Communists vs Terrorists?

[MissCatholic]

America supported Bin Laden when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

China and North Korea are still communist countries yet China is needed by the US for cheap labor. So if the communists and the terrorists went at it who would you want to win?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Definately communists. They never flew planes into the World Trade Center. The US should've just sat back and let the Soviets kick some Muslim ass.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...except that what happend in Afghanistan was nothing like that...

[they don't love you like i love you]

Not exactly, but it can accurately be summed up as the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan to support their puppet regime (much like the US in Vietnam) and the US arming fundamentalist Muslim militias that opposed them, which included most of what went on to the be Taliban.

Giving arms to fundamentalist Muslims is NEVER a good thing.

[John Dibble]

Giving arms to fundamentalist Muslims is NEVER a good thing.

Neither is letting communists win. Both sides were evil, and we picked what was to us the lesser one at the time.


Now, as to my opinion, based on what I know now I would have let the communists take over probably. The reason for this is that I know that the Soviet Union and the communist system it had would be doomed to collapse(though the fundamentalists could have taken over afterwards anyways, which is the real problem with these what ifs). Now, given the info they had at the time, I probably would have supported the fundamentalists because communism was the bigger threat at the time.

[they don't love you like i love you]

(though the fundamentalists could have taken over afterwards anyways, which is the real problem with these what ifs).

Actually, it would've been unlikely. The Taliban were actually a creation of the US, sort of. Most people in Afghanistan were very uneducated and not too familiar with the Koran. The CIA took advantage of this and would airdrop pamphlets with Koran verses taken out of context or even just made up to stir up the most religious fanaticsm fervor possible. This would've made it easier for them to fight the Soviets. However it meant once the Soviets left the nation was full of fanatics. That's why the Taliban were far far more repressive than any other Muslim nation in the world. They went far beyond your typical theocracy. Even the Iranian mullahs opposed them.

If the US stayed out, the puppet regime would've collapsed with the Soviet Union and there would've been no civil war, no Taliban and the World Trade Center would still be standing today. But of course the Muslim loving Republicans still think we just had to back them because they actually think communists are worse. I wonder how many of them would rather live under the Taliban than in Cuba.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but would the Soviet Union have collapsed without the costly and pointless war in Afghanistan?

[PBrunsel]

Communism has killed millions, so has terrorism. Heroes of both ideaologies have destoryed human dignity and human life. Though Stalin and Bin laden have been idolized by their followers, I can not say either was better. Communism tried to destroy all that was free in the world, and failed and terrorism now tries the same thing.

So I voted for no one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Taliban were actually a creation of the US, sort of.

Er... no... that's not really true at all. Not even very close (except in the sense that the U.S's (and most other countries) decision to ignore Afghanistan in the early '90's certainly didn't help things).
The Taliban weren't involved in the war against the Soviets at all; they emerged as a reaction to some nasty abuses by an especially unpleasent warlord in (or was it just near? Memory is a bit fuzzy) Kandahar (I think that's how it's usually spelt) in the early '90's.
In several ways they are a creation of the paranoia of Pakistan's security services and the whole exporting Wahabbism madness or Saudi Arabia.

[KillerPollo]

Communism has killed millions, so has terrorism. Heroes of both ideaologies have destoryed human dignity and human life. Though Stalin and Bin laden have been idolized by their followers, I can not say either was better. Communism tried to destroy all that was free in the world, and failed and terrorism now tries the same thing.

So I voted for no one.

Idiot.

Have you read the communist manifesto?
It was the people and their filthy governments that bastardized the name of communism, which "is only good on paper". How can you generalize that communism's bad. Just because it was wrongly enforced since its origin. IMO communism is the best type of government (besides socialism) for middle-rank to the poorest of countries.
It is ignorant to compare communism with terrorism. Terrorism could emerge from any Ideology (pronounced id as in idiot id eology). Hell, there could even be terrorists who support democracy. I suggest you take the smart course of action and read some more.

I believe my little song is done peace!

[PBrunsel]

Ah, but would the Soviet Union have collapsed without the costly and pointless war in Afghanistan?

It would have, in my opinion, but witout the USSR's Vietnam it would have taken longer. They bankrupted and humiliated themselves in that war, so without it the governemnt may hve been able to keep in the people's good graces for a few more years.

