generation of families from ranking up the classes. Some how, It's suddenly bad when they upraise. They are then rebelling against "God" and the old order. It's also suddenly bad to punish the leader and higher classes that remove prosperity for your people. If the new order of a revolution improves conditions and access to resources, then the people are liberated.


4. Strawmen. It's bad when the Bolsheviks remove the white movement, which was trying to squash their movement, but some how Rojava isn't doing the same with ISIS.

5. Anarchist like to rename everything. That's not a state " It a confederation of Municipalities", that's not a leader ", It's a guide".

Rojava is oppressive to ISIS, it's simple. Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power - Merriam Webster dictionary
Rojava has military, and it has leadership. There are videos on YouTube of rojavan troops Torturing ISIS members, which isn't a problem a problem to me. Why don't you just watch it. Honestly, the torture is against the will of the soldiers being killed. Also, Oppression and self-defense don't contradict. There are nations that send dangerous criminals to remote prisons, where they are isolated in the name of public safety. Perhaps, some of these people are heros to anarchist, and I'm sure that anarchist want to abolish prisons(Which Rojava has not, which there are accounts of guards beating them).

6. So, You want them to be in a comfy cell room. With pillows, and free food and water. So pampering them is the solution, until there is justice. Even if they killed thousands, It's bad for them to face their own consequences. So Rapist shouldn't be punished for their crimes ?

7.
"the state is that human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a given territory."- Max Weber.

Zapistas were able to claim power through force(a Revolution, a violent one). They have control over what happens in their territory(which is Chipas), and they use force to maintain control( they harass drug dealers, and they ban smuggling of drugs. That's not so anarchist, but it's great). As for Rojava, they don't accept all opposition. I'm sure they make Islamist vanish in the night. So these are not anarchist territories.
as for the Third world anarchism, It seems like there is no true interest. I'm not denying the existence of anarchist in the third world, but they seem rare because of the reason of not being popular.

[The South Falls]

Rojava has mostly been alright. Very encouraging bright light in the darkness that is the middle east.

*Reads OP's contributions to the thread*

... but I see the object of this thread isn't actually to discuss Rojava, but just to diss them for every single little thing they have done. Including defending themselves from ISIS. In a civil war. Yawn.

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

Notice, these are two very different points.

[Communal concils]

1. So is a simple military campaign Genocide. If the goal is to kill as much enemy forces as possible, even in self defense.Is Killing rapist and thief in masses genocide.

2.The Holocaust also included Gypsies, Slavic people and other racial groups. It also included political dissidence, sexual deviants, artist and disabled or mentally ill people. It deserves the title of genocide because most of it was targeted at racial and ethnic groups.

3. Well, The Holodomer did not have a defined ethnic targeted at all. We are following slightly different definitions. Honestly, it affected every aspect of Soviet society negatively.

1. If your goal is only to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, probably yes since that's not the point of a war. Comparing millions of innocent people staved to death by deliberate Soviet polices to rapists doesn't shine well on you.

2. So the Cambodian Genocide doesn't deserve the title going by that logic.

3. It overwhelming effected the Ukrainian people and was a caused and exacerbated by deliberate polices by the Soviet Union.

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

Not what anyone is saying.

1. War has no defined purpose other than a mass conflict between groups. Wars can be fought for many reasons. You seem to forget that's the justification of the war on terror. That's the justification of Israels actions in the Gaza strip, and it's the justification of eastern front in ww2 ( for both the soviets and nazis, the goal was to remove as much of each other. Though, the soviets also have the justification of protecting the "Motherland").

2. If I'm not mistaken, there were ethnic groups being murdered for being what they are. So it should considered one. However, the Cambodian genocide is more related to the Rwandan genocide in being mostly implemented by a mob.

3. Can I have proof.

4. Well, the opponent I was talking to seem to ignore negativity surrounding Rojava.

[Communal concils]

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

Notice, these are two very different points.

That is a strawmen. Out of all things you can say, you chose a simplistic response. There is no real argument in that sentence.

[Heloin]

1. If your goal is only to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible, probably yes since that's not the point of a war. Comparing millions of innocent people staved to death by deliberate Soviet polices to rapists doesn't shine well on you.

2. So the Cambodian Genocide doesn't deserve the title going by that logic.

3. It overwhelming effected the Ukrainian people and was a caused and exacerbated by deliberate polices by the Soviet Union.


