US scientists 'knew Guatemala syphilis tests unethical' [Archive]

RGacky3

3rd September 2011, 08:49

Yea, but when the subject of Anarchists killing priests and religious people in the Spanish Civil War comes up--you dismiss that as nothing important.

I don't dismiss it at all, I condemn it as a crime during war, but I think killing some innoccent people during a civil war in which the catholic church was backing a fascist thug is a little different than giving a bunch of poor guatemaleans syphilis during peace basically to test it as a biological weapon. Thats an absolute false equivilency.

So maybe you are right, it's about people and governments--Capitalsits, Communists, Anarchists. We are all the same.

Yes, during war anarchists have also done bad things, but nothing even ever approaching the monstrocities that the US empire commits, and yet you refuse to admit that your government are criminals over and over and over again.

(Saying "Anarchists also did something bad tooooo" is a terrible defense, and its the one that stalinists use refering to the US).

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 08:53

I don't dismiss it at all, I condemn it as a crime during war, but I think killing some innoccent people during a civil war in which the catholic church was backing a fascist thug is a little different than giving a bunch of poor guatemaleans syphilis during peace basically to test it as a biological weapon. Thats an absolute false equivilency.

It wasn't quite as simple as that and you have to ask why the Catholic Church was more pro-Franco too. Whatever, the Spanish Civil War saw vile atrocities on both sides that are completely indefensible.

Yes, during war anarchists have also done bad things, but nothing even ever approaching the monstrocities that the US empire commits, and yet you refuse to admit that your government are criminals over and over and over again...

You are right in saying that tu quoque arguments are not justifications but at the same time the ones who are claiming to be the good guys do have a slight onus on them not to be as bad as the bad guys they are against- if you see what I mean?

RGacky3

3rd September 2011, 09:40

Whatever, the Spanish Civil War saw vile atrocities on both sides that are completely indefensible.

Absolutely, and I woud never defend their murdering of innocents.

You are right in saying that tu quoque arguments are not justifications but at the same time the ones who are claiming to be the good guys do have a slight onus on them not to be as bad as the bad guys they are against- if you see what I mean?

I do, but the murdering of some innocents by the anarchists (which if you compare it to wars by capitalists was very very limited) had nothing to do with them as anarchists, it was a war issue, a civil war. The autrocities of the US, many of them, especialyl this one, has to do with the very nature of the government and system.

For example, if a tobbacco executive rapes his wife, you can't point and say "LOOK TOBBACCO COMPANIES ARE RAPISTS," but that does'nt mean you condone the rape, its discusting but has nothing to do with him being a tobacco executive. But tobbaco executives lying to congress saying their product does'nt cause cancer is absolutely tied with their position. Get what I'm saying?

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 10:37

I do, but the murdering of some innocents by the anarchists (which if you compare it to wars by capitalists was very very limited) had nothing to do with them as anarchists, it was a war issue, a civil war.

That's like saying the atrocities committed by any group had nothing to do with their being part of that group. The Nazis didn't commit atrocities because they were Nazis? The anarchists in Spain who committed the atrocities did so because they believed it was part of their ideology and the people against whom they were committing the atrocities were by and large the enemies of their ideology. There's no way round it. You can't argue yes in one case (the US) and no in the other (Spain).

RGacky3

3rd September 2011, 10:44

The Nazis didn't commit atrocities because they were Nazis?

yes they did, because their atrocities were the direct result of their ideology and structure, the same cannot be said of the anarchists in spain.

The anarchists in Spain who committed the atrocities did so because they believed it was part of their ideology and the people against whom they were committing the atrocities were by and large the enemies of their ideology. There's no way round it. You can't argue yes in one case (the US) and no in the other (Spain).

I can, and I just did in the post above, what the anarchists did were war crimes, they were killing people who they thought would be a threat to them in a time of war, you could change their ideology to anything you want it would have been the same.

That is not the case with the US and the syphilis test, and many other atrocities of the US, if you change the US monroe empire doctrine, its neo-libaral agenda, these atrocities would not have happened.

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 13:40

yes they did, because their atrocities were the direct result of their ideology and structure, the same cannot be said of the anarchists in spain.

So you are going to argue that vehement anti-theism/clericalism and a general disdain for religion are not part of anarchist ideology within the context of Civil War Spain?

George Orwell: "Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence"

I can, and I just did in the post above, what the anarchists did were war crimes, they were killing people who they thought would be a threat to them in a time of war, you could change their ideology to anything you want it would have been the same.

And why were those people a threat? Because they didn't share the same ideology....