Which leads usto another question. If the USSR had not collapsed until 1993, could H.W. Bush have sucessfully defeated Clinton by saying, "Can you trust an inexperienced Governor to stand up to the Soviets?" Things to ponder.

[minionofmidas]

Of course there have been, and are, terrorists who are committing terrorist acts in the name of democracy. The People's Mujahideen in Iran, for one. The guy who murdered Pim Fortuyn, for another (although he did his aims a huge disservice, and would have known this if he was at least somewhat sane...) Georg Elser, for a third, who attempted to kill Hitler in spring 1939. And that's just off the top off my head. Oh yeah, American soldiers firebombing Vietnamese villagers, for a fourth.

PB: Yeah, on balance I too agree that the Soviet Union would have collapsed at more or less the same time. I was just saying we can't be sure.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The Taliban were actually a creation of the US, sort of.

Er... no... that's not really true at all. Not even very close (except in the sense that the U.S's (and most other countries) decision to ignore Afghanistan in the early '90's certainly didn't help things).
The Taliban weren't involved in the war against the Soviets at all; they emerged as a reaction to some nasty abuses by an especially unpleasent warlord in (or was it just near? Memory is a bit fuzzy) Kandahar (I think that's how it's usually spelt) in the early '90's.
In several ways they are a creation of the paranoia of Pakistan's security services and the whole exporting Wahabbism madness or Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

Neither sex's treatment can be considered Islamic; such practises are not stipulated within the Qur'an and many rules were made up by the rulers as they went, sometimes with an out of context quote. Many were illiterate and of those who could read most had been raised with books supplied by the American CIA. As part of an anti-Soviet drive and to prepare an Afghan resistance against the expected (some would say provoked) Russian invasion, the books empthasised the most extreme and violent teaching of Islam ever in print.

Over $100 million was spent on producing and supplying such books, leaving the later American administrations with the task of replacing them. In the shorter term many such books were carefully edited with sticky tape, ink or removing whole pages as the desired result, war-mongering religious fanaticism, was out of control. The more effective and reliable part of the Afghan forces was nicknamed "The Base", a name that, in Arabic, is now the loose catch-all name given to Islamic militants (Al Qaeda).

[they don't love you like i love you]

Of course there have been, and are, terrorists who are committing terrorist acts in the name of democracy. The People's Mujahideen in Iran, for one. The guy who murdered Pim Fortuyn, for another (although he did his aims a huge disservice, and would have known this if he was at least somewhat sane...) Georg Elser, for a third, who attempted to kill Hitler in spring 1939. And that's just off the top off my head. Oh yeah, American soldiers firebombing Vietnamese villagers, for a fourth.

I don't know about the first but the rest aren't really good examples. Pim Fortuyn wasn't against democracy, targeting someone like Hitler isn't exactly terrorism, and not only does US actions in Vietnam not fit the true definition of terrorism, they weren't for democracy.

A much better example would be anti-Castro groups like Omega 7.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women

Neither sex's treatment can be considered Islamic; such practises are not stipulated within the Qur'an and many rules were made up by the rulers as they went, sometimes with an out of context quote. Many were illiterate and of those who could read most had been raised with books supplied by the American CIA. As part of an anti-Soviet drive and to prepare an Afghan resistance against the expected (some would say provoked) Russian invasion, the books empthasised the most extreme and violent teaching of Islam ever in print.

Over $100 million was spent on producing and supplying such books, leaving the later American administrations with the task of replacing them. In the shorter term many such books were carefully edited with sticky tape, ink or removing whole pages as the desired result, war-mongering religious fanaticism, was out of control. The more effective and reliable part of the Afghan forces was nicknamed "The Base", a name that, in Arabic, is now the loose catch-all name given to Islamic militants (Al Qaeda).

Whether true or not (certainly Al Qaeda were not a well known group in Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets and Bin Laden was a minor figure at best) it's completely irrelevent.
The Taliban had nothing to with the war against the Soviets, they weren't even around then. They came orginally from a little sh thole called Spin Boldak (little more than a collection of shacks around a petrol station in the early '90's) etc. etc. etc.
The only role the U.S had in the development of the Taliban was the foolish decision to ignore Afghanistan throughout the '90's.
Want to blame someone for the Taliban? Blame ISI or Saudi Arabia.

