|
Post by Slim Convey on Oct 30, 2005 21:42:13 GMT
Post tactics here. What should a perfect revolutionary army use? Guerilla tactics or other?
|
|
dom
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by dom on Oct 31, 2005 11:46:38 GMT
Guerrila tactics all the way. Minimal losses with maximised damage. Bombing key factors within a location would also help.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Oct 31, 2005 16:25:06 GMT
Terrorism is not something a group called the HRA should employ. Terrorists that target specific areas are not people's patriots, they are deluded maniacs. Only through discussion can true socialism and equality be promoted. Nietzche's views on the Superman (Ubermensch) were correct, but he ideas on destablishment of democracy were injustified. Democracy has stood the test of time because, if used properly, it is the most effective strategy. Pol Pot was an example of how Anarchism is the worst form of government. An anarchistic coup solves no problems.
Calum
|
|
|
Post by Slim Convey on Oct 31, 2005 16:56:23 GMT
I feel that violence is an unavoidable factor in the development of the HRA. However, I agree that certain tactics may be turned by the media into terrorism and may affect international opinion and even lose our own support base.
Large scale engagements may deter opposition and cause an uproar. It would be an innovative tactic that could be used by our ill trained members and supporters to great effect. Those with firearms and explosive projectiles like molotovs can go ahead of the main crowd, strike the enemy then dissolve back into the crowd again for the main offensive. In urban areas it would be a success because enemy arms cannot be brought to bear in such dense environments.
More opinions needed of course...
|
|
dom
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by dom on Oct 31, 2005 17:37:59 GMT
Its hard to say man. I know violence will take a part, but guerilla tactics and bombings is the only way anything will work.
|
|
|
Post by battlecry on Oct 31, 2005 19:25:33 GMT
Not so, i say unless you have a very small group it would be best to take to the streets and meet the enemy, they are unlikely to open fire if you have a large support basis. Also the best place to strike with such an action would be London, the heart. If you don't have a much support don't bother, guerrilla tactics will just lower your support and without support you will ultimately fail.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that it will probably be best to strike after we send more men to Iraq and Afghanistan. If you strike quickly enough and sever the head so to speak then those men will be running around Iraq and other occupied countries like headless chickens therefor rendering them useless
|
|
dom
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by dom on Nov 1, 2005 13:52:25 GMT
Good point. And twould be even better of blair decided to take military action against Iran
|
|
|
Post by Slim Convey on Nov 1, 2005 18:42:37 GMT
The papers claim that the British Army is overstretched as it is. This will play to our favour. I agree that "terror" is not the way.
Observing the IRA campaigns I can see that they lost so much support through their tactics.
I think that having a large mass of people wielding personal weapons would scare the crap out of the army. Theyve been trained to fight under pressure but are they really prepared to kill their own countrymen? Can they actually fight a civil war?
i doubt it. On the assumption that many from the army will join us i also think that guerilla tactics are unneccessary. We dont want to be a ghost army.
|
|
|
Post by battlecry on Nov 1, 2005 19:13:47 GMT
I wouldn't rely on the army to join you, Hitler also thought that the army and police would join him when he tried to march on Berlin, even though most of the army and police were nazi sympathizers they still shot at the crowd. The only reason i can see that the army will not shoot at you is because the government will look bad ordering the army to shoot at rioters in London , But the Police are a different matter they will put on their riot gear and fight you, if you can defeat the police or drive them back and then take London and the heads of government you can then branch out rather quickly to the surrounding countryside and other city's, of course this will have to be done fast enough for no real resistance to be organized (thats why you take the heads of government , to slow down they're organization of resistance, while the opposition squabble to make an emergency government, you will be spreading across the country.)
|
|
|
Post by Slim Convey on Nov 1, 2005 19:37:50 GMT
I agree that speed will be vital. Luckily the UK is a comparitively small area compared to the USA so the arguments for and against revolution will be different.
We must also establish an image that anyone who fights against us is corrupt and is fighting against the people. We must try to establish this image by our conduct and our use of speeches. Any other ideas would be appreciated. Perhaps another thread another day...
|
|
|
Post by SD on Nov 30, 2005 18:44:11 GMT
It'd be wrong to attack neutral targets. That is were the IRA went wrong. Military bases, police stations, Tory party HQ, BNP party HQ, Labour party HQ etc. Trains, Buses, Office buildings should be considered neutral. Attacking the people we are trying to win will acomplise nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Slim Convey on Dec 1, 2005 17:11:20 GMT
Win?
My objective is not to win people as a commodity. My objective is to remove the instruments of society that makes man a slave to this system. To be rulers of their own destiny.
I agree with not attacking neutral targets. The only neutral target we can attack would be Whitehall herself as the symbol of the British administration. No cowardly bomb attacks though. If Whitehall is to be destroyed it must be overrun.
|
|