That is not the case with the US and the syphilis test, and many other atrocities of the US, if you change the US monroe empire doctrine, its neo-libaral agenda, these atrocities would not have happened.

How do you know they would not have happened? You could change an ideology to anything you want and it might have been the same.

Unlike your position on the anarchists, the US government has recognised this as a gross violation of human rights and set up a review commission. I also don't see how bringing the Monroe Doctrine into this is helpful- are you forgetting the Tuskegee experiments that happened on US soil?

Bud Struggle

3rd September 2011, 14:25

I don't dismiss it at all, I condemn it as a crime during war, but I think killing some innoccent people during a civil war in which the catholic church was backing a fascist thug is a little different than giving a bunch of poor guatemaleans syphilis during peace basically to test it as a biological weapon. Thats an absolute false equivilency. All you are saying here is that the Anarchints were good because they were on your side. You can also say that the American doctors were "good by trying to rid the world of a terrible illness. The doctors intentions were certainly good--its jus the methods they used were bad.

Yes, during war anarchists have also done bad things, but nothing even ever approaching the monstrocities that the US empire commits, and yet you refuse to admit that your government are criminals over and over and over again. America is a lot bigger country--but if you look at the atrocities in proportion to the population, I think you'll find that the Anarchists were much more controling, invasive and murderous.

(Saying "Anarchists also did something bad tooooo" is a terrible defense, and its the one that stalinists use refering to the US).Sorry about destroying your argument. I have to remember how it upsets you. :(

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 14:55

I don't dismiss it at all, I condemn it as a crime during war

actually it is great

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 15:03

All you are saying here is that the Anarchints were good because they were on your side. You can also say that the American doctors were "good by trying to rid the world of a terrible illness. The doctors intentions were certainly good--its jus the methods they used were bad.

I think the two situations are a little too different to compare like this. These doctors were p. much using people as a means to an end and doing great harm in the process. Meanwhile Spanish Anarchists killed off clergy because they were kinda cozy w/ the fascists. Is it still an atrocity? Sure, but I think summary executions of suspected snitches (and people who wear the same robes as other, actual snitches) during a war is a little different than using people the way these scientists did.

But then there's the fact that I don't care about dead clergy, so.

America is a lot bigger country--but if you look at the atrocities in proportion to the population, I think you'll find that the Anarchists were much more controling, invasive and murderous.

Uhhh, no. Not by a long shot, no way. (Unless you are talking about this specific atrocity?)

Sorry about destroying your argument. I have to remember how it upsets you. :(

Saying "YEAH THAT'S BAD BUT YOU GUYS DID THINGS TOO" isn't a good argument.

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 15:13

But then there's the fact that I don't care about dead clergy, so..

That's the kind of mentality that demonstrates why the "left" loses time and time again and people like Franco win time and time again.

You don't care about arbitrary and summary justice? You don't care about women being tortured and killed? You don't care about non-clerical religious people being killed for their religion? The confirmed reports are vile, the unconfirmed reports are even more atrocious, priests being crucified and nuns being raped? Salesians who actually are dedicated to helping the poor being attacked?

No, you don't care about any of that- and that's why the vast majority of the world won't really care about your constant bleeting and whining at an unjust world- seeing as justice only seems to mean when it suits you.

No one is denying that there wasn't a "White Terror" too, but they don't cancel each other out and no one here was defending Franco.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 15:15

tbh the murdering priests thing is the people most people i've spoken to like the best about anarchists. no joke.

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 15:18

tbh the murdering priests thing is the people most people i've spoken to like the best about anarchists. no joke.

Is that an argument? What people? Psychopaths perhaps.... yeah sure, I'm sure you'll find plenty of anti-semites who liked the Nazis for murdering Jews too... etc etc

But you might find the murdering priests things is the thing that more people in general dislike about anarchists (in this context) and the reason why, like I said before, Franco won.;)

Intelligent strategy- besides ethical and moral arguments.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 15:23

words

nah I can do without the rape and torture part definitely but for some reason I am having a difficult time drudging up any care over a priest getting shot in the face.

and the funny thing is, when i discuss anarchism with regular ol' non-radical people at work, that part is their favorite part of anarchism. no joke, either. people just ain't big on organized religion.

but anyway the whole "ur a hipocrite thats y no1 cares" thing doesn't follow because people follow hypocrites who talk peace and justice and then go ahead and kills loads of people. Like you said, everyone ignores their side's crimes. Go ahead and ask anyone familiar with WW2 history what they think of the Rainbow Division. They'll probably tell you about how baller they were for liberating Dachau but won't give a shit about the waffen-ss bodies dumped in mass graves by them (i certainly don't).

