[Marxism] What if FDR had declared war against both Hitler &Stalin
mkaradjis at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 21:29:20 MDT 2014
Imagine the beat up over this single event can still be an issue. For
Islamophobes the world over.
To re-cap. A regime had destroyed every city in its country via aerial
terror, had tortured thousands to death, slaughtered some 100,000
people. All normal "war" activity.
A regime soldier is legitimately killed in battle. He is not killed in
captivity for the aim of cannibalism, he is killed in battle.
After his death, the rebel fighter looks at the dead soldier's phone. He
finds on it video footage of the soldier and his friends raping and
murdering a mother and her daughters. Enraged, he cuts out the dead
soldier's heart and takes a symbolic bite.
Despite what one poster here said about "no consequences" etc, all the
opposition leaderships vigorously condemned this action. However, he
wasn't someone "they" could easily discipline precisely because he was
the head of his own micro-brigade, which had split away from the larger
Farouk Brigades months before. Unless he was to discipline himself. In
conditions of revolutionary chaos and extreme regime violence, who could
discipline him and how?
But more to the point - what is worse: raping *and murdering* a mother
and daughters who were *alive* at the time, or taking a symbolic bite
from the heart of a troop who was already *dead* from battle who was
responsible for these crimes?
The answer to the imperialist media and their "anti-imperialist",
Islamophobic "left" echo was obvious, unfortunately.
From: Jeff via Marxism
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:03 PM
To: Michael Karadjis
Subject: Re: [Marxism] What if FDR had declared war against both Hitler
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
At 13:01 24-09-14 -0500, Clay Claiborne via Marxism wrote:
only heard of one FSA soldier eating his enemy's liver or heart.
you? Doesn't that make it a "rare exception" to use your happy
Exactly. As much as that one incident has been repeated in order to
the "moderate" (geez, I hate that term!) opposition as violators of
rights, you have to wonder why they always point to the same single (and
unique) incident if it were really part of a pattern. And as for the act
eating a human heart itself, I still have to wonder what level of crime
involved given that it was taken from a dead man. I guess it's
"extreme," but a war crime? When I first heard that story I remember I
disgusted and sickened: how could someone put such a thing in their
I was grossed out, and didn't think I could ever bring myself to do such
thing for the cause (even if it had been a good idea). Only later did I
appreciate that it also involved desecration of a human body which is
universally frowned upon. Yet in any war there are a huge number of
which don't get a "decent burial" in addition to ones that are
Well I suppose everyone has their priorities. But for me, I'd much
to know that my heart would get eaten or any other disgusting thing
to my body after I was already dead, compared to having one fingernail
pulled out or one bone broken. This one "FSA war crime" just has me
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at:
More information about the Marxism