Not what anyone is saying.

1. War has no defined purpose other than a mass conflict between groups. Wars can be fought for many reasons. You seem to forget that's the justification of the war on terror. That's the justification of Israels actions in the Gaza strip, and it's the justification of eastern front in ww2 ( for both the soviets and nazis, the goal was to remove as much of each other. Though, the soviets also have the justification of protecting the "Motherland").

2. If I'm not mistaken, there were ethnic groups being murdered for being what they are. So it should considered one. However, the Cambodian genocide is more related to the Rwandan genocide in being mostly implemented by a mob.

3. Can I have proof.

4. Well, the opponent I was talking to seem to ignore negativity surrounding Rojava.

1. Because people killing people doesn't make killing people right.

2. Firstly to a small extent yes, but trying to say genocide can only be such if there is some sort of ethnic factor in it is dishonest at best. And trying to call the deliberate planned murder of hundreds of thousands of Cambodians and the forced starvation of millions more just a crazy mob going out of control is a flagrant lie.

3. http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocid ... /holodomor

4. Saying Rojave are by and large a positive force is not the same thing as saying they have no flaws.

[Chan Island]

Rojava has mostly been alright. Very encouraging bright light in the darkness that is the middle east.

*Reads OP's contributions to the thread*

... but I see the object of this thread isn't actually to discuss Rojava, but just to diss them for every single little thing they have done. Including defending themselves from ISIS. In a civil war. Yawn.

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

It has many flaws, unless we have teleported into some magical land where ideological contradictions don't count as flaws. And it doesn't have to be a paradise to still be better than everything else that is going on in that cursed region.

And now I'm curious- are... Are you against the US fighting ISIL? Or rather, helping out the enemies of Isis with air support. Please clarify what you mean by that.

[Communal concils]

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

It has many flaws, unless we have teleported into some magical land where ideological contradictions don't count as flaws. And it doesn't have to be a paradise to still be better than everything else that is going on in that cursed region.

And now I'm curious- are... Are you against the US fighting ISIL? Or rather, helping out the enemies of Isis with air support. Please clarify what you mean by that.

1. Well, this thread was more of a response against those that have a bad case of "Ideological blindness". You are reasonable, compare to various anarchist here.The kurds are not evil, I am aware of that. I have some sympathies for the Assad Government, but I hope that the issue between the official government and the kurds will resolve peacefully.

2. I support a war on terror. Since I'm a far leftist, I hate Right-wing fundamentalism. I think that supporting the enemies of ISIS is good, and all those methods are reasonable. It's just that I don't think the USA has the right justification for it. The Neocons that control the nation seem to have little concern for the inhabitants future, and only care for short term economic gains( resources like oil). I believe that the United States Government had more concern fighting Assad than ISIS, which is why the problems was ignored until 2014.

[Torrocca]

1. Simplistic Moralism

2. Simplistic Moralism. You clearly don't know that the world is not that simply. Execution and punishment are not bad in of themselves. The purpose and consequence is the only true concern. If people were rape, then the rapist should be killed. If a terrorist bombed a mass gathering, then they should face harsh conditions. Anarchist are childish. They assume that things are bad for the sake of it.Anarchist only know to mock and criticize, and they offer nothing but fairy tales.

It's not at all fucking simplistic. You're the one here arguing that it's a good thing that the USSR slaughtered millions of people, not me.

3. Still simplistic. If you suffered from economic exploitation, then it's natural for you to feel bad. In Medieval times, Feudalism was the major system of the time. Peasants did lot's of work, and they did not get good living conditions. Feudalism was a economic system that prevented generation of families from ranking up the classes. Some how, It's suddenly bad when they upraise. They are then rebelling against "God" and the old order. It's also suddenly bad to punish the leader and higher classes that remove prosperity for your people. If the new order of a revolution improves conditions and access to resources, then the people are liberated.

Having a revolution isn't the same as systematically oppressing millions of people, for fuck's sake.

4. Strawmen. It's bad when the Bolsheviks remove the white movement, which was trying to squash their movement, but some how Rojava isn't doing the same with ISIS.

TIL'd that literally everyone the Bolsheviks ever killed and "disappeared" were all 100% a part of the White Movement.