EDIT: I thought the last post didn't go through for some reason

And I think this thread is getting hopelessly de-railed. Can a mod split this thread so I can go on talking about clergycide owns

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 15:29

Like you said, everyone ignores their side's crimes. Go ahead and ask anyone familiar with WW2 history what they think of the Rainbow Division. They'll probably tell you about how baller they were for liberating Dachau but won't give a shit about the waffen-ss bodies dumped in mass graves by them (i certainly don't).

You can hardly compare a village priest to the camp SS- the SS never took prisoners and so there was an unwritten rule that they were not usually spared and in the context of what those guys walked into at Dachau it's hardly surprising. The SS were armed "soldiers"- a village priest or a nun somewhere in Spain. I suppose the village churches were like Nazi death camps with hundreds of emaciated prisoners dying and mass graves etc....... yeah, master of perspective today, aren't we?

As for the hypocrite argument- if you seek to hold any kind of moral justification for your political position then you had better drop the whole callous "I don't care about them" mentality- because if you don't, well- then hey how can you argue against a capitalist who says he doesn't give a shit whether you can afford healthcare or to go to college? Or relating it back to the OP and Guatemala- well, hell, why should anyone care about a bunch of poor Guatemalans, afterall it was in the name of medical science.... you see the problem with those arguments? Justice isn't just about "justice" to people we like... hell that's what you accuse the capitalists of.

The side that proclaims it is on the "right" side has to try its best to act that way or else...

There is next to no justification for 99% of what happened during the Spanish Civil War from any of the sides really and that's the end of it.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 15:37

You can hardly compare a village priest to the camp SS- the SS never took prisoners and so there was an unwritten rule that they were not usually spared. The SS were armed "soldiers" a village priest or a nun somewhere in Spain.... yeah, master of perspective today, aren't we?

I don't know how you can go and chastise people for their moral relativism and blind spots and then trot this out. I guess a uniform and a gun makes someone less human? Does the victim being a nazi suddenly make shooting people who are trying surrender, who are unarmed, or otherwise helpless less of an atrocity? I'm not seriously making these arguments -- in my mind a uniform and a gun does make you less of a human, and that nazis make the best fertilizer. I'm just saying that even you are guilty of the double-standard you're calling gack out on.

As for the hypocrite argument- if you seek to hold any kind of moral justification for your political position then you had better drop the whole callous "I don't care about them" mentality- because if you don't, well- then hey how can you argue against a capitalist who says he doesn't give a shit whether you can afford healthcare or to go to college?

Good thing I don't rely on moral justification for my political position. And why on earth would I expect a capitalist not to say he doesn't give a shit about my healthcare or college?

ComradeMan

3rd September 2011, 15:42

It's not a double standard at all unless you want to make some ridiculous argument that a nun is the same as a camp SS-Guard and completely ignore the context. You're also forgetting that the liberated prisoners also attacked the guards.

Good thing I don't rely on moral justification for my political position. And why on earth would I expect a capitalist not to say he doesn't give a shit about my healthcare or college?

If you have no moral justification how can you say what's right and wrong? If you can't say what's right and what's wrong then basically you have no grounds to criticise capitalism.

#FF0000

3rd September 2011, 15:42

Yeah I guess I should clear things up and say I don't really think killing clergy is the coolest thing in the world. I'm sort of just saying hella x-treme things to be shocking i guess and i just derailed the thread tremendously. sorry bout that (someone get a mod to clean my mess)

It's not a double standard at all unless you want to make some ridiculous argument that a nun is the same as a camp SS-Guard and completely ignore the context. You're also forgetting that the liberated prisoners also attacked the guards.

Well then if we're going to be this slide-rule for the value of human life then I guess you and Bud should consider the context and stop comparing people who were infected with a disease to see what happened to to the Catholic Church in Spain which was loaded with informants for Franco.

Bud Struggle

3rd September 2011, 15:47

tbh the murdering priests thing is the people most people i've spoken to like the best about anarchists. no joke.

Speaking of Spain. My daughter was here in Spain a couple of weeks ago. World Youth Day hosted by Pope.

Things change.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ARY9ya-IslA/TkFL-WLLR4I/AAAAAAAAAU0/1qBfkzOm1lE/s1600/WYD1.jpg

RGacky3

3rd September 2011, 22:15

So you are going to argue that vehement anti-theism/clericalism and a general disdain for religion are not part of anarchist ideology within the context of Civil War Spain?

George Orwell: "Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence"

No, I'm saying that their physical support for fascists is the reason, thats not disputed.

