52nd State

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

What is the source for your figures? If you don`t back them up with a source you may as well post pictures of little fluffy bunnies, they are both equally irrelevant.

The black book of communism

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

What are these figures? Death by execution or just deaths

Execution, deportation to gulag, engineered famins....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The black book of communism

Thanks for posting that link.

Obviously I`ve not read the book, I get the impression you have. One of the reviews makes comment of the fact that it does not take into account the fact that Communism as practiced isn`t Marxist Communism. Was that your impression of the book as well?

In rererence to your other post, lots of countries have the death penalty, and the Guantanomo Bay prison is nothing more than a gulag. Don`t the the US have ever engineered a famine within their own borders though.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

How can you compare that to the idealogy of everyone being equal?

because thats not all the ideoligy is about. If it had stopped at everyone being equal all would have been fine, many ideoligies have that basic premise, it's the forcible social engineering and the state apparatus that you need to effect that engineering that is the problem with communism. Millions of people are suddenly declared 'enemies of the state' because of their parentage, skills or upbringing. Instant discrimination....odd for a ideoligy that you say proclaims that all are equal. George Orwell finished that statement rather well...

You could say the same thing about religious wars or indeed any war. War is not evil just the implementation.

War is evil but sometimes it is unfortunately nessesary.

I'm sure when Marks developed the idea, secret police and cold war were not in his plan.
Communism is not the evil - it's human selfishness.

Marx already new that vast swathes of society would have to be purged when he formulated his ideas. How else could he bring about such a radical change in a society without 're-educating' and controlling 'dissident elements'

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Thanks for posting that link.

Obviously I`ve not read the book, I get the impression you have. One of the reviews makes comment of the fact that it does not take into account the fact that Communism as practiced isn`t Marxist Communism. Was that your impression of the book as well?

In rererence to your other post, lots of countries have the death penalty, and the Guantanomo Bay prison is nothing more than a gulag. Don`t the the US have ever engineered a famine within their own borders though.

The book is 900 pages of depression, I have only managed 265 of them before I was too 'down' to read any more. I havent opened it for 2 years till tonight. One day I will finish it.
Guantanomo bay has food, doctors, heating/air con, sanitation and shelter. Buy the book and read about real gulags.
Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist, I don't care, It's all about controlling people and their lives by force and eliminating those that don't agree. If we lived in a communist state we would not be free to be typing on this forum without worrying about who is watching us.




...but we digress from the threads topic

Originally Posted by Stuart W

America are guilty of a whole shed load of things, including the things you mention and polution etc. Does that mean they should not be given any say?

No, but it should give the clue that there is a strong taint of hypocrisy in their position.

Yes, we are a soverign state, but I didn't think Bush wanted to pass new laws or anything, just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit, which has been blown out of all proportion by the british press.

I'm sorry? What part of "just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit" do you consider *reasonable*?!

I guess I'll just keep my opinions to myself.

Why? Because you don't like people pointing out the flaws in them?

Stupid me thought that something printed in the national press (The Guardian, yesterday "London now most likely target for terror campaign") would have been researched.

Unfortunately since you haven't posted a link to that article and, despite several minutes googling I've been unable to *find* it, it's a bit difficult for me to address it except to point out that to say that something is "most likely" doesn't mean that it *will* happen.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Bushophobia can be bad for your conscience by Michael Gove (snip)

I would like first to ask everyone at these rallies if they are happy attending events organised by apologists for tyranny.(snip)

The guys organising next weekâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s anti-Bush rally are not really against war, they just think it is a pity that the free world won the Cold War. And anyone clambering aboard their Big Red Peace Bus is a fellow traveller with fans of totalitarianism.

This is utter nonsense and I could swear I can see the ghost of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the background!

Talking of which, the next question I would like to ask anyone standing next to me next Thursday is: do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?

And why hasn't the US invaded all the other countries in this world, such as, say the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are run by mass murderers? Surely it couldn't be because they don't have any oil?

The history of the past 80 years teaches us that it is when democracies are weak and slow to assert themselves that conflicts begin and innocents die.

Obviously he never watched Rory Bremner's "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" where, for instance, it pointed out how Winston Churchill proposed the use of gas bombs and chemical warfare against the people who lived in what is now called Iraq...

It is immensely to President Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s credit that he recognises weakness is more provocative than strength to those who live outside democracyââ‚ ¬â„¢s rules. We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.

Sorry, didn't someone just say that London was "most likely" to be a terrorist target? Why should we be a target if not for the fact that TB is seen as Bush's poodle and jumps whenever he whistles?

I respect freedom too much to enjoy seeing it abused by those whose first instinct is to insult anyone who actually bothers to fight for it.

When someone says "you're either with us or against us" and other such things, are they *really* "fighting for freedom" or trying to dictate to everyone else how they should run their affairs??

Of course we can all pick holes in whatever bits of the above article that we want to but the general gist of it is thought provoking-Ramrod

Yes, the general gist of it is that the author has a clear agenda that he wants to push and is willing to ignore any inconvenient facts that get in its way.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hmmm....at least they don't deliberatly send suicide bombers to blow up busses, red cross hospitals, skyscrapers and other civilian targets.

No, they use A-10's to attack journalists.

Oh, and don't forget that in 1991 they *deliberately* targetted power stations, water and sewerage treatment facilities and many other *civilian* targets!

btw....what is wrong with threatening countries with invasion if they don't change their terrorist ways? It is analagous to threatening criminals with jail if they don't stop offending.

Two quotes for you to think about...

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

And "One person's patriot is another man's terrorist."

Originally Posted by basa

As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.

Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.

However, just like in school, if you're a big enough bully, you can get away with your actions because nobody will (or can) stand up against you.

Saddam? No, I was talking about Bush!

Originally Posted by towny

Either his statements are true or they are false.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

He mixes facts with supposition, falsehood, innuendo and hearsay to make his points. There is some truth in what he says, I have no doubt, but that only makes the lies more palatable.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

To say that it is the implimentation of communism that caused the problem not communism itself is like saying that paedophilia is not the problem it's just the implimentation of paedophilia.

And how many people have been killed by Christians?

Try substituting "Christianity" into the above sentence and see how many people take exception!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

I'm sorry? What part of "just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit" do you consider *reasonable*?!

You know, I suspect that the source of this was something more along the lines of:

US agent: you know, it'd be so much easier if we could shut down central london
UK agent: yeah, tell me about it, anyway, what we're suggesting is...

Then the media got hold of it and decided to blow it all out of proportion.

Or it was just Mad Ken sounding off

[basa]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

From the rest of your post I`m not so sure that the only lesson that you learned wasn`t simply that violence = power = control.

You are 100% correct !! But a great many kids need to be controlled until such time as they can demonstrate self control and similarly a great many dictatorial administrations need to be controlled by force until such time as they can demonstrate conformity with international humanitarian law.

Don't miss the point that these school bullies or international bullies would control us by violent force if allowed to. Oh sorry they already try to daily with bombings and terrorist attacks.

The West may not have it all right with our obsession with capitalism, but I prefer that to genocide and suppression.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

And how many people have been killed by Christians?

Try substituting "Christianity" into the above sentence and see how many people take exception!

LOL, that still dosn't negate my argument.
...and I think that Cristianity and Communism are two totally different things in terms of the way they are implimented, for one, Cristianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends. That is part and parcle of communism.
Anyhow....we digress from the topic.

[basa]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

.............Christianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends.......

Erm.......the more extreme Moslem practitioners do !!