Italian police foiled a terrorist plot to bomb London

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: You must realize that Mr. Eisenshwarz thinks communism is a grand way to do things.

PPOR

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Hence Afghanistan's take over by the Former Soviet Union was a good thing in his eyes.

Lie.
I have never Promulgated that the soviet union was good, Indeed on many occasions I have criticised it

I suggest that you investigate literature on critical thinking, since you would be laughed at in a serious debate if you tried any of that.

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Never mind that the Soviets were invited in by a illegimate government, who overthrew a REAL recognized government to begin with.

Nevermind that american funded the very people who would later attack them eh?
nevermidn that America Funded the taleban up till sept 11th eh?

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.

So you would rather (for example as in chile) have a dictatorship that killed over 30,000 people to a democracy?
What gives American government the right to interfere with the legitimate democratic process in other countries?
That fact that it has, makes it no better than those it decrys.

Originally posted by B_part: 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...

Afghanistan is NOT at peace, the warlords are now engageing in Internecine conflict, women are still opressed and forced to wear burlkhas in many areas still, Cable T.V has been bannedin Kabul for being "unislamic" and Of course we have the fact that the farmers are now growing opium again, Which will of course become heroin supplied to America and the west in the end.

NOte also, That Since america killed more innocent civlians in afghanistan than died in sept 11th, does that not make it rather hypocratical?

Originally posted by B_part: 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.[/QB]

Freedom fighters or Terrorists?
It's only a matter of semantics, The Mujaheddin became the Taleban.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: 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.[/QB]

however Karl Marx assumed that The Advance of the Means of the production would Automatically lead to ending scarcity of resources at some point, however as we can see, The general tendency is for the ruling classes to be evermore entrenched and dominate though them being the first ones to adopt and use the new technology.

There's no reason why the Ruleing classe should not become more firmly entrenched , For example the gap between the infomation rich & poor is growing and if you look at what the goverment is doing today with univerisites, They want an elite to go to university and they want to proles to do vocational jobs, and work hard and obey.

WEstern education tends to have followed the prussion model of being long term social engineering to produce obediant workers, literace rates in america have acutally declined since WW1.

[Epona]

Barry, spot on mate.

Just cos people hear the word Communism, and associate it with the USSR because that's what they called themselves, does not mean it's correct.

I could go round calling myself a Buddhist, some people might then get the impression from that if they did not look into it further that Buddhism was about drinking, partying, and riding round on vintage scooters. They'd be wrong, as they'd find out if they read some Buddhist literature.

The ideas of freedom, democracy and equality are CENTRAL to communism. People should try reading some pre-Stalin communist literature if they don't believe me. Alas Stalin ****ed it all up and now he and the USSR is what people think of when they hear the word communism - but rather like me if I were to call myself a Buddhist, the USSR was NOT communist. It's a word that has been misused over and over.

[B_part]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: 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.
[/QUOTE]

Private property is one of the basic human rights:
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
(excerpt from the universal declaration of human rights)

Communism wants to deprive people of their private property - hence it CANNOT hold freedom as central.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: I think a communist revolution will work

It cannot. It is not an evolutiomary stable strategy. In a communist regime the redistribution of riches ensures that you will get the same thing, no matter if you work for it or not. You will get no reward for improving anything.
Hence there is no reason to sweat - as long as they pretend to pay me, I'll pretend to work.
Eventually the whole system collapses on itself as ALL the communist regime's economies did. Do you know why during the first years of Lenin's regime, the years you regard as true communism, only then did the USSR enjoy a true improvement of life? That's because Lenin himself allowed market economy for agricoltural products... quite ironic, isn't it?

[B_part]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: 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.

So you would rather (for example as in chile) have a dictatorship that killed over 30,000 people to a democracy?
What gives American government the right to interfere with the legitimate democratic process in other countries? [/QUOTE]
Nobody, and I am saying the whole Chile business was a crime. But Saddam isn't a democracy, and there are no "legitimate democratic processes" in Iraq.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Afghanistan is NOT at peace, the warlords are now engageing in Internecine conflict, women are still opressed and forced to wear burlkhas in many areas still, Cable T.V has been bannedin Kabul for being "unislamic" and Of course we have the fact that the farmers are now growing opium again, Which will of course become heroin supplied to America and the west in the end.

[/qb]

As to the opium, it's the only way farmers have to survive. Nobody compels the western junkie to buy heroin and similar...
As to Afghanistan, note that the war started a legitimate democratic process... peace will be achieved once a strong state has been estabilished, with the help of the UN peace force.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: NOte also, That Since america killed more innocent civlians in afghanistan than died in sept 11th, does that not make it rather hypocratical?

War is a shitty thing. They attack you, you have to defend - that means dead soldiers and collateral damage. Osama attacked the USA, not the opposite - NATO art 5 was called-. Osama was sponsored by the Afghan government, hence the Afghan government committed an act of war.

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: Freedom fighters or Terrorists? It's only a matter of semantics, The Mujaheddin became the Taleban.

That's WRONG. Only a small percentage of the Mujahdeen became Taliban. Remember the northern alliance? Do you think it's just semantics that they, fellow Mujhadeen, revolted AGAINST the Taliban regime? Do you think it's a coincidence that on day 7/11/2001 the northern alliance general was killed, just two days before 9/11?

Also, freedom fighters hit enemy soldiers, terrorists DELIBERATELY hit civilians

[ 01-25-2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: B_part ]

[wellard]

G'day cobbers
It looks as the there is more to this story, so I've bumped it back up to paste this link
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=374780

It seems as there was 28 Pakistans arrested with pics of the British defence boss sir Michael Boyce. This together with maps, explosives and details of his forthcoming trip to milan. It looks as though the world owes the Italian police a big thankyou.

[img]graemlins/tomcat.gif[/img]