Sunday, July 17, 2005

Maoists Don't Negotiate


Maoists hit themselves in the head repeatedly in an attempt to eliminate any remaining common sense they may posess.

Blogdai gets tired of all those pundits in the media, experts in the UN, and idiots in the 7 parties spewing out vociferously how we must bring the Maoists to the negotiating table and work out a peaceful solution. Well, it makes Blogdai feel a little vociferous as well:

THE MAOISTS DON'T WANT A PEACEFUL SOLUTION!

Everyone should get this through their heads as soon as possible. Maoists have had many good chances at the negotiating table and have either walked away abruptly or sabotaged talks by refusing to negotiate. They use talks to regroup for other attacks, period.

Maobadis are not rocket scientists; they have a very simple and strict plan--no variations. They base their operations on Mao's own concepts of a phased revolution. Maoists can't seem to think beyond these concepts of "Stratgic Defense," "Strategic Balance," followed by a "Strategic Offensive." From their own admissions, they are now waiting for the appropriate moment to stage their "Offensive." Also by their own admission, that spate of failed talks from 2000 to 2003 was considered a perfect execution of Mao's "Strategic Balance" phase.

Reporter Suman Pradhan recently returned from talking with Maoists in Rolpa and his interview with a Maoist big-shot was quite telling. Comrade Prashant, Mr. Maoist, tells our reporter:

“The Shining Path failed when Comrade Gonzalo misread the international situation,” said Prashant. “He could not take advantage of the contradictions in the international situation at that time. Without taking such advantage, he mounted a last-ditch attempt on Lima and failed. We are not making that mistake. We know the international situation and are determined to take advantage of it before we make the final push.”

Does that mean that whatever is happening in Delhi and the reported Maoist contacts with other international powers are an attempt to take advantage of the contradictions in the inherent international situation?

Comrade Prashant only smiled.

So are all these recent gestures only a tactical move?

No answer.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/artha.php?&nid=44308

-=blogdai

9 Comments:

At 8:17 PM, July 17, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blogdai or blogbhai, how is it that Nepal is filled with idiots like these?

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=46012

If nothing else I am now begining to look at the prospect of having the last laugh/satisfaction when Prachanda puts/kills people like Gautam in the name of people's revolution after they are done with the Monarchy. Damn it! at least I will have something to look forward to if things come to worse!

 
At 11:59 PM, July 17, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

..well there is a fifth column..the silent maoist sympathiser. seen so many of them in ktm.. awaiting a call to arms? or sitting on the fence.

 
At 7:36 AM, July 18, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Guatam, like everyone else in the 7 party alliance, is looking for political traction anywhere he can find it. He, and others like him would align with the devil if they thought it would lead to power.

Guatam is not smart enough to realize that he is playing with fire.

He will get burned.

-=blogdai

 
At 7:38 AM, July 18, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Non-violent, silent, fence-sitting Maoists; now there's a new one.

Sounds like the kind of Maoist who might actually be able to communicate in complete sentences for once.

Don't look for these types to have any say in any Maoist government. They're silent because they are smart. Maoism does not reward the smart.

-=blogdai

 
At 8:43 AM, July 18, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oops..i didnt say non violent au contraire what scares me is the potential for violence that the fence sitter has.

 
At 10:43 AM, July 18, 2005, Anonymous Brit said...

If they are smart they should make sure they build a strong fence between themselves and the maoists

 
At 5:10 AM, July 19, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i hate the way that religou parties, allways claim that they are right and otehr wrong,. and i hate teh way king's allways claim tehy are teh heads of tehri religons, when allmost unconditonally they are allways sexually degenerate, they allways have about 5 wives, and concubines, and such, and tehnh teh priests calim they are great when tehy give afew pennies, too the poor, when the kings allways get theri money from rents offf the poor, they only get teh rent as some scumbag ancestor tookover the country like in battlefield earth, i think teh bjp are scumbags for supporting evil monarchy, i am fed up of religous parties allways supporting monarchy, they woudl have supported dracuklam, when he was biting theri necks, its why 70% of suicide bombers are from saudi arabia, in iraq, and why saudis cheer when bombs blow up and kills iraqi children.

 
At 6:45 AM, July 19, 2005, Anonymous Brit said...

The problem is not with religion as such. The problem is when people put more value on an ideology than on other people. An ideology may be linked to a religion or to a political or even a social belief system. Most religions and many political belief systems claim to put the well-being of all people first.

It is therefore a distortion of any such ideology to go to the extreme of suggesting that any person who does not follow a particular line of 'teaching' or belong to a particular group is of such little value that their wellbeing can be disregarded.

It is a serious and wicked distortion of most mainstream ideologies (religions, political or social ideologies) even to suggest that anyone can be killed because they do not agree with a group's belief.

 
At 9:19 AM, July 19, 2005, Blogger blogdai said...

Absolute belief in an ideology is the first step towards marginalizing divergent groups.

As we saw in Nazi Germany, the Jews were first marginalized, then ostracized. From there, eventually dehumanized. Once a group is dehumanized, there is less of a barrier in the minds of opressors towards killing of members of the "non-human" group.

We see this pattern emerging in Maoists. Drilling holes in the stomachs of village women who do not bow down before Maoism is dehumanizing. Blowing up civilian buses is dehumanizing.

What kind of government would this group be capable of? More preciently, what kind of politicians would seek to compromise and ally with such a brutal group?

-=blogdai

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home