And why were those people a threat? Because they didn't share the same ideology....

No, because the Catholic Church sided with the fascists ...

How do you know they would not have happened? You could change an ideology to anything you want and it might have been the same.

Unlike your position on the anarchists, the US government has recognised this as a gross violation of human rights and set up a review commission. I also don't see how bringing the Monroe Doctrine into this is helpful- are you forgetting the Tuskegee experiments that happened on US soil?

yes the Tuskegee experiments, the history of American racism.

My position on the anarchists is that I condemn their killing of innocents.

Except THEY WERE AT WAR, so its a bit different than what the US did.

All you are saying here is that the Anarchints were good because they were on your side. You can also say that the American doctors were "good by trying to rid the world of a terrible illness. The doctors intentions were certainly good--its jus the methods they used were bad.

No thats not what I"m saying, read it again, and read it carefully, I'm saying they were wrong, in murdering innocent priests, but if you compare it to the war crimes that teh US does both in and out of war, and war crimes when they are winning, not out of desperation or panic, what the CNT did was nothing.

Btw, the doctors were researching syphylis as a biological weapon.

America is a lot bigger country--but if you look at the atrocities in proportion to the population, I think you'll find that the Anarchists were much more controling, invasive and murderous.

And I think your wrong, infact I know you are wrong, the Anarchists did'nt drop atomic bombs, they did'nt wipe out villages. Get your history right.

Sorry about destroying your argument. I have to remember how it upsets you. http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/sad.gif

the day you destroy any argument, or even formulate a decent one I would be delighted and shocked at the same time, has'nt happened yet.

Speaking of Spain. My daughter was here in Spain a couple of weeks ago. World Youth Day hosted by Pope.

Things change.

Yes bud there are still Catholics in spain :rolleyes:.

Bud Struggle

3rd September 2011, 23:36

No, I'm saying that their physical support for fascists is the reason, thats not disputed. Well America has it's excuses, too. WWII, The Cold War, The War on Terror. There are plenty of reasons on the Anarchists side and the Capitalists side for killin innocent people.

yes the Tuskegee experiments, the history of American racism. It's easy to look back and criticize people in the past of not having 21st century sensibilities. But America and Capitalism has evolved.

My position on the anarchists is that I condemn their killing of innocents.

Except THEY WERE AT WAR, so its a bit different than what the US did. The US has been at war as I mentioned.

No thats not what I"m saying, read it again, and read it carefully, I'm saying they were wrong, in murdering innocent priests, but if you compare it to the war crimes that teh US does both in and out of war, and war crimes when they are winning, not out of desperation or panic, what the CNT did was nothing. So there should be different rules when you are winning and when you are not. Your Ethics is confused.

And I think your wrong, infact I know you are wrong, the Anarchists did'nt drop atomic bombs, they did'nt wipe out villages. Get your history right. They was as ruthless as they could be with the tools they had

the day you destroy any argument, or even formulate a decent one I would be delighted and shocked at the same time, has'nt happened yet. Don't you ever wonder why Anarchists haven't been around for 80 years. No Revolution (and there are plenty of them these days) never considers Anarchism. Its day has come and gone.

Yes bud there are still Catholics in spain :rolleyes:. But Anarchist Spain is long gone.

#FF0000

4th September 2011, 05:51

But Anarchist Spain is long gone.

You should see the crowds the CNT can still draw.

RGacky3

4th September 2011, 11:11

Well America has it's excuses, too. WWII, The Cold War, The War on Terror. There are plenty of reasons on the Anarchists side and the Capitalists side for killin innocent people.

Sure, but its a false equivilancy if I've ever seen one, the US is basically wanting to control the western hemisphere and the middle east, and they murder innocents for really no ohter reason other than fuck em, who needs guatemalians, when you can use them for tests.

It's easy to look back and criticize people in the past of not having 21st century sensibilities. But America and Capitalism has evolved.

Really? How? When?

The US has been at war as I mentioned.

With GUatemala?

So there should be different rules when you are winning and when you are not. Your Ethics is confused.

No, they should never have killed innocents no matter what, but there is a difference between killing out of desperation and a planned and thought out murder, even American courts get that.

They was as ruthless as they could be with the tools they had

They could have been a lot more, but again, proportionately the US has murdered many many more innocnets.

Don't you ever wonder why Anarchists haven't been around for 80 years. No Revolution (and there are plenty of them these days) never considers Anarchism. Its day has come and gone.

But Anarchist Spain is long gone.

The last yelp of someone with no arguments, change the subject :p

You'll do ANYTHING to stand up for team America.