10/10

5. Anarchist like to rename everything. That's not a state " It a confederation of Municipalities", that's not a leader ", It's a guide".

I love how, rather than admit you're wrong, you double down and bitch about Anarchists "renaming" things lol.

Rojava is oppressive to ISIS, it's simple. Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power - Merriam Webster dictionary

The YPG and Rojava as a whole haven't done anything unjust or cruel to ISIS, so they haven't "oppressed" them.

Rojava has military, and it has leadership.

Neither of which are against Anarchist beliefs.

There are videos on YouTube of rojavan troops Torturing ISIS members, which isn't a problem a problem to me. Why don't you just watch it. Honestly, the torture is against the will of the soldiers being killed.

Lol, fucking prove it then. You come here with these same shitty accusations that other people have and it's never proven no matter how many times people ask for proof, so I doubt you will prove it, but I digress.

Also, Oppression and self-defense don't contradict. There are nations that send dangerous criminals to remote prisons, where they are isolated in the name of public safety. Perhaps, some of these people are heros to anarchist, and I'm sure that anarchist want to abolish prisons(Which Rojava has not, which there are accounts of guards beating them).

Sure they don't, but Rojava isn't oppressing anyone.

Also, again, bring out some proof of this shit you're saying.

6. So, You want them to be in a comfy cell room. With pillows, and free food and water. So pampering them is the solution, until there is justice. Even if they killed thousands, It's bad for them to face their own consequences. So Rapist shouldn't be punished for their crimes?

TIL'd that not stripping somebody of their human rights regardless of how horrible they are = pampering them.

10/10

7.
"the state is that human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a given territory."- Max Weber.

"A state is a political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the use of force within a certain geographical territory."

The Zapatistas don't have a centralized government.

Zapistas were able to claim power through force(a Revolution, a violent one). They have control over what happens in their territory(which is Chipas), and they use force to maintain control( they harass drug dealers, and they ban smuggling of drugs. That's not so anarchist, but it's great).

They collectively decided drug cartels and drugs are bad through democratic consensus, which is literally the most Anarchist thing they could do.

As for Rojava, they don't accept all opposition.

And? I don't see Anarchists embracing Capitalism with open arms, since that's dialectically opposed to Anarchist ideals.

I'm sure they make Islamist vanish in the night.

Fucking prove these shitty accusations you're making, oh my God lmao.

So these are not anarchist territories.

The Zapatistas certainly are, but I never said Rojava is.

as for the Third world anarchism, It seems like there is no true interest. I'm not denying the existence of anarchist in the third world, but they seem rare because of the reason of not being popular.

All you're doing is continuing to prove you don't understand what's going on in the Third World. There's a fuckton of Anarchist movements there with varying degrees of success which, either way, is wholly irrelevant to the tirade you're going on over Rojava.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Literally all Vox has is an article about Rojava and how it is an attempt at democracy for Kurds in the Middle East. Not really seeing how this is some sort of fanatical over-hype about utopia.

Regardless, Torr has already pretty much summed up exactly what I was going to say.

1. There is a video about it . A Video in which they are mindlessly praised

2. As I said, Anarchist are no different. In fact, they are most likely to be like this. especially when they worship a society because it claims to follow their ideals. Show me a anarchist society that lasted more than 3 years, and How comes Anarchism isn't common outside the west.

The video in the article? Theres no mindless praise there. There is some sympathy to their cause but there is no manic worship being done. Between this and later posts where you claim people think it's a "fairy land" this just seems like some narrative you're trying to construct in order to paint people as mindless idiots and sheep or something. But frankly I am not seeing this widespread and overwhelming praise online like you claim.

Any proof of the YPG committing atrocities that involve slaughtering children?

Leftist militias are prone to committing acts of terrorism; it is intrinsic to the ideals of the Left-wing Revolution which is inherently violent by default. Recent notions of pacifism and peaceful change of government are just that: recent. Violent Revolution is what Communism and Socialism were born into - it is the natural state of both ideologies. Men like Trotsky were not radicals, they were the Vanguard. This is why these ideologies are inherently unstable and cannot exist outside of a state of war. The very nature of these ideologies necessitates the violent overthrow and subversion of lawful authority, and this is why they are ultimately a force for evil in the world by default. The world is a better place without the Eastern Bloc.

