17

Solidarity with the anarchists and anti-authoritarians charged with terrorism by the Belgian state borderedbysilence.noblogs.org

Submitted by thi33 in Anarchism

The likely trial concerns not just the comrades charged, but also each individual, each anarchist, each revolutionary, everyone who rebels against the reigning order, who won't submit to authority and who won't stand by and simply watch exploitation and oppression. It takes aim at the pursuit of autonomy through action, self-organized struggle, the choice to defend and spread anarchist and revolutionary ideas, and joining in the fight along with other rebels on a basis of self-organization and autonomy. And finally, without doubt, it takes aim at a combative approach to anarchism that takes the individual, affinity, and informality as its starting points.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

-9

lustysociety wrote

Based on the charges, the trial is justified.

From the link:

This is then rounded out by more specific accusations, such as participation in an unpermitted demonstration in front of the closed prison number 127b in Steenokkerzeel (interpreted as “attempted arson” and as a “terrorist act” by the prosecutor), preparing and participating in an attack against the Marolles police station (considered a “terrorist act” by the crown), striking and wounding police officers at several different moments, blocking a public roadway, various acts of property destruction, shoplifiting, burning the cars of prison guards in the parking lot of the Ittre prison, incitement to commit terrorist acts… We should specify that these accusations all name specific comrades and that each person is not charged with all of the incidents described.

In the background of this inquiry, which lasted several years and which produced no less than 32 cartons of notes, the Federal Prosecutor developed the hypothesis of an “anarchist terrorist group”, active especially in Brussels, whose activites those accused would have “participated in” or “furthered”. For instance, the prosecutors drew up a long list of 150 or so attacks, many of them arsons, against structures of domination, such as police stations, courts, banks, businesses that make money off incarceration, construction sites, vehicles of diplomats, eurocrats, and NATO functionaries, mobile phone antennas… All of these attacks took place in Brussels and the surrounding area between 2008 and 2013.

10

DeathToAmerica wrote (edited )

Oh noes, that poor innocent police station!! Lmao. And those diplomats bourgiemobiles, what horrible terrorists anarchists are, destoying the state's private property!!!

8

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

Justified my ass. Why are you defending the police and the state and throwing comrades under the bus who did nothing but object to the state's monopoly on violence?

-8

lustysociety wrote (edited )

The problem is not objection or running a library for anarchists.
The problem is damage to property, hurting of people (police) and other unjustified useless actions that apparently qualify as terrorism by law.
I hope that the judge has the intention and the freedom to show mercy with regard to the accusation of terrorism so that only the damage to property and people is punished.
If they had destroyed my private property just for fun (as these people always do), I would be angry too.

8

zod wrote

Are you an anarchist? Why is damaging private property a problem?

-6

lustysociety wrote (edited )

  1. How is damaging property not a problem? Especially when it is just for fun and not for some good reason. What if it was your car or your shop? Or a family member of yours working for the police? Do you like paying taxes to pay the damage done by left or right or religious or any other kind of violent extremists? Do you like being annoyed or put in danger by violent extremists?
  2. They have attacked and hurt innocent persons (police).
  3. They create hate towards anarchists with such actions. I am certain that many anarchists condemn such useless violence for many reasons including the bad publicity.

I think that violence is always bad unless you have to protect someone or something from damage by some angry mob or you need to revenge to draw a line (e.g. military action against Israel).

5

zod wrote (edited )

How is damaging property not a problem? Especially when it is just for fun and not for some good reason

The private property in question belonged to prison guards and the state. How is that not a good reason? What better targets are there than a police station, a prison guard or a diplomat?

Furthermore, anarchists don't burn prole's cars, only cars that cost more than our entire net worth x 50.

They have attacked and hurt innocent persons (police).

FUCK YOU

5

______deleted_ wrote

So, let me guess. You're a wealthy white male, right? Cops are polite and respectful to you?

Do you not realize that those of us who are actually part of the struggle have had police do serious harm to us and our comrades? And you dare to call them innocents?

-3

lustysociety wrote

The police in Belgium is most likely innocent but not pacifist in scenarios where they are or might be attacked.
I do not know where you live so maybe the police in your country is different.

6

BlackFlagged wrote (edited )

The police everywhere in the world exist to protect the ruling classes and their property from the workers. They are class traitors. You're not an anarchist.

5

______deleted_ wrote (edited )

I'm sorry, is everyone in Belgium equal? Are there no rulers? Do the police work for the people and not the 1%? Do people in Belgium not get enslaved in prisons for using drugs or stealing?

4

DeathToAmerica wrote (edited )

The police in Belgium is most likely innocent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i553-NY46Pk

Yeah, those Belgian cops look really innocent beating the shit out of that guy after he surrenders.

