A new and improved, safer and ergonomic molotov cocktail (self.Anarchism)

{Anarchism}

130 ups - 41 downs = 89 votes

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, DO NOT ATTEMPT

Step 1: Procure an empty bottle, the larger the bottle the better. I think wine bottles are the best.

Step 2: Fill the bottle up to the neck with a 50/50 mixture of motor oil and gasoline. The motor oil extends burn time, and sticks to surfaces.

Step 3: Seal the opening tightly with either a cork or a thick rag, and cover in multiple layers of heavy tape. Shake well to mix the gasoline and motor oil.

Step 4: Take a tampon, and tape it (multiple layers) facing fuse-end-up, on the bottom of the bottle. This means the opening that you just sealed is facing down, and the thing you're going to light is facing up.

Step 5: Soak the tampon fuse in any of the above flammable substances, and throw. In the end it should look a little like this

This is an improvement over the traditional in two ways. Since the fuse is taped to the outside of the bottle and spaced farther away from the fuel, there is no chance of being covered in burning gasoline when you throw it. The second way is ergonomic. There's a reason the Germans made their grenades to look like this, you can throw them farther and more accurately when there's a handle/lever movement involved.

Science, bitch!

EDIT: One last thing I forgot. For extra fun, build the ultimate molly AS A HARMLESS CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENT. SRSLY. Instead of plain old oil and gasoline, use 15 parts by weight powdered high explosive, to 80 parts gelled fuel (napalm, I'm not going to tell you how to make that). Then add 5 parts primary explosive (mercury fulminate, lead azide, etc.) And stir until well mixed. Light fuse and throw. It will burn normally for a short period of time, then explode violently. Make sure to throw in an empty area, away from people and private property.

93 comments submitted at 17:47:42 on Jan 19, 2014 by Pipe_Bomb

  • [-]
  • IceblinkLuck
  • 7 Points
  • 01:12:09, 20 January

Why is a person who thinks it's awesome to coat someone in burning fuel thinking about political philosophy at all? Fight any and all oppression, right? Man so disgusting that the US uses white phosphorus, spread the word guysss...also here is a guide to making a device that you can use to burn the flesh of another human being. Isn't it so funny that I say it's for educational purposes? How about when I add a bold effect? This subreddit is full of fucking idiots.

  • [-]
  • Fluck
  • 9 Points
  • 02:25:25, 20 January

If you're leaving this comment from America, where your government tortures and slaughters innocent people all over the world, where your unaccountable police run rampant doing the same to American citizens and where no one does a thing to prevent the billionaires that run your country from raping the planet, then you are the fucking idiot. Not just the fucking idiot, but the ultimate fucking coward idiot.

Do you know where the phrase "left wing" comes from?

Get some fucking guts and stop being the cowards of the planet, America. No amount of discussion about tactics and screaming about your 4th amendment can hide the fact that the whole world sees America as a country of 300 million cowards.

You pretend you will one day use your 4th amendment when things get bad enough, or something like that. No you won't. You are captured, complicit and compliant. You are too afraid to do a thing.

Do you have a historical understanding of where the term "left-wing" originated, or are you just another intellectually crippled fascist?

America has a monopoly on murder, torture and brutality, and the American people are too afraid to do anything about it. There is literally no such thing as "left wing" in America.

  • [-]
  • LegendxFundz
  • 3 Points
  • 05:31:30, 20 January

Excuse my ignorance, where did the term 'left wing' originate?

  • [-]
  • highdra
  • 3 Points
  • 06:29:49, 20 January

According to wikipedia

>The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime.

  • [-]
  • LegendxFundz
  • 2 Points
  • 06:34:04, 20 January

Thanks. So I'm guessing /u/Fluck's point is that left wingers must be revolutionary?

  • [-]
  • Fluck
  • 2 Points
  • 07:12:59, 20 January

My point is that people who take "left-wing" to mean "pacifist" have a very shallow and self-involved perspective of history. The French Revolution was an extremely violent and bloody time that no rational person could hope to see repeated, but when compared to the alternatives that involved much greater suffering for many, many more people, it was a necessary step towards ending the oppression at the hands of dictators.