ComradeMan

4th September 2011, 12:17

No, I'm saying that their physical support for fascists is the reason, thats not disputed..

Why did they support the fascists?

Also- how do you know that every last one of the people killed, that included lay clergy had been a fascist supporter?

Of course they also shut down synagogues too... were the Jews supporting the fascists?

No, because the Catholic Church sided with the fascists ...

The Catholic Church bore the brunt of it, but that's obvious because Spain was afterall a predominantly Catholic country- but other religions were also targettted.

Come off it, you can't deny that anarchists in the context of the Spanish Civil War along with other leftists group were all declaredly anti-religion and it was part of their ideology.

yes the Tuskegee experiments, the history of American racism.

You see, you assume that people are supporting the Guatemalan experiments because they disagree with your analysis thereof. I really don't see how invoking the Monroe Doctrine has got anything really to do with this issue beyond the fact that it occurred in Latin America.

Except THEY WERE AT WAR, so its a bit different than what the US did.

Firstly no one is defending the US here, not even the fucking US is defending the US on this matter. Secondly the "they were at war" argument is not a defense. On that basis the Red Army raping Germany women can be excused because "they were at war". Or the Nazis could justify their acts because "they were at war".

No thats not what I"m saying, read it again, and read it carefully, I'm saying they were wrong, in murdering innocent priests, but if you compare it to the war crimes that teh US does both in and out of war, and war crimes when they are winning, not out of desperation or panic, what the CNT did was nothing.

That's a classic tuo quoque argument that would not be accepted if it were the other way round. The two events are not related. Arguing that one is a lesser crime than the other doesn't stop it from being a crime.

And I think your wrong, infact I know you are wrong, the Anarchists did'nt drop atomic bombs, they did'nt wipe out villages. Get your history right.

Tu quoque arguments. Several thousand people were murdered in Catalonia and branded as "reactionaries" by summary revolutionary tribunals. As one leading anarchist Juan Garcia Oliver put it "Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself"

Source (http://books.google.it/books?id=-VarDLHA3_YC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=Everybody+created+his+own+justice+and+administe red+it+himself&source=bl&ots=kNLUH3q-fQ&sig=TS4QMeshnXXbUspaO1x7Sx_VzyI&hl=it&ei=bl1jTrOrMoLrOazk_JQK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Everybody%20created%20his%20own%20justice%20and% 20administered%20it%20himself&f=false)

Per Levy

4th September 2011, 13:04

Why did they support the fascists?

because the catholic church was, and still is, reactionary as it can get + it was out of fear. fear of loosing all the influence and power the church hold before. or what do you think the church sided with the fascists?

America is a lot bigger country--but if you look at the atrocities in proportion to the population, I think you'll find that the Anarchists were much more controling, invasive and murderous.so let me get this straight, you think anarchists are worse then the us imperialism? how can you say that? its untrue in any way and very apologetic of the crimes of the us bourgeoisie.

They was as ruthless as they could be with the tools they had they had the tools to wipe out villages, they didnt. they had the tools to kill everyone they thought as reactionarys in the areas they controlled, they didnt.

Speaking of Spain. My daughter was here in Spain a couple of weeks ago. World Youth Day hosted by Pope.

Things change.how so? the catholic church is still super reactionary and its head is a extreme reactionary as well. just because they make those world youth days now look like a big party doesnt mean much.

But Anarchist Spain is long gone. and why is that? maybe because the fascists won and crushed anything left looking?

edit: im sorry for going so offtopic here, there was just some stuff i wanted to comment on.

ComradeMan

4th September 2011, 13:41

because the catholic church was, and still is, reactionary as it can get + it was out of fear. fear of loosing all the influence and power the church hold before. or what do you think the church sided with the fascists?

It wasn't also because there was widespread fear in Europe, and no doubt a lot of propaganda but still, about what had happened in the Red Terror in Russia? Nor was it also to do with the Spanish constitution of 1931 and its hostility towards the Church- some of which was seen as being resonsible for the fall of the democratic republic and the cause of the Spanish Civil War?

so let me get this straight, you think anarchists are worse then the us imperialism? how can you say that? its untrue in any way and very apologetic of the crimes of the us bourgeoisie.

So let me get this straight, you honestly think "what about them" arguments are valid? :rolleyes:

they had the tools to wipe out villages, they didnt. they had the tools to kill everyone they thought as reactionarys in the areas they controlled, they didnt.

Thousands of people were killed, on both sides, but the anarchists claim to have some kind moral justification that others don't.

