| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The SWP are a small, anti-Moscow, trotskyist, sect. (It mostly consists of teenagers and weed smokers - from wealthy, western backgrounds).
|
Yeah, whereas the leadership of "non-aligned" nations like Saudi Arabia and Singapore consist of hardcore dialectical materialists?
| Quote: |
One minute they say that Chechens are oppressed - the next they suggest fencing all of the Chechen people into a tiny landlocked corner and then leaving it up to ethnic warlords to decide the rest. I mean - it makes precisely zero sense.
|
I'm not saying that the pro-Chechen position is neccessarily correct. Just that I'd like to see some evidence that a majority of socialists support your position. And I'm still waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, both are similar. After the first Chechen War, Moscow withdrew and left the Chechens to do what they would. Then the scum attacked the surrounding territories which caused the Russians to invade inorder to stop the attacks. The Jews did the same thing: pull out in the hope that would this inspire peace. What happened? Attacks and kidnappings. The Jews should follow the Russian example and show no mercy, ie, kill them before they can kill you. If the terrorist hide behind " civilians" ( actually there are NO civilians in the middle east- the Muslims have seen to that with their tactics of suicide bombings and rocket attacks on urban areas). kill the "civilians" to get to the terrorists. Keep in mind most of these are Shia supporters of Hezbollah. And as for the poor babies who were killed, well, NITS MAKE LICE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Actually, both are similar. After the first Chechen War, Moscow withdrew and left the Chechens to do what they would. Then the scum attacked the surrounding territories which caused the Russians to invade inorder to stop the attacks. The Jews did the same thing: pull out in the hope that would this inspire peace. What happened? Attacks and kidnappings. The Jews should follow the Russian example and show no mercy, ie, kill them before they can kill you. If the terrorist hide behind " civilians" ( actually there are NO civilians in the middle east- the Muslims have seen to that with their tactics of suicide bombings and rocket attacks on urban areas). kill the "civilians" to get to the terrorists. Keep in mind most of these are Shia supporters of Hezbollah. And as for the poor babies who were killed, well, NITS MAKE LICE. |
Did you get your education through Coles notes or Cliff's ? You have a very poor and narrow sense of history (the issue in Chechyna is not just of this century or even the last number of years or even about just Chechnya itself but the whole Caucaus region). That aside, your own beliefs of "killing" , and stomping out babies as lice is SICK. I guess you haven't lived enough in some of the poorest and most downtrodden areas of the world to know what it is like to be at the mercy of POWER, state or thugs.......
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey Canadian, I was in Moscow when the last Chechen war took place. They had won, but couldn't resist the chance to continue making trouble around the CIS. Had they stayed within the borders, NO WAR. Just like in Lebanon. And as for the "poor innocent babies" if you kill them now, they won't be around to try to kill you later. This is a war between civilizations. Silly Canadian, which side are you on? Peace? There is no peace. Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased by the chains of Islamic slavery? I know not what course other may take, but I would rather shoot a Muslim than break wind. And if a silly Canadian gets in the way, TOO BAD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zdravutje muj comaradi,
The closest I've got was BAKU but i've lived in the former CIS several years. Moscow isn't exactly "poor" and a place to learn of the suffering of others....(although this could be done anywhere).
Muslim domination of the world? You've been watching too many bad Batman movies, or is that James Bond???
Please go back to the cave you crawled out of.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Silly Canadian,
"Live Simply, Simply Live" sounds like a great motto for a simpleton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You know, you wonder why I don't take your claims to socialism seriously. Then you turn around and cite the non-aligend movement, which currently includes such pro-capitalist, authoritarian states as Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and Egypt, as being some sort of spokesman for what socialists believe. Oh, and thanks for drawing my attention to the Duma's opposition to Chechen independence. Golly, the Russian legislature coming out against an anti-Russian independence movement. I'm sure their poition was based on a close reading of The Critique Of The Gotha Program. |
Tell me, how on earth is it left-wing/socialist to create a non-secular, fundamentalist state, led by religious fanatics?
It is entirely racist to argue that people should be segregated because of ethnicity and be forced to live in a small landlocked enclave. Whilst also being denied the opportunity to integrate their economic development and common Russian language.
| Quote: |
| Yeah, whereas the leadership of "non-aligned" nations like Saudi Arabia and Singapore consist of hardcore dialectical materialists? |
I said "nearly all" of the NA movement. I didn't say it was a 100% binding homogenous bloc where everyone thinks exactly the same way.
Of course Western capitalist liberals are rabidly anti-Moscow, as they always have been. (After all, these are the same supposedly 'left-wing' people who voted to go along with the invasion of Iraq).
| Quote: |
| I'm not saying that the pro-Chechen position is neccessarily correct. Just that I'd like to see some evidence that a majority of socialists support your position. And I'm still waiting. |
The real test of where the argument stands internationally.
For example: in 2002 and again in 2003, the EU/US put motions to the United Nations to censure Russia over Chechnya. In both cases, the vote was lost.
Either way - the political alternative: a pro-west, anti-Russian, puppet government in Chechnya led by religious warlords, is totally unacceptable to Russia. And ... it won't happen! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
The real test of where the argument stands internationally.
For example: in 2002 and again in 2003, the EU/US put motions to the United Nations to censure Russia over Chechnya. In both cases, the vote was lost.
|
I asked you to prove that a majority of socialists support Russia on the Chechen question. So you cited a vote at the United Nations. When exactly did the UN become an official voice of international socialism?
You seem to have cribbed your definition of socialism from John Birch Society propaganda, where Russia is portrayed as the living embodiment of socialism and the UN is synonymous with Russia. My own definition of socialism would be a bit more ecumenical. Admittedly, the parameters would be a bit harder to define than in your definition, and I'd be hard pressed to say what the majority of socialists believe about many topics. But I'm not the one on here claiming to speak on behalf of socialists about Chechnya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
soviet_man
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do have a slight political bias toward orthodox soviet positions and I am in general agreement with the current trajectory of the Russian communist party (which continues to be the second largest party in the current Duma).
My view is that an independent Chechnya would create a large number of problems. Including: stateless persons, dislocated families, refuge for terror groups and prompt other republics to attempt to breakaway from the Russian federation.
It would be an all-round bad situation.
I don't see how any socialist could possibly see any benefit to this type of policy and this type of segregation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You go, girl!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Again look how the left wingers on this board are avoiding the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
