MAOIST's killing Nepalese

John Powell

John Powell

Joined
Mar 9, 1999
Messages
1,440
I see the GD Maoists are at it again and have killed 25 policeman and soldiers in various provinces. I hope everyone associated with HI is out of harm's way.

After these attacks I never hear of any of them being "rounded up" or prosecuted. Sounds bad.
 
I've been getting email regarding the latest killings by the Maoists. They had about a four month cease fire and then started again. BirGorkha is in a pretty safe spot. I worry more about the family traveling in Nepal but most of the trouble is in the west of the country and we seldom go west farther than Pokhara.

Poverty and government corruption feed the Maoist revolt. Just a half honest government and maybe a doubling of the per capita income to around $400 per year would end the Maoist movement. Of course, a month or two of carpet bombing would probably give them cause to reconsider, too.
 
They've been under a "truce" the past four months, as a result of their kidnapping of a large group of people, and being driven into a village by the army (first time the army had been mobilized against them for some time). They did the usual - "We have these villagers as hostages", etc, etc. The army commander said "Then you would be the only ones left alive in the village, wouldn't you?" and the Maoists surrendered, and the "peace talks" began. While the shill game was going on, they regrouped, and now this. They, and a bunch on the other side, also, need to hear "Ayo Gorkhali", up close and personal. Do wonders for the country.
 
They too have liberal idiots...but instead of gun control they have kuk control and Gorka control. I still say the best way to protect everyone is to arm them all.
 
Originally posted by SamuraiDave
I still say the best way to protect everyone is to arm them all.
Click to expand...

Dito!!!!!!!


Heber Ellsworth
 
I'll agree. I think Nepal is another good example of what can happen when you have repressive gun control. It literally takes an act of congress to get a gun permit in Nepal so very few of the populace have guns available.
 
I don't know if arming everybody would make that big a difference. Americans are pretty well armed, and the only time it ever accomplished anything was in 1776; since then, the people who get together and vote have always had more power than the people who get together and shoot.
Another point to consider is who would be doing the arming. In Nepal, I guess it would be China or India, and it's a pretty safe bet they'd be doing it so they could claim more territory, not for the good of the local citizens. That's why there are gangs of armed Maoists running around with SKSs and Chinese AKs.
Uncle's got the right idea, I think. What's needed is to put some teeth in the political system that puts corrupt officials out of business. Teach people to read and write and give them a vote that means something. Just bringing the wages up to something approaching human would cut a lot of support for the insurrectionists.
The one positive note is this: if there's enough dissatisfaction to produce cadres of hard-core, slogan shouting guerillas, there's probably enough to generate real political reform. It might take a couple of decades, but eventually somebody in power is going to realize the best way to keep it is to democratize. I mean, if it can happen in Iran, like it is starting to today, it can happen anywhere.
 
at the history, frosty. The ability of the populace to own firearms down here has made a daily difference, realistically as well as politically. "Ma" Richardson lost the Texas gubernatorial election to people who get together to shoot AND vote, and those same people put W. where he is today. We aren't as quick to gather as the hoplophobes, but when we do, we have more momentum. There is an old saw attributed to Robert Heinlein "An armed society is a polite society" - not very true in general application, but in the villages that have rebelled against the Maoists strong-arm techniques, firearms would have turned their several victories into sheer routs. These villagers were fed up with being forced to pay tribute (even including daughters in some instances) and began decorating trees with Maoists. A smarmy government, faced with an armed populace, operates differently than it would where corruption and theft from the public are considered the norm, and the "right" of officials. I shudder to think of what our own government might have become over the years without continued reinforcement of our second amendment rights. Most of these carrion simply don't have the nerve to stand up to an armed man who is righteously defending that which is his own. Without their political backing, they would resort to their natural level in society, as sneak thieves and burglars.
 
Since I remember it I like to use WWII history as examples. They tell me 6 million Jews went up in smoke during WWII. I hear there were less than a million SS troopers. If the Jews had shot the first SS trooper who came to cart them off the final score would have been:

Jews 6 million
or worst case 5 million
SS -- 0

But the Nazis had taken away all the guns.
 
I distrust any government that fears and distrust its honest law abiding citizens right to own weapons especically firearms.
 
especially about the ability of an armed population to resist terror. That's the weakness of relying on government, isn't it? When it fails you, you have to be able to look out for yourself.
I do think U.S. gun owners voting as a bloc is a lot different from using guns to create political change. You're using the power of your votes, not the power of your guns. Your guns had no power whatsoever, unless you were willing to use them. I mean, what would you have done if Bush had lost by 220 votes, instead of winning? Stormed the Electoral College?
Mao was only half right when he said power comes out of the barrel of a gun. What he left out was that you have to be willing to pull the trigger.
I'm a gun owner. I hunt every chance I get. And my people have been soldiers as far back as anyone can trace. Somettimes i think I'd love to live in a place where I could legally own a Browning Hi-Power. I don't live in such a place, and I think I'm safer because of it - because, and I intend no offense by this, mostly what I see guns used for in the U.S. is killing people. You can argue that guns don't kill people, people kill people; but with fewer guns, people are forced to kill people a lot more slowly - and it's easier to jump a nut with a knife, even a khukuri, than to take down someone with a pistol or assault rifle.
My country -Canada - which has gun control, has about as many murders every year as the whole District of Columbia. So I'm not against safe storage requirements, say, or licensing that forces people to prove they aren't nuts and actually know how to handle a firearm without accidentally killing anyone. And I don't believe government is a realistic threat to my liberty. The country's too big and the population too scattered for a totalitarian to control, and we barely have an army, certainly nowhere near enough troops to support a political coup. Russians aren't going to come marching over the pole any time soon, and our neighbours to the U.S. - God bless you - already own us lock, stock and barrel, so an invasion isn't likely from that quarter either.
Course, if y'all did invade, we'd be dead meat. I can't imagine a handful of Canucks with Lee Enfields, Buck knives and shotguns turning back a tide of millions of pistol-and-khukuri waving Yanks.
;)
 
I do believe in strong gun control aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, not law abiding citizens.
 
Interesting thoughts. The safety argument may or may not be valid. There are differences of opinion on the cultural factors that influence the number of murders. But to me the number of murders attributable to civilians with arms is irrelevant. I would not care for a society in which only the non-productive government forces were armed, even if there were less civilian violence. I would much rather live in a society where the productive classes have arms and the ability to resist both oppression and the theft of their labors at the muzzle of a gun.
 
Got a report from the Sherpas -- the Maoists did some damage in the Solu (Pala's home). Killed the CDO and several policemen. Robbed a bank and generally raised a lot of hell.

The King has declared a state of emergency which says "civil liberties" have been suspended. If he knows what's good for him he better assemble a regiment of retired Gorkhas and turn them loose on the Maoists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top