Do you have evidence that the YPG have killed babies?

How do you expect to defeat terrorists without going to war?

Evidence Is history ypg and pkk are the puppet of the imperialist states.

Where are you from ?
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/af ... gn/1095707

"Evidence is history". So in other words you dont have actual proof and are now trying to make yourself seem like an authority on this by saying I'm not from the middle east so I dont know anything.

[Communal concils]

1. War has no defined purpose other than a mass conflict between groups. Wars can be fought for many reasons. You seem to forget that's the justification of the war on terror. That's the justification of Israels actions in the Gaza strip, and it's the justification of eastern front in ww2 ( for both the soviets and nazis, the goal was to remove as much of each other. Though, the soviets also have the justification of protecting the "Motherland").

2. If I'm not mistaken, there were ethnic groups being murdered for being what they are. So it should considered one. However, the Cambodian genocide is more related to the Rwandan genocide in being mostly implemented by a mob.

3. Can I have proof.

4. Well, the opponent I was talking to seem to ignore negativity surrounding Rojava.

1. Because people killing people doesn't make killing people right.

2. Firstly to a small extent yes, but trying to say genocide can only be such if there is some sort of ethnic factor in it is dishonest at best. And trying to call the deliberate planned murder of hundreds of thousands of Cambodians and the forced starvation of millions more just a crazy mob going out of control is a flagrant lie.

3. http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocid ... /holodomor

4. Saying Rojave are by and large a positive force is not the same thing as saying they have no flaws.

1. Simplistic Moralism. It depend son who is doing that.'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" So, would you support the ideal of a serial killer being release into society after rehabilitation. No matter how gruesome and disgusting their killing methods are.


2. It's not a lie. Pol Pot was trying to mimic the last stage of Marxism. He abolish money, he claimed that classes did not exist, and all property was collectivize. The country was splinted into zones, and each zone had a leader. with one of the leaders being a 12 year old. So it was intended for Cambodia to be decentralize. Each village was highly autonomous. Before the rule of pol pot, the Cambodians already hated the Chinese , Vietnamese and cham people. In a way, the true genocide started with the Lol Non Regime, and Pol Pot did nothing to stop hatred of the ethnic minorities.Honestly, a citizen's continued existence depended on the region they live in( with some regions having a focus on building dams, which often used little kids). also, the definiton I use for genocide makes sense. It's even in the Etymology. Genos means race, cide means kill.

3. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201508091025560345/

4. Okay, But I would consider it only the second best.

[Heloin]

1. Because people killing people doesn't make killing people right.

2. Firstly to a small extent yes, but trying to say genocide can only be such if there is some sort of ethnic factor in it is dishonest at best. And trying to call the deliberate planned murder of hundreds of thousands of Cambodians and the forced starvation of millions more just a crazy mob going out of control is a flagrant lie.

3. http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocid ... /holodomor

4. Saying Rojave are by and large a positive force is not the same thing as saying they have no flaws.

1. Simplistic Moralism. It depend son who is doing that.'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" So, would you support the ideal of a serial killer being release into society after rehabilitation. No matter how gruesome and disgusting their killing methods are.


2. It's not a lie. Pol Pot was trying to mimic the last stage of Marxism. He abolish money, he claimed that classes did not exist, and all property was collectivize. The country was splinted into zones, and each zone had a leader. with one of the leaders being a 12 year old. So it was intended for Cambodia to be decentralize. Each village was highly autonomous. Before the rule of pol pot, the Cambodians already hated the Chinese , Vietnamese and cham people. In a way, the true genocide started with the Lol Non Regime, and Pol Pot did nothing to stop hatred of the ethnic minorities.Honestly, a citizen's continued existence depended on the region they live in( with some regions having a focus on building dams, which often used little kids). also, the definiton I use for genocide makes sense. It's even in the Etymology. Genos means race, cide means kill.

3. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201508091025560345/

"Your views on morality are simplistic! So you clearly must support letting serial killers and mass murderers free!" What kind of loopy land logic are you working off here?

Deliberately misconstruing what I am saying doesn't make anything you are saying right. Firstly pretending that the fault of the Cambodian genocide has to do solely with local rulers and communities is just plain false. Secondly acting like Pol Pot's regime didn't start the genocide is also completely false and hedges on apologism. You only use the definition that relies on the strictest use of the word roots in some vain attempt to deny the Holodomor.