The term left-wing originated with people who had the guts to fight, kill and die for the greater good. This wasn't war waged by the powerful on the weak and it wasn't about money or land, but progressive people put their lives on the line and used every tool at their disposal to end the despotic reign of oppressive dictators.

The phrase "left-wing" originated with secular people fighting and dying for utilitarian good; for a better world for everyone. Rupert Murdoch has convinced /u/highdra and his American friends that "left-wing" means increasing taxes and gay pride parades.

  • [-]
  • highdra
  • 0 Points
  • 06:57:31, 20 January

He doesn't have a point. He's a fucking idiot coward and a moral Neanderthal who lacks the most basic reasoning skills needed to formulate a cohesive set of ethical guidelines to live by so he projects these qualities onto others.

  • [-]
  • All-the-post-leftist
  • 1 Points
  • 07:11:04, 20 January

Fuck off shitstain.

  • [-]
  • IceblinkLuck
  • 3 Points
  • 03:37:55, 20 January

Not from the US as it happens! I find it hard to relate what you're saying. All you know about me is that I am against the use of using petrol to burn people on purpose, that's it.

>Not just the fucking idiot, but the ultimate fucking coward idiot.

Do you want to calm down and maybe formulate exactly why?

Man reading the rest of this post is bizarre. I'll give you a pass on your ramblings about America as you didn't know I wasn't from there, but

>Do you have a historical understanding of where the term "left-wing" originated, or are you just another intellectually crippled fascist?

LOL

you'd think you were deconstructing an essay I'd written. I can't see a single moment in your comment anything you said related to my comment, unless I am really am an ultimate fucking coward idiot (do you play xboxlive?) for expressing the simple opinion I did.

  • [-]
  • Fluck
  • 2 Points
  • 03:48:07, 20 January

Ah, I just glanced quickly at your comment history and assumed. The relevance is hardly lost, though, while you are effectively identical to the do-nothing cowards I was describing.

The implication of your self-righteous indignation is that you have some kind of moral high ground for letting evil people get away with evil without repercussion. While you come online expecting to be lauded for your pacifist inaction, the world is being quickly dismantled by interests you tacitly support through your ignorant suggestion that some good will come from people sitting on their hands.

If you have a peaceful way to stop your government (yes, YOUR government in the UK) from spying on its citizens, murdering people in the middle east and oppressing people who expose the truth then fucking say it instead of criticizing the only thing that has ever contested despotic reigns.

  • [-]
  • IceblinkLuck
  • 1 Points
  • 03:55:23, 20 January

>I just glanced quickly at your comment history and assumed. The relevance is hardly lost, though, while you are effectively identical to the do-nothing cowards I was describing.

I love how my immediate history and all activity in my life can be known by you just reading my comment history on an image board on the internet. Kind of speaks volumes about what I wonder your sort of activity is, sounds like you get into ranting a lot and love to rant.

>The implication of your self-righteous indignation is that you have some kind of moral high ground for letting evil people get away with evil without repercussion

Er how do you infer "without repercussion" when all I said actually "preferably without petrol bombs".

Your post reads like someone doing a pantomime version of the ghost of OWS. I am not against fighting oppression, it's amazing that you think it would actually be difficult for me to come up with ideas other than petrol bombs (or I think I could come up with a few that would actually outweigh most ideas that involved using any bombs at all) for changing things. I mean, it would take effort I don't have to type it out, but you made it sound like you thought I'd be stumped at this point. Ok you are right I can't think of anything else other than bombs

  • [-]
  • Fluck
  • 3 Points
  • 04:41:24, 20 January

Your asinine interjection into a conversation about a tool for left-wing people to fight back against oppression isn't really about a humanitarian desire to protect people. If you were really concerned about the ethical implications of your self-righteous inaction, you would have started a dialogue about when (if ever) violence is an appropriate response to violence.

You haven't even presented a dichotomy to suggest you have any moral sense at all. What about an example like a person is running around London with a knife, stabbing random people, and asking if it is okay to use violence to prevent that person bringing harm to more innocents?

You and people like you are moral Neanderthals without the most basic reasoning skills needed to formulate a cohesive set of ethical guidelines to live by. You will do horrible, inexcusable things and you will let horrible, inexcusable things happen to others because you rationalise that your inaction has some ethical basis to it... but you never go so far as to articulate the logic behind it.