Bud Struggle

4th September 2011, 13:47

because the catholic church was, and still is, reactionary as it can get + it was out of fear. fear of loosing all the influence and power the church hold before. or what do you think the church sided with the fascists? Let's get this straight. The Church didn't side with the Fascists per se. They sided with the Nationalists--a broad group of people disliking the Authoritarian anti-clericalism and the religious persecution of the Loyalists.

so let me get this straight, you think anarchists are worse then the us imperialism? how can you say that? its untrue in any way and very apologetic of the crimes of the us bourgeoisie. Well, (personally here) I'm saying worse. I am saying that any group that gets in power, Capitalists, Anarchist, Communist is the same in its ruthlessness to stay in power.

they had the tools to wipe out villages, they didnt. they had the tools to kill everyone they thought as reactionarys in the areas they controlled, they didnt. They did the best they could. The Communist even fought them for control of the same territiry.

how so? the catholic church is still super reactionary and its head is a extreme reactionary as well. just because they make those world youth days now look like a big party doesnt mean much. Feedom of religion. Are you taking that away like the Anarchists did?

and why is that? maybe because the fascists won and crushed anything left looking? Not the Fascists--the Nationalists. And obviously that is wat Spain wanted. FWIW: things turned out pretty well in the end. After Franco died Spain turned out be be a pretty decent democratic country.

edit: im sorry for going so offtopic here, there was just some stuff i wanted to comment on. Nothing to be sorry for---welcome to the discussion! :)

RGacky3

4th September 2011, 13:59

Not the Fascists--the Nationalists. And obviously that is wat Spain wanted. FWIW: things turned out pretty well in the end. After Franco died Spain turned out be be a pretty decent democratic country.

You mean the military, catholic church, germany and itally wanted, no one asked spain.

Feedom of religion. Are you taking that away like the Anarchists did?

They did not take that away. Killing priests does not =/= lack of freedom of religion, unless the US killing radical clerics means the same thing.

Funny how no one calls that an atrocity, when its basically the same thing.

Well, (personally here) I'm saying worse. I am saying that any group that gets in power, Capitalists, Anarchist, Communist is the same in its ruthlessness to stay in power.

yes but your wrong, and the anarchists were not "in power," the anarchists were the people of catelonia.

Let's get this straight. The Church didn't side with the Fascists per se. They sided with the Nationalists--a broad group of people disliking the Authoritarian anti-clericalism and the religious persecution of the Loyalists.

No .. They were fascists, and the anarchists were not authoritirian. Read your history.

RGacky3

4th September 2011, 14:00

BTW this is a discussion about the Guatemala syphilis test ...

Why the hell would Bud bring up Anarchist Spain? How shameless are you?

Per Levy

4th September 2011, 14:16

It wasn't also because there was widespread fear in Europe, and no doubt a lot of propaganda but still, about what had happened in the Red Terror in Russia? Nor was it also to do with the Spanish constitution of 1931 and its hostility towards the Church- some of which was seen as being resonsible for the fall of the democratic republic and the cause of the Spanish Civil War?

Feedom of religion. Are you taking that away like the Anarchists did?allright, i dont know the text of the 1931 constitution, but if it was anti-clerical or hostile towards the church i would support it. see i dont like organized religion at all. dont get me wrong, everyone shall have their belives, have churches or any other houses where the can go and practise their religion, that is fine and should be tolerated and respected. my problem is with the instituion that is called church. it wielded a lot of power back in the day and it didnt used that power for "good".

So let me get this straight, you honestly think "what about them" arguments are valid? :rolleyes:not really, i just commented on the argument that the anarchists in spain are worse then the us bourgeoisie.

And obviously that is wat Spain wanted.how so? the republican goverment, at least, was elected, francos regime never faced elections nor was anyone ever asked if they wanted francos rule. also do you think spain wanted the intervention of germany and italy? do you think the people of guernica wanted francos regime?

FWIW: things turned out pretty well in the end. After Franco died Spain turned out be be a pretty decent democratic country. yeah spain only had to go through 30-40 years of a fascist dictatorship, and the "decent democratic country" used deathsquads in order to deal with the eta, broke strikes with the help of the military and so on.

edit: could some mod please split this thread? its obviously that this thread got enourmasly sidetracked.

ComradeMan

4th September 2011, 14:50

allright, i dont know the text of the 1931 constitution

Constitución de la República Española de 1931: TÍTULO III; Derechos y deberes de los españoles (http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Constituci%C3%B3n_de_la_Rep%C3%BAblica_Espa%C3%B1o la_de_1931/_T%C3%8DTULO_III:_Derechos_y_deberes_de_los_espa%C 3%B1oles)

but if it was anti-clerical or hostile towards the church i would support it.