So not only are you now openly denying the Holodomor with use of Sputnik, you're using a news website who just make up stories sometimes.

[Communal concils]

1. Simplistic Moralism

2. Simplistic Moralism. You clearly don't know that the world is not that simply. Execution and punishment are not bad in of themselves. The purpose and consequence is the only true concern. If people were rape, then the rapist should be killed. If a terrorist bombed a mass gathering, then they should face harsh conditions. Anarchist are childish. They assume that things are bad for the sake of it.Anarchist only know to mock and criticize, and they offer nothing but fairy tales.

It's not at all fucking simplistic. You're the one here arguing that it's a good thing that the USSR slaughtered millions of people, not me.

3. Still simplistic. If you suffered from economic exploitation, then it's natural for you to feel bad. In Medieval times, Feudalism was the major system of the time. Peasants did lot's of work, and they did not get good living conditions. Feudalism was a economic system that prevented generation of families from ranking up the classes. Some how, It's suddenly bad when they upraise. They are then rebelling against "God" and the old order. It's also suddenly bad to punish the leader and higher classes that remove prosperity for your people. If the new order of a revolution improves conditions and access to resources, then the people are liberated.

Having a revolution isn't the same as systematically oppressing millions of people, for fuck's sake.

4. Strawmen. It's bad when the Bolsheviks remove the white movement, which was trying to squash their movement, but some how Rojava isn't doing the same with ISIS.

TIL'd that literally everyone the Bolsheviks ever killed and "disappeared" were all 100% a part of the White Movement.

10/10

5. Anarchist like to rename everything. That's not a state " It a confederation of Municipalities", that's not a leader ", It's a guide".

I love how, rather than admit you're wrong, you double down and bitch about Anarchists "renaming" things lol.

Rojava is oppressive to ISIS, it's simple. Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power - Merriam Webster dictionary

The YPG and Rojava as a whole haven't done anything unjust or cruel to ISIS, so they haven't "oppressed" them.

Rojava has military, and it has leadership.

Neither of which are against Anarchist beliefs.

There are videos on YouTube of rojavan troops Torturing ISIS members, which isn't a problem a problem to me. Why don't you just watch it. Honestly, the torture is against the will of the soldiers being killed.

Lol, fucking prove it then. You come here with these same shitty accusations that other people have and it's never proven no matter how many times people ask for proof, so I doubt you will prove it, but I digress.

Also, Oppression and self-defense don't contradict. There are nations that send dangerous criminals to remote prisons, where they are isolated in the name of public safety. Perhaps, some of these people are heros to anarchist, and I'm sure that anarchist want to abolish prisons(Which Rojava has not, which there are accounts of guards beating them).

Sure they don't, but Rojava isn't oppressing anyone.

Also, again, bring out some proof of this shit you're saying.

6. So, You want them to be in a comfy cell room. With pillows, and free food and water. So pampering them is the solution, until there is justice. Even if they killed thousands, It's bad for them to face their own consequences. So Rapist shouldn't be punished for their crimes?

TIL'd that not stripping somebody of their human rights regardless of how horrible they are = pampering them.

10/10

7.
"the state is that human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a given territory."- Max Weber.

"A state is a political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the use of force within a certain geographical territory."

The Zapatistas don't have a centralized government.

Zapistas were able to claim power through force(a Revolution, a violent one). They have control over what happens in their territory(which is Chipas), and they use force to maintain control( they harass drug dealers, and they ban smuggling of drugs. That's not so anarchist, but it's great).

They collectively decided drug cartels and drugs are bad through democratic consensus, which is literally the most Anarchist thing they could do.

As for Rojava, they don't accept all opposition.

And? I don't see Anarchists embracing Capitalism with open arms, since that's dialectically opposed to Anarchist ideals.

I'm sure they make Islamist vanish in the night.

Fucking prove these shitty accusations you're making, oh my God lmao.

So these are not anarchist territories.

The Zapatistas certainly are, but I never said Rojava is.

as for the Third world anarchism, It seems like there is no true interest. I'm not denying the existence of anarchist in the third world, but they seem rare because of the reason of not being popular.

All you're doing is continuing to prove you don't understand what's going on in the Third World. There's a fuckton of Anarchist movements there with varying degrees of success which, either way, is wholly irrelevant to the tirade you're going on over Rojava.