> I mean, it would take effort I don't have to type it out

This is all you needed to say. This is exactly how you - and other cowards like you - respond to any call to review the values that underpin the passive complicity you pass off as pacifism. You don't.

  • [-]
  • IceblinkLuck
  • 1 Points
  • 05:37:16, 20 January

Too much assumption. You don't know anything about me, just that I am against petrol bombs, and look at those paragraphs. You seem totally self absorbed to just awkwardly spew out all of this garbage and accusations about my character.

Talking about basic reasoning skills, yet seems to not understand that the burden of proof/justification lies with the person throwing the petrol bomb, it isn't justified because I refuse to justify not using a petrol bomb. Honestly your post scares me a little, saying things like I have "no moral sense at all" for being against the use of petrol bombs. Like, your posts read like the sort of thing you'd hear a guy was writing before he went and shot up a school.

  • [-]
  • Fluck
  • 3 Points
  • 07:03:15, 20 January

> I refuse to justify not using a petrol bomb.

The entire point of everything I've said here seems a bit too difficult for you to grasp. I'm not sure humouring your desire to conflate your cowardice with morally justifiable activism is doing this conversation - or you - any good.

Does your single-track mind universally hate the military, in the same way you're against molotov cocktails? Are you against the police using force and violence in the same way you're against people mobilising against oppressive forces? Are you against prison, capital or corporal punishment - the epitomes of state sanctioned violence - in the same way you make blanket assumptions and statements about activists responding to violence with violence?

You have refused to justify or defend your lack of morality in even the most vague or slight way because you simply know that your position is indenfensible.

Saying "the status quo says that using violence is bad" is not just ignorant, but wildly hypocritcal unless you also make the same generalisations about all violence used by the forces you respond passively to.

You are not a good person for trying to pretend that you have figured out exactly who can and can't use violence: you're just any other ignorant kid who regurgitates the lines his parents told him.

You cannot formulate a logical response or a rational argument... so you have continued to deflect the question and throw irrelevant and childish insults around.

At least I have the integrity to justify my beliefs you fascist coward.

  • [-]
  • highdra
  • -2 Points
  • 06:19:48, 20 January

You're not a real anarchist!

+/u/bitcointip $10.00 verify

Eat capitalism, scum!

  • [-]
  • bitcointip
  • 1 Points
  • 06:23:38, 20 January

[] Verified: highdra → $10 USD (m฿ 11.42792 millibitcoins) → IceblinkLuck [sign up!] [what is this?]

  • [-]
  • weareyourfamily
  • 0 Points
  • 04:50:46, 20 January

So we should just violently overthrow the perpetrators of violence so we can put even more violent people in charge. In the end, all your tactics will accomplish is to replace one violent leadership with an equally (or more) violent one. Don't kid yourself... you're advocating for a 'might is right' solution...

  • [-]
  • Pipe_Bomb
  • 2 Points
  • 04:56:22, 20 January

There is really no way to respond to such a limp wristed liberal cliche.

  • [-]
  • weareyourfamily
  • 0 Points
  • 05:03:38, 20 January

Well thats because there is no answer to the problem. Might not be 'right' but it IS what controls our society (not just the US either...) Until you can find a better way to change people's minds why don't you try being a bit less destructive.

  • [-]
  • criticalnegation
  • 1 Points
  • 05:28:44, 20 January

welp, youve named the enemy, why dont you come to america and do something about it, internet tough guy? ;)

  • [-]
  • Pipe_Bomb
  • 10 Points
  • 02:21:02, 20 January

Yeah never fight back, peace and love man, just like, put out good karma and the status quo will collapse, nobody has to get hurt, pass the bong dude.

Here's an analogy Ancaps love. The British shot people. The American Revolutionaries shot people too. Were the Americans just as bad as the British?

  • [-]
  • IceblinkLuck
  • -1 Points
  • 03:45:50, 20 January

Right well you're just assuming that because I am against petrol bombs and you actively seeking to proliferate their production (make no bullshit please) I am against fighting back. What a ridiculous conclusion, really makes me feel safer about the world that the guy with the brains is the one making bombs.

both of those paragraphs were just diversion based on your own presumption that I am against all methods of fighting back against oppression. It's been done without petrol bombs before.