52nd State

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.

Of course it does, Jesus helped lepers, criminals and tax collectors - social outcasts. He proclaimed love thy neighbour as yourself - IE you are equal to your neighbour - if anything Jesus was communist.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by basa

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

....lets not go there

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Of course it does, Jesus helped lepers, criminals and tax collectors - social outcasts. He proclaimed love thy neighbour as yourself - IE you are equal to your neighbour - if anything Jesus was communist.

but where did he advocate a class war, centralization, state control of everything....etc?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

How is it nonsense? The leaders are 'fans of totalitarionism' and anyone with them is thus a 'fellow traveller' with 'fans of totalitarionism'

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?

Answering a question with another question is not an answer...

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...

'Proposed'? So he didn't actually do it then? Saddam did.

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?

True. We were probably less of a target before if only for the fact that we let so many terrorist types live here!

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??

Perhaps sometimes telling people/countries how to run their affairs negates the need for greater more forceful action later on.

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.

Yes, we are all guilty of doing things like that at times

Originally Posted by downquark1

Of course it does, Jesus helped lepers, criminals and tax collectors - social outcasts. He proclaimed love thy neighbour as yourself - IE you are equal to your neighbour - if anything Jesus was communist.

uh oh ... fairness and equality are hallmarks of Jesus' teaching, but Communism? No. Communism is about more than that. Communism calls for redistribution of wealth (by force if necessary), something you can't claim Jesus advocated, even after allowing for statements he made like 'give your riches to the poor and come, follow me.' Additionally, his portrayal of the afterlife clearly indicates a 'heirarchy' in which his people have greater or lesser rewards according to their life on earth.

Originally Posted by graham

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?

This is a valid point, but it doesn't answer the question you quoted above it. So here it is again:

Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?

You yourself admitted that there are some truths in this Times article, albeit serving to make lies more palatable. However what you have not done is to say which you think is which.

Sadly this thread is dominated by much posting of contrary points of view, with each side dismissing the other's view as 'agenda' or 'dogma', but there is precious little willingness to debate the substantive issues.

I say again, the 'facts' quoted in the article are either true or they are false. You called this 'nonsense' but then in your very next sentence you agreed with me:

Originally Posted by graham

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.

Right, so, as I pointed out, and as you clearly agree, what he publishes as fact is either true or it is not. In your case, you clearly have an idea what you think is true and what you think is false. Would you care to say which is which?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

but where did he advocate a class war, centralization, state control of everything....etc?

Communism: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community.

we must not confuse the basic ideas with different methods of implemenation. The idea listed above is very simular to the believes of Native americans (ie. no personal property). Nuclear power can destroy but it also powers the sun - the source of all life. Fireworks look nice but can injure people seriously.

You are defining the source by the possible affects it can produce. You could call capitolism evil because it pollutes the planet and leaves people hungry. While the ideas behind it seems fair.

[downquark1]

Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?

No, but that doesn't make it right. If my neighbour died it would mean no more loud music at night - but this doesn't mean I condone his murder.

Originally Posted by downquark1

we must not confuse the basic ideas with different methods of implemenation.

No, you cannot separate the basic idea from the people it was intended to influence. Communism attempts to deal with human nature. Human nature is basically selfish. Therefore any political theory that seeks to deal with that must acknowledge the need for change by force. So we have a political theory that calls for peace, harmony and equality that cannot possibly work without strife, oppression and an overseeing party elite to ensure it stays that way.

Communism is an absurdity that belongs in history. Even the Chinese have abandoned it, albeit very subtly.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

No, you cannot separate the basic idea from the people it was intended to influence. Communism attempts to deal with human nature. Human nature is basically selfish. Therefore any political theory that seeks to deal with that must acknowledge the need for change by force. So we have a political theory that calls for peace, harmony and equality that cannot possibly work without strife, oppression and an overseeing party elite to ensure it stays that way.

Communism is an absurdity that belongs in history. Even the Chinese have abandoned it, albeit very subtly.

I agree that it doesn't work and not worth trying, this doesn't mean it will never work. Native Americans lived with a simular system for a very long time - granted it was in a remarkably simple and small society.

Communism doesn't work but I believe describing it as evil is wrong. It's simply misguided. The path to hell is pathed with good intentions

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Communism doesn't work but I believe describing it as evil is wrong. It's simply misguided. The path to hell is pathed with good intentions

I merely called it an obscenity (but evil will do as well) because it was directly responsible for 100 million deaths in the last century and continues to kill as we speak.
Capitalism does not set out to kill people (even though that might occur, cristianity does not set out to kill people even though that happened in the past) communism does.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by downquark1

No, but that doesn't make it right. If my neighbour died it would mean no more loud music at night - but this doesn't mean I condone his murder.

What if rather than being murdered, he was evicted?
No longer had control over the hi-fi system, so no longer could keep others awake with his loud music at night?

Again I ask the anti-war people, do you think we should just move out of iraq now and leave them to it?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

No, they just had, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition which was an attempt to destroy a complete group of people ie "heretics" to further its own ends.

But, of course, that's *entirely* different...!

Originally Posted by Graham

No, they just had, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition which was an attempt to destroy a complete group of people ie "heretics" to further its own ends.

But, of course, that's *entirely* different...!

Now, really, do we have to go over this again? Christianity was instituted by Jesus of Nazareth, and a small group of his closest friends, a little under 2,000 years ago. What they said Christianity is, is what Christianity is.

The actions of a politically-motivated elite (namely the Roman church) over 1,000 years later do not demonstrate that Christianity advocates violence in pursuit of its aims. The Roman church has always been led by a Pope who claims to be God's mouthpiece on Earth and therefore what he says, is what the Christian God wants, thereby sidestepping the Bible's clear message on this point.

'Bible believing' Christians throughout the last two millennia have always rejected this. You may have heard of the 'Reformation' in connecton with this.

You really don't peruade anyone who knows anything about it that the Spanish Inquisition demonstrates Christianity is a violent philosophy. But I think you knew that.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

How is it nonsense? The leaders are 'fans of totalitarionism' and anyone with them is thus a 'fellow traveller' with 'fans of totalitarionism'

Because it attempts to imply that anyone who goes on an anti-war march is, ipso facto, a "fan of totalitarianism" which, I re-iterate, is utter nonsense.

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 answer is implicit in the question.

If the USA was really so determined to liberate people from oppressive and murderous regimes, they have plenty of choices in this world, and ones where they don't have to make up claims of WMD or links with Al Qaeda or suggest that Saddam had anything to do with September the 11th.

The fact is that Dubya and his cronies had an agenda of their own and they used the above as excuses to let them exercise that agenda.

'Proposed'? So he didn't actually do it then? Saddam did.

The only reason that he didn't was that, at that time, it was technologically impractical. The will was most certainly there. See http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm and scroll down to about half way down the page to where it says "Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"

Perhaps sometimes telling people/countries how to run their affairs negates the need for greater more forceful action later on.

And just WHO DECIDES? Who is so arrogant to say that *their* way of behaving is so much better than yours or anyone else's? Hell, this sounds like the sort of fanaticism of certain extreme Islamic groups who think that we should all be Muslims and worship Allah or be murdered as heretics! Is that *really* the sort of thing you *want* to emulate?!

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip>The answer is implicit in the question.<snip>

Maybe ... personally I am happy to concede you have a point. But you still haven't answered this question:

Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?