1. I did not say that. Strawmen arguments are what you are making.

2. That does not contradict. So The White Movement of Russia did not feel oppressed. If you don't like a revolution, then you clearly see it as oppressive.

3. Well, there were fascist, anarchist that enjoyed terrorism and there were also Troskyites(who would like the world to fall to a type of soviet imperialism). Of course, there are liberals( but Liberalism failed due to no promises of Peace, Bread or Land .

4. Simplistic Moralism and Elitism. That's all you saying.

5. I said that you can look at videos on you tube. Honestly, you pretend that they give every ISIS member a cup of coffee. I could just imagine a Kurdish women going up to a wounded soldier and saying " We know that you want to enslave me and cut off everyone's head. here's a cup of coffee, Jihadi John". I see stupid idealism.

6. Well, then let's say that they have centralize leadership(including child conscripted soldiers).Honestly,They have a top down hierarchy of officals and military grunts.

7. Why don't you look it up. It's a little bit too graphic for this website. Are you scared, and why don't you look it up? I Thought you want proof !

8. That's petty Idealism

9. Aside from that useless peice of comedy, I'll say that's right.

10. The special word is Government.

11. Anarcho-Capitalism

12. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/opin ... raqqa.html

13. Well, mob rule is government. it can choose to oppress a minority, which is oppressed to the individual facing hatred.

14. Show me some more examples other than the Zapistas(who don't even claim to be anarchist). Maybe your zealous and utopian religious worship of them wouldn't blind your will to prove things.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Notice, these are two very different points.

That is a strawmen. Out of all things you can say, you chose a simplistic response. There is no real argument in that sentence.

How laughably ironic, considering your post he is responding to is actually a strawman where you put words in CI's mouth.

[Communal concils]

1. Simplistic Moralism. It depend son who is doing that.'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" So, would you support the ideal of a serial killer being release into society after rehabilitation. No matter how gruesome and disgusting their killing methods are.


2. It's not a lie. Pol Pot was trying to mimic the last stage of Marxism. He abolish money, he claimed that classes did not exist, and all property was collectivize. The country was splinted into zones, and each zone had a leader. with one of the leaders being a 12 year old. So it was intended for Cambodia to be decentralize. Each village was highly autonomous. Before the rule of pol pot, the Cambodians already hated the Chinese , Vietnamese and cham people. In a way, the true genocide started with the Lol Non Regime, and Pol Pot did nothing to stop hatred of the ethnic minorities.Honestly, a citizen's continued existence depended on the region they live in( with some regions having a focus on building dams, which often used little kids). also, the definiton I use for genocide makes sense. It's even in the Etymology. Genos means race, cide means kill.

3. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201508091025560345/

"Your views on morality are simplistic! So you clearly must support letting serial killers and mass murderers free!" What kind of loopy land logic are you working off here?

Deliberately misconstruing what I am saying doesn't make anything you are saying right. Firstly pretending that the fault of the Cambodian genocide has to do solely with local rulers and communities is just plain false. Secondly acting like Pol Pot's regime didn't start the genocide is also completely false and hedges on apologism. You only use the definition that relies on the strictest use of the word roots in some vain attempt to deny the Holodomor.

So not only are you now openly denying the Holodomor with use of Sputnik, you're using a news website who just make up stories sometimes.

1. Well, If punishment of murders and rapist doesn't result in execution or other methods, then they learn nothing. Most people generally don't believe in this libertarian nonsense of accepting the killings of their love ones. The Brutality of certain individuals needs to be met with the smae force.

2. Well, it was supported by them. However, a large amount of the killings were embraced by a large amount of Kampucheans. As for Pol Pot, He continued pogroms . He tried to finish what Lol Non started. Lol Non was already doing it, and Pol Pot did not stop it. Also, I'm using the common definition of a genocide.


3. Well, I did not deny the famine. But, I believe that the Ukrainian Government and institutions has lied to western society on some details of such events(like how famines affected people across ethnic lines). Also, news Channels in western society have lied about international issues as much as any Russian channel(perhaps more).

[Communal concils]

That is a strawmen. Out of all things you can say, you chose a simplistic response. There is no real argument in that sentence.