But then don't be surprised if those who are not hostile to the church do not. It was a divisive move from the outset and given the context of the times I would say served to provoke the Civil War in many respects.

see i dont like organized religion at all. dont get me wrong, everyone shall have their belives, have churches or any other houses where the can go and practise their religion, that is fine and should be tolerated and respected.

And that's exactly what didn't happen in Spain, and not just to Catholics.

RGacky3

4th September 2011, 15:52

But then don't be surprised if those who are not hostile to the church do not. It was a divisive move from the outset and given the context of the times I would say served to provoke the Civil War in many respects.

that had nothing to do with what provoked a civil war, a military coup provoked it, if people just left the CNT alone it would have been fine.

ComradeMan

4th September 2011, 16:57

that had nothing to do with what provoked a civil war, a military coup provoked it, if people just left the CNT alone it would have been fine.

"The Second Republic had an anticlerical bias.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-britannica-4) Although the constitution generally accorded thorough civil liberties and representation, there was a notable exclusion regarding the rights of Catholics, a flaw which prevented the forming of an expansive democratic majority.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-libro.uca.edu-7) The controversial articles 26 and 27 of the constitution strictly controlled Church property and prohibited religious orders from engaging in education.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-Historical_Dictionary_of_Spain-6) This was seen as explicitly hostile to religion, both by supporters of the established Church, but also by advocates of church/state separation, one such advocate of separation, Jose Ortega y Gasset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Ortega_y_Gasset), stated "the article in which the Constitution legislates the actions of the Church seems highly improper to me."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-8) Pope Pius XI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI) condemned the Spanish Government's deprivation of the civil liberties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties) of Catholics in the encyclical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclical) Dilectissima Nobis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilectissima_Nobis) (On Oppression Of The Church Of Spain )."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-9)
Since the far left considered reform of these aspects of the constitution as totally unacceptable, commentators have opined that "the Republic as a democratic constitutional regime was doomed from the outset".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-libro.uca.edu-7) Commentators have posited that such a "hostile" approach to the issues of church and state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostil e_separation) were a substantial cause of the breakdown of democracy and the onset of civil war.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-10) One legal commentator has stated plainly "the gravest mistake of the Constitution of 1931-Spain's last democratic Constitution prior to 1978-was its hostile attitude towards the Catholic Church."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-11)

[/URL]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-11)

:rolleyes:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-11)

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-11"]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1931#cite_note-11)

RGacky3

4th September 2011, 19:13

Bud Struggle

4th September 2011, 22:50

errr ok, whats your point? Where in that constitution does it say Catholics are not allowed to be catholic?

Unless you consider seperation of church and state/education as being "oppression" and something to start a civil war over.

You need something better than that to roll your eyes over.

Did you read what CM posted? It wasn't about separation of Church and state--it was an attack on the Church by the Loyalists. The Anarchists set the seeds of their own destruction.

And they haven't been seen on this earth in eighty years.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 08:59

The controversial articles 26 and 27 of the constitution strictly controlled Church property and prohibited religious orders from engaging in education

THIS is the most controversial part, that is hardly restricting freedom of religion, restrict Church property and keep them out of schools ....

The Anarchists set the seeds of their own destruction.

By not sucking up to the Church and promising that they would have totally undeserved political power?

And they haven't been seen on this earth in eighty years.

Not by you because you have your head in the sand, Come to Spain or France, the CNT is pretty damn popular.

BTW BUd, are you REALLY responding to YOUR COUNTRY, which you support unconditionally, murdering guatemalans by giving them syphilis, by refereing to a civil war that happened decades ago????

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 10:18

Not by you because you have your head in the sand, Come to Spain or France, the CNT is pretty damn popular.
.

Well their last congress was 2002, on some quick stats I found for Spain and a calculation:-

CNT membership between 10-50,000 (less than the average attendance for a Real-Barcelona match and lowest 0.021% of population, highest 0.12%)
Regular Roman Catholic church attenders - 8,745,720 (calculated at 19% of the total population)

Of course I couldn't get stats for how many CNT members were also regular church attenders.

BTW BUd, are you REALLY responding to YOUR COUNTRY, which you support unconditionally, murdering guatemalans by giving them syphilis, by refereing to a civil war that happened decades ago????

He isn't defending the USA, because the USA has officially condemned this. He just doesn't agree with your analysis.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 10:30

Well their last congress was 2002, on some quick stats I found for Spain and a calculation:-

CNT membership between 10-50,000 (less than the average attendance for a Real-Barcelona match and lowest 0.021% of population, highest 0.12%)
Regular Roman Catholic church attenders - 8,745,720 (calculated at 19% of the total population)

Of course I couldn't get stats for how many CNT members were also regular church attenders.

