Italian police foiled a terrorist plot to bomb London

[Ziroc]

Please don't derail this thread into a 'for or against iraq war'.

We have a forum for that guys [img]smile.gif[/img]

[B_part]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: Originally posted by B_part: Do we care if they do it or not? Saddam is a threat, and must be removed. Well, disarmed, which means removed, since he won't comply. Anyway, it's common american-enemies policy to sponsor terrorism, no matter what their politic background is. Iraq isn't an exception.

It’s common American policy to sponsor or even commit terrorism against its enemies.
For example the mujahedin in Afghanistan,
Giving Saddam all his weapons of mass destruction when he was fighting against Iran,
Mass torture and Murder by the CIA and American military in Vietnam.
Funding the Contras.
aiding the attempt to overthrow Chavez in venuzsala,
Overthrowing Allende in chile and replaceing him with a dictatorship responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 people.
Killing over 2000 afghan civilians.

It’s very hard to tell who are the real terrorists sometimes.[/QB][/QUOTE]That's true. But you must choose sometimes the lesser evil... and that's not saddam, osama or NKorea. Also USA policy towards CIA sponsored terrorism has changed in the last years.

As to the Afghan civilians, nobody ever said that wars are a beautiful thing and bombs make distinction between evil and innocent... but mind also that Afghanistan is in peace for the first time since I don't know when...

As to the weapons to the mujahdeen (spelling?), that was not terrorism, that was resistance, not terribly different from the French or italian or greek or etc. against the Nazis. Mujhadeen against soldiers, not against civilians.

[B_part]

Originally posted by wellard: P.S. There is a dedicated forum to this topic at the bottom of the Ironworks main page... maybe that's the place to discuss heard this link mentioned before.... but when I went to the gaming forums page i saw nothing. Thankyou for giving me more detailed directions. does Ziroc have a minimum iq entry level for this ironworks thing? [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Scroll to the end of the main page, or follow the link: http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...ubb=forum;f=14

[ 01-24-2003, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]

[Epona]

The thing that you have to realise about The Sun Dan, is that it likes to be sensationalist. They have had strings of headlines claiming that one or another group of 'terrorists' was planning to attack London, and little of this is borne out in fact. They want to create hysteria and panic to sell more papers.

Yes these people may well have been terrorists, but I doubt very much that their target was London.

[Sir Taliesin]

[quote]Originally posted by B_part:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eisenschwarz:
[qb]

That's true. But you must choose sometimes the lesser evil... and that's not saddam, osama or NKorea. Also USA policy towards CIA sponsored terrorism has changed in the last years. As to the Afghan civilians, nobody ever said that wars are a beautiful thing and bombs make distinction between evil and innocent... but mind also that Afghanistan is in peace for the first time since I don't know when... As to the weapons to the mujahdeen (spelling?), that was not terrorism, that was resistance, not terribly different from the French or italian or greek or etc. against the Nazis. Mujhadeen against soldiers, not against civilians.

You must realize that Mr. Eisenshwarz thinks communism is a grand way to do things. Hence Afghanistan's take over by the Former Soviet Union was a good thing in his eyes. Never mind that the Soviets were invited in by a illegimate government, who overthrew a REAL recognized government to begin with.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by B_part: That's true. But you must choose sometimes the lesser evil... and that's not saddam, osama or NKorea. Also USA policy towards CIA sponsored terrorism has changed in the last years.

The lesser of evils? I guess if you consider brutal dictatorships a better alternative then a democratically elected government.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: You must realize that Mr. Eisenshwarz thinks communism is a grand way to do things. Hence Afghanistan's take over by the Former Soviet Union was a good thing in his eyes. Never mind that the Soviets were invited in by a illegimate government, who overthrew a REAL recognized government to begin with.

Just a quick point, but thats not strictly true. Well - not necessarily anyway. Being a communist does not mean you support the USSR in all of its actions. As far as I'm concerned it does not even mean that you support the USSR in their view that they were communist at all. They weren't. Communism holds freedom and internationalism as central. After Stalin's counter-revolution these both went right out the window. So lets remember that being a communist does not mean you have to like the red army. I don't like them, and I certainly didn't like what they did in Afghanistan. They were just as bad as the West in terms of attempting to dominate the country and use it for tactical ends.

[B_part]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by B_part: That's true. But you must choose sometimes the lesser evil... and that's not saddam, osama or NKorea. Also USA policy towards CIA sponsored terrorism has changed in the last years.

The lesser of evils? I guess if you consider brutal dictatorships a better alternative then a democratically elected government.[/QUOTE]Perhaps you have misunderstood me... the lesser of evil is USA, not saddam and the rest of those. By saying the lesser of evil, I want to say that I don't fully approve USA policy, but I certainly prefer the USA to dictatorships around the world.

[B_part]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Just a quick point, but thats not strictly true. Well - not necessarily anyway. Being a communist does not mean you support the USSR in all of its actions. As far as I'm concerned it does not even mean that you support the USSR in their view that they were communist at all. They weren't. Communism holds freedom and internationalism as central. After Stalin's counter-revolution these both went right out the window. So lets remember that being a communist does not mean you have to like the red army. I don't like them, and I certainly didn't like what they did in Afghanistan. They were just as bad as the West in terms of attempting to dominate the country and use it for tactical ends.

Communism holds freedom as central? then why are ALL communist regimes dictatorships? Since 1917 I haven't seen a democratic communist regime.

Yes, you might object they weren't true communists, they all misunderstood the Holy Kapital by Marx. Then I ask you, doesn't the fact that all of the communisrt revolution failed to be true communist mean that communism is an impossible form of government?

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by B_part: Communism holds freedom as central? then why are ALL communist regimes dictatorships? Since 1917 I haven't seen a democratic communist regime. Yes, you might object they weren't true communists, they all misunderstood the Holy Kapital by Marx. Then I ask you, doesn't the fact that all of the communisrt revolution failed to be true communist mean that communism is an impossible form of government?

Communism does hold freedom as central, whether or not you think it is workable with that in mind is another matter. I think yes, a lot of people think no. It'll be a long time before either of us could posssibly be proved conclusively right on the issue I think.

Most of the problems with communist revolutions so far is that they have happened under adverse conditions when it wasn't actually the public revolting but instead a small group of people doing it for them. That isn't the way to go. It is one of the holes of Marx that he doesn't properly discuss the way revolution should occur but it is fairly clear that it has to happen with overwhelming consent. Lenin adds to that the conception of a party as a kernel of revolutionary activity, but I sometimes think the Bolsheviks took that idea too far even in the early stages. Its fairly clear that by 1923, or thereabouts, the party had lost any remnants of democracy but I would put that down to the fact that the revolution did not happen due specifically to historical inevitability but instead due to strong personalities. Once a socialist government had been set up it became obvious that people weren't ready for it and it had to be enforced through unsavoury means. Add to that the whole "Socialism in One Country" nonsense that Stalin started up and you get a weird ole' mix of dictatorship and totalitarianism that is completely at odds to most socialists conception of how things should really work in a communist state.

I think a communist revolution will work, just not for a while, and not until it is worldwide. So don't hold your breath for it tomorrow, but it'll definately come eventually.