How laughably ironic, considering your post he is responding to is actually a strawman where you put words in CI's mouth.

Strawmen:an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I did not intend to misrepresent.

[Heloin]

"Your views on morality are simplistic! So you clearly must support letting serial killers and mass murderers free!" What kind of loopy land logic are you working off here?

Deliberately misconstruing what I am saying doesn't make anything you are saying right. Firstly pretending that the fault of the Cambodian genocide has to do solely with local rulers and communities is just plain false. Secondly acting like Pol Pot's regime didn't start the genocide is also completely false and hedges on apologism. You only use the definition that relies on the strictest use of the word roots in some vain attempt to deny the Holodomor.

So not only are you now openly denying the Holodomor with use of Sputnik, you're using a news website who just make up stories sometimes.

1. Well, If punishment of murders and rapist doesn't result in execution or other methods, then they learn nothing. Most people generally don't believe in this libertarian nonsense of accepting the killings of their love ones. The Brutality of certain individuals needs to be met with the smae force.

2. Well, it was supported by them. However, a large amount of the killings were embraced by a large amount of Kampucheans. As for Pol Pot, He continued pogroms . He tried to finish what Lol Non started. Lol Non was already doing it, and Pol Pot did not stop it. Also, I'm using the common definition of a genocide.


3. Well, I did not deny the famine. But, I believe that the Ukrainian Government and institutions has lied to western society on some details of such events(like how famines affected people across ethnic lines). Also, news Channels in western society have lied about international issues as much as any Russian channel(perhaps more).

You compared rapists and killers to the victims of the Holodomor and are now trying to say me calling you out on that is my support for letting serial killers into the homes of their victims families? Aren't the one saying other people are strawmaning you?

It genuinely shocks me that you are trying to create a false version of one of the most destructive genocides on the face of the planet.

Of all the reasons to deny a genocide, you not liking the current government of one of it's victims is probably among the worst reasons.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

I am not sure why the Khmer Rouge is being discussed but they were idealists who emphasized the peasantry.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

How laughably ironic, considering your post he is responding to is actually a strawman where you put words in CI's mouth.

Strawmen:an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I did not intend to misrepresent.

Sure you didnt. I guess you just didnt bother to actually read then because at no point did they say that Rojava has absolutely no flaws and it would be pretty damn difficult to somehow accidently take that as what they said.

[Heloin]

How laughably ironic, considering your post he is responding to is actually a strawman where you put words in CI's mouth.

Strawmen:an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I did not intend to misrepresent.

You mean like who've been doing anytime someone says Rojava aren't bad? Cause every time that happens you seem to take that as proof that someone thinks that Rojava are therefor incapable of wrong.

[Communal concils]

Strawmen:an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I did not intend to misrepresent.

You mean like who've been doing anytime someone says Rojava aren't bad? Cause every time that happens you seem to take that as proof that someone thinks that Rojava are therefor incapable of wrong.

That is simply untrue. I am mostly talking to those that are ideologically zealous for rojava. I also wanted to point out ideological contradictions.

[Communal concils]

Strawmen:an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I did not intend to misrepresent.

Sure you didnt. I guess you just didnt bother to actually read then because at no point did they say that Rojava has absolutely no flaws and it would be pretty damn difficult to somehow accidently take that as what they said.

that's an assumption .

[Heloin]

You mean like who've been doing anytime someone says Rojava aren't bad? Cause every time that happens you seem to take that as proof that someone thinks that Rojava are therefor incapable of wrong.

That is simply untrue. I am mostly talking to those that are ideologically zealous for rojava. I also wanted to point out ideological contradictions.

Rojava has mostly been alright. Very encouraging bright light in the darkness that is the middle east.

*Reads OP's contributions to the thread*

... but I see the object of this thread isn't actually to discuss Rojava, but just to diss them for every single little thing they have done. Including defending themselves from ISIS. In a civil war. Yawn.

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Sure you didnt. I guess you just didnt bother to actually read then because at no point did they say that Rojava has absolutely no flaws and it would be pretty damn difficult to somehow accidently take that as what they said.

that's an assumption .

Just as it must have been an assumption that they were saying Rojava is flawless.

[Cekoviu]

I am not sure why the Khmer Rouge is being discussed but they were idealists who emphasized the peasantry.

That's a grossly minimized explanation of their beliefs.