[Speed of Sound]

communists

[minionofmidas]

Of course there have been, and are, terrorists who are committing terrorist acts in the name of democracy. The People's Mujahideen in Iran, for one. The guy who murdered Pim Fortuyn, for another (although he did his aims a huge disservice, and would have known this if he was at least somewhat sane...) Georg Elser, for a third, who attempted to kill Hitler in spring 1939. And that's just off the top off my head. Oh yeah, American soldiers firebombing Vietnamese villagers, for a fourth.

I don't know about the first but the rest aren't really good examples. Pim Fortuyn wasn't against democracy, targeting someone like Hitler isn't exactly terrorism, and not only does US actions in Vietnam not fit the true definition of terrorism, they weren't for democracy.

The question is not whether you'd consider the act to be pro-democracy, but whether those who did them did.
And, sorry, but building a massive bomb into a pillar that ended up killing several watiresses and two Nazi grandees is terrorism - even though I approve of Elser's action. (If Hitler hadn't begun speaking early, and finished even earlier, no waitresses would have been killed, btw. No service during Hitler's speech was the rule, a fact Elser knew.)

[KillerPollo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to bring this back, since this thread makes no sense at all. How can you compare an ideological position with a forceful action? tell me! the terrorists who fight for democracy would agree with me!
Let's say the US becomes a police state, and you become a rebellious freedom fighter. You would obviously be labeled a Terrorist by the gov't but you wouldnt consider yourself one, eh!?

[Gabu]

Well, look at it this way: if you elect some terrorists, they'll just blow themselves up and then we can bring someone else in afterwards.

[PBrunsel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the reason I reufse to vote for Marx's idea is because Marx gave us a "good" idea, but it can't work at all. Communism nearly always ends in a one man dictatorship and always end in the sup[ression of human rights. Marx gave the world and idea that could never work. Man just does not give uop all he has hand give it to "the state" or "the communisty." Communism can work no where, and just like a terrorist state, ends in the suppression of all rights. That is "bad" in my opinion.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, "It has been said Communism can only work in Heaven, where it is not needed, and hell, where they already have it."

[John Dibble]

Communism has killed millions, so has terrorism. Heroes of both ideaologies have destoryed human dignity and human life. Though Stalin and Bin laden have been idolized by their followers, I can not say either was better. Communism tried to destroy all that was free in the world, and failed and terrorism now tries the same thing.

So I voted for no one.

Idiot.

Have you read the communist manifesto?
It was the people and their filthy governments that bastardized the name of communism, which "is only good on paper". How can you generalize that communism's bad. Just because it was wrongly enforced since its origin. IMO communism is the best type of government (besides socialism) for middle-rank to the poorest of countries.
It is ignorant to compare communism with terrorism. Terrorism could emerge from any Ideology (pronounced id as in idiot id eology). Hell, there could even be terrorists who support democracy. I suggest you take the smart course of action and read some more.

I believe my little song is done peace!

Communism always starts with the best intentions and ends up with the worst results. Do you know why? The reasons are twofold - human nature and concentration of power.

Human nature - this is really simple. Humans will want to take care of themselves and their families first and foremost, but communism asks the opposite - it asks for the people to dedicate themselves completely to everyone else in the name of the 'common good'. However, since people have desires for themselves it is a stupid thing to ask. Further, there is not much motivation in communism to produce - all your needs will be met, so why work hard? If it was only a single individual, then it would be negligible, but it builds up over many individuals. In capitalism, you occassionally get that problem, but people have to be worried about getting fired if they don't produce sufficiently - further, if they produce even more, they have the chance of attaining a reward, of advancing. Communism demands equality, and because of that there is no advancement and thusly no motivation to work to attain it.

Concentration of power - communism can not exist in anarchy, because of the above and because anarchy won't work in the first place. Because of this, government is established, and government has to control and coordinate everything. All economic power lies in the government in the communist system. It is a general principle that concentrated power leads to greater corruption(this is why the founding fathers tried to keep the powers of government seperated, to minimize corruption). The government that can give you everything can also take everything away. Of course, human nature will lead to questioning of the system - the inefficiencies are too obvious for it not to be - and the answers would obviously lead to the collapse of the system. Thusly, the leaders must squelch such questioning before it becomes a problem, so they become tyrannical.