4

mykal wrote

Jesus, that was legitimately hard to watch. This person's going on about terrorism, if terrorism had any fair definition, it would include what I just watched. It just solidifies for me that terrorism is violence against the state.

4

BlackFlagged wrote

How is damaging property not a problem?

http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB3

Educate yourself and come back when you're not a liberal.

-2

lustysociety wrote (edited )

You might wonder why I write stuff like this but have a "no property" and a "no government" section on my website.

  • "No government" mainly because of no war and no taxes for useless or bad things. I have no problem with the police fighting violent extremists.
  • "No property" within the lustysociety. It is not my intention and not my right to destroy wealth of other persons. Sharing does not mean destruction. I am against violence but if you destroy my wealth or hurt me, I will not be alone to make you regret.
5

DeathToAmerica wrote (edited )

I have no problem with the police fighting violent extremists.

So us anarchists. Got it.

"No property" within the lustysociety. It is not my intention and not my right to destroy wealth of other persons.

Fuck your society and fuck your wealth. You're a fucking ancap.

2

______deleted_ wrote (edited )

https://euobserver.com/justice/135780

""I'm trying to rebuild myself. The police destroyed me,"

You're obviously just some ignorant rich asshole who has fooled himself into thinking he's some kind of revolutionary that's created a great new political ideology that's going to change the world - but hasn't even read the first paragraph of the wikipedia entries for anarchism or socialism, so I'm going to stop engaging with you now.

-2

lustysociety wrote

If this is the worst problem with the Belgian police you could find, I am glad.
Of course there are many more problems with the Belgian police and especially Belgian prisons.
Still no reason to commit obvious crimes or to physically attack the police itself.

3

mykal wrote

How do you plan to get from our present neoliberal society to your "lustysociety" without destroying property or doing anything that puts you at odds with cops?

0

lustysociety wrote (edited )

There is no benefit in doing anything that puts me/us at odds with a government.
Except for taxes and compulsory education in classic schools, I do not see anything where existing governments are a problem.
Technology continues to make classic education for classic wage slavery obsolete; this becomes more and more obvious to all persons and their elected politicians.

Regarding limited resources like land and water:

  • Either most persons (not only members of the lustysociety) will democratically vote to change the allocation of the resources.
  • Or members of the lustysociety and similar societies will coordinate their wealth and efforts to buy land and water on the existing markets.

IMO, the reason why persons worldwide are friendlier and more tolerant today than in the past (e.g. a war is only feared by old minded persons) is not because of some magic, random or inevitable evolution of culture but 100% related to richer and more comfortable lives provided my technology.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

There is no benefit in doing anything that puts me/us at odds with a government. Except for taxes and compulsory education in classic schools, I do not see anything where existing governments are a problem.

Sounds like you're a feudalist.

persons worldwide are friendlier and more tolerant today than in the past (e.g. a war is only feared by old minded persons) is not because of some magic, random or inevitable evolution of culture but 100% related to richer and more comfortable lives provided my technology.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A billion people go hungry in this world everyday. And now you're saying war is nothing to be feared..? You're a troll, right?

You might be rich and comfortable, but most of humanity pays the price for your privilege.

0

lustysociety wrote (edited )

I do not want to pay taxes that are wasted for war and antiquated education and debt and bank money.
How does that make me a feudalist?
I see no benefit in fighting physically the police and damaging wealth/property.
How does that make me a feudalist?
If I am against the state for good reasons, then I am a feudalist.
If I defend the state for good reasons (e.g. protection from violent extremists), then I am an ancap or something else.
Many persons think the state is good and should protect against crime but when the state wants to ban cryptography just to know what happens then the state becomes the bad monster to be feared.
Many use Facebook but are against Facebook because Facebook uses their data for profit but Facebook will never break into their house for a raid.
Quite irrational and inconsistent.
Fortunately we have no law and police in Europe like in the USA.

There is no reason for almost all persons in the northern hemisphere to fear war.
For most people in the southern hemisphere there is no reason to fear war either.
If there was no USA, UK, France and Israel even less people would fear war.
If there was no Islam, even less people would fear war.
If there was no hate among Africans, even less people would fear war.

Hungry people do not go hungry because of technology but because of lack of technology.
And no, I have no benefit from anyone being poor in this world.
I feel bad for all poor persons.
A rich neighbour is better than a poor neighbour.
It would be good if the billion of poorest persons could contribute to science and technology instead of living in misery.
I am sure that the "poor" persons complain much less about "rich" white men and women than some persons on this forum do.

7

Defasher wrote

Are you having a laugh, mate? You're crying over a cop shop and the private property of fucking prison guards?