Misodoctakleidi

If it was in anyone's mind that these are innocent people atht we are dealing with' date=' they wouldn't be tagged as rebels, but as freedom fighters and all their actions would be glorified and not critically analyzed (as they are being).

 

All I say is that such people are not to be trusted.[/quote']

 

Only the "ideologicaly pure" (fighting in the interests of western media owners) are freedom fighters.

Another option would be to give Chechnya independance.

The subject of this thread was the comparison of Hiroshima to Terrorism. People were saying that there were worse atrocities during this time period' date=' so I did get back on subject with my post.

 

If you want to worship Marx, start another thread.[/quote']

I was merely correcting your mistake ridden post, I'll take this attempt to bury the subject as an admission that you were wrong.

Yes he did, Yes he was, Yes he was

I don't know where you get that impression from but take the word of someone who has read alot more Marx than you, you're wrong.

He was a loser because of his life.

His philosophy isn't working anywhere, except China, and they are utilizing capitalism to reform their economy.

I don't think you know what his "philosophy" was, do you? His philosophy was Dialectical Materialism so I don't know how you could describe it as "working" or "not working."

Capitalism:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Which is only true of the last 400 years or so.

This word may not be very old, but people have owned their own property and worked for themselves since the dawn of civilization.

No, in the first societies property was communaly owned. You seem to have introduced a new "concept" here which wasn't in your definition, this wishy-washy "working for themselves" rhetoric.

This is why it works, people work primarily to improve their lives, secondarily(maybe) to improve society.

well aren't you quite the philosopher, I think you'll find that socio-economic systems a little more complex than that.

"Speaking of communism" I was trying to get back on the subject.

You didn't though.

if you compare syllabuses and exam papers from a couple of years ago and now.

I completely diagree, I've just done A levels in Maths, Physics and Sociology and some of the exams were much harder than papers from 4 or 5 years ago.

also, china isn't nearly as socialist or authoritarian as it used to be, so they aren't all "docile workers who don't question authority"

China isn't socialist at all, it makes the USA look like a workers paradise! It is more authoritarian than ever though.

Well' date=' I have some reading to do. I base my statement on Marx on his life.

He wanted war[/quote']

No, he didn't.

and revolution

Wanting the liberation of opressed people makes him a loser?

He was a racist

No, he wasn't.

and anti-Semite (even though he had Jewish heritage)

No, he wasn't.

 

His ideas sound good and I know that Capitalism has major drawbacks. But, capitalism will never die because it is in the nature of man. People work for themselves and their family first. No revolution or war needed.

I preume, then, you can explain why capitalism has only existed for around the last 400 years or so.

 

Speaking of communism, Stalin committed the worst atrocities of WWII. The reason I picked Hiroshima is the similarity with terrorist events (very sudden, no warning) and is looked upon very differently between Americans and Japanese.

Why did that spring to mind when "speaking of communism?"

Yes but just becuase it could have been terrorism doesn't mean it was, unless we know of other goals whoch would conform to the definition of terrorism then we should presume that it wasn't.

Are you now suggesting that killing "infidels" wasn't the goal?

But the terror it insighted didn't achieve the goal of killing "infidels," it was the act it's self, the terror was merely a side effect.

Or so we presume.

If that was there goal then it still wouldn't constitute an act of terrorism, it was the act it's self which killed the "infidels" not the use of violence to insight terror.

I agree with the definitions but I'd hardly say it was the same thing.

It's possible to kill great numbers of people with no ideological goal in mind, it's also possible to insight terror for political ends without killing anyone.

I'm saying that that the 9/11 attack wasn't terrorism, it was just mass murder.

So you propose collective punishment?

Perhaps all christians should be killed for the crusades or the inquisitions or the witchhunts?

9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack.

No, i think you have a different concept of commmunist to communists, communism is by defintion stateless, a classless state would be socialism.

It's not possible to have a classless society as long as there is a state and Yugoslavia certainly didin't come close. Class is about relationship to the means of production, in Yugoslavia the means of production were centralised into the hands of the state therefore each level of the state hierachy had a different relationship to the means of production, hardly a classless society.

A stateless state

...I...see...?

Besides, it's like classing America as Communist because an authoritarian party is in control.

Communism isn't authoritarian, you seem very confused.

I think hamas should kill sharon.

Black absorbes all light, white reflects all light.

Most of the universe is made of darkmatter but no one really knows what it is.

managed communism for a sustained period without upset

I would hardly describe it as communism, they were really lacking the two key ingredients; a classless society and a stateless society.

quantumpunk23 said in post # :

If some crackhead breaks into my apartment, he better be ready to deal with my 12 gauge, my Glock 9mm or my FN/FAL .308, whichever happens to be nearby.

I think that sums up your intelligence. Why did you say 'some crackhead'? What made you choose those words?

To be honest i'm suprised that it was only -9.54

I think it's quite a usefull test for people who don't really know about politics or who are just beginning to take an interest in it.

Economic Left/Right: -10

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54

I'm so much more interesting than the rest of you

When i type out 0! on my calculater it gives an answer of 1, does anyone know why that is?

I would have expected it to be 0