Now, that's just some of the practical aspects of why communism is only good on paper - let's look at the philisophical. In order for communism to work, every person would have to voluntarily go along with the system - they would have to give up their property to the collective, and work for the collective. Now, we know that people aren't going to give up the fruits of their labor, so you'd have to force them to give it up, otherwise the equality communism seeks can never be attained. Communism is therefore an ideology of slavery. Capitalism on the other hand allows you to keep the fruits of your labor, trade freely, produce whatever you are capable of that you want to(rather than being assigned a job you may or may not want that you can't quit), rewards effort, ect. ect. By no means is capitalism a perfect system, but it beats communism hands down.

[KillerPollo]

Communism is therefore an ideology of slavery. Capitalism on the other hand allows you to keep the fruits of your labor, trade freely, produce whatever you are capable of that you want to(rather than being assigned a job you may or may not want that you can't quit), rewards effort, ect. ect. By no means is capitalism a perfect system, but it beats communism hands down.

Even so. It should not be compared to Islamic extremism, like some people blindly do. Anarchy and communism are the 2 extremes. However, both have 1 thing in common.

In Anarchy, they call for absolutely no government... In communism, they believe once government takes control of everything, it'll slowly wither away. So what you say turns into a paradox "There can be no communism where there's anarchy".
The reason i ABHOR capitalism is because poverty is more prone to be. Think about it. If there were a rich communist country, poverty would be unheard of. Everyone would have enough to eat, a place to live, etc. Canada is closer to this than the US or México. Reason Communism failed in Russia, is because of Human error, and corrupt politicians. Not because the people started to rebel.
Like i said in my previous posts, it is extremists, and their filthy governments that have stained the name of communism so as to be interpreted as an "evil" in the US and the rest of the western world, whose politicians and representatives are NO ONE to be criticizing communist nations and how they work.
If Joseph McCarthy is seeing this, I hope he sits down and thinks about what he said.

PS: I don't hate freedom. I'm pretty sure there could be a communist democracy as well.

[John Dibble]

The reason i ABHOR capitalism is because poverty is more prone to be. Think about it. If there were a rich communist country, poverty would be unheard of. Everyone would have enough to eat, a place to live, etc. Canada is closer to this than the US or México. Reason Communism failed in Russia, is because of Human error, and corrupt politicians. Not because the people started to rebel.
Like i said in my previous posts, it is extremists, and their filthy governments that have stained the name of communism so as to be interpreted as an "evil" in the US and the rest of the western world.

"Rich communist country" is an oxymoron - rich can only be done in comparison to others, and communism does not allow anyone to aquire more than others. And Canada, socialist as it is, is nothing even remotely close to communism - they've got government healthcare and a few other things, but they are still capitalist in other aspects of their economy.

Further, you advocating communism contradicts your religion. Communism advocates there being no property for individuals, and the Bible clearly indicates that property owned by individuals is ok.

Matthew 20:1-16: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, 'Why have you been standing here idle all day?' They said to him, 'Because no one hired us.' He said to them, 'You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.' So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.' And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.' But he answered one of them and said, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good? So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen."

Get over communism - it won't work and never will.

[KillerPollo]

Just because I advocated communism, doesn't mean that I'm a firm believer in it. I was just trying to get a point accross. I was thinking of an ideal light red communism, less pink than socialism though. with free elections, freedom of religion, speech, property (to an extent) and the press. But everything is state-owned, and every unemployed person is given welfare, and provided with a place to live. State-owned healthcare, etc etc...

Mexico used to be a hardcore socialist country, up until the late 70s

And I mean, if it works in Canada, why not the US of fu¢kin' A? eh?

[John Dibble]

I was thinking of an ideal light red communism, less pink than socialism though. with free elections, freedom of religion, speech, property (to an extent) and the press. But everything is state-owned

1. Not gonna happen.

2. There can't be property when everything is state owned.

And I mean, if it works in Canada, why not the US of fu¢kin' A? eh?

It works for Canada? Ask Richius about the healthcare system, he'll set ya straight. They have a number of problems with their system, bed shortages being one of them.