Whats your point ...

He isn't defending the USA, because the USA has officially condemned this. He just doesn't agree with your analysis.

What is my analysis?

Iron Felix

5th September 2011, 11:16

Anarchists murdering the clergy? Yes, it was bad. But only because they didn't murder all of the clergy.

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 11:22

Whats your point ...

Well if you call between 0.021% and 0.12% popular then you have a strange idea of "pretty damn popular"- at best estimate we are talking about approximately 1 person in every thousand. :laugh:

What is my analysis?

That you employ double-standards when it is connected to a so-called "leftist" movement.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 11:59

Well if you call between 0.021% and 0.12% popular then you have a strange idea of "pretty damn popular"- at best estimate we are talking about approximately 1 person in every thousand. http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

Your talking about membership, the CNT organizes and represents much more people than their membership. (Your talking to someone who worked in Unions for years and worked in organizing).

Either way, go to a protest in France or Spain ... anarcho syndicalism, socialism, anti-capitalism in gerneral is gaining ground.

Catholocism on the other hand ....

That you employ double-standards when it is connected to a so-called "leftist" movement.

No thats Buds analysis, what was my analysis that he (and you) disagree with.

Are you saying the CNT was not a lefitst movemenet btw?

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 12:37

Your talking about membership, the CNT organizes and represents much more people than their membership. (Your talking to someone who worked in Unions for years and worked in organizing).

LOL--- If you want to extend the definition.... the Stats with the church would be a lot higher, I included only the 19% of regular church goers. But at the end of the day we can only rely on membership as an actual gauge of how popular something is- just like church attendance.

Either way, go to a protest in France or Spain ... anarcho syndicalism, socialism, anti-capitalism in gerneral is gaining ground.

Yeah, because they are the ones who are usually protesting. By the way, anti-capitalism is not de facto socialism. ;)... nor is it by any means anarchism. It would be like my saying, hey I went to an Inter match and hell there were a lot of fans there- they must be really popular.

Bud Struggle

5th September 2011, 13:07

Not by you because you have your head in the sand, Come to Spain or France, the CNT is pretty damn popular.

You know, that's not a bad idea. My daughter just got back from there and she just had a wonderful time on Spain. I just talked to the wife and she and I are going (either tomorrow of the day after--when she can get the tickets.)

Where should I look for these CNTers?

Edit: I'm keeping the hunt for the CNT a bit of a secret from wy wife till we get there--she's not big into this Commie stuff. ;) :D

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 13:20

Leave it to Bud and comrademan to turn a discussion about a terrible crime against humanity be the united states government to whether or not the CNT is strong anymore.

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 13:36

Leave it to Bud and comrademan to turn a discussion about a terrible crime against humanity be the united states government to whether or not the CNT is strong anymore.

But Gacky, no one- not even the US is denying that.
:rolleyes:

On the other hand you do seem to employ a lot of double standards at times.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 13:41

On the other hand you do seem to employ a lot of double standards at times.

Nope, nor has any one proved or shown a double standard. Except for Bud standing up for the US ALL THE TIME, and insisting that it is the best country there is and has the best system and so on, and any crime that happens ohhh, its just the past but look at someone else (and considering you are his little sidekick it also applies to you).

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 13:47

Nope, nor has any one proved or shown a double standard. Except for Bud standing up for the US ALL THE TIME, and insisting that it is the best country there is and has the best system and so on, and any crime that happens ohhh, its just the past but look at someone else (and considering you are his little sidekick it also applies to you).

I've never heard Bud say, in seriousness, that the USA was the best, the most perfect system or anything else like that. All I see is that the only explanation or analysis YOU can ever provide is "blame America" whilst at the same time completely disregarding the fact that no one really comes out of human history smelling of roses.;)

Yet again you present your opinion as evidence.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 13:51

All I see is that the only explanation or analysis YOU can ever provide is "blame America" whilst at the same time completely disregarding the fact that no one really comes out of human history smelling of roses.http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/wink.gif

Yes, you blame the US government for murdering guatemaleans with syphilis ..... saying "no one comes out of human history smelling of roses" is insane, shall we say the same about the Nazis? Stalin?

The United States is a world empire, and your right, world empires generally do terrible things, which is why I am against world empires, and ALL unjust power, right now the biggest one is the United States.

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 13:53

Yes, you blame the US government for murdering guatemaleans with syphilis ..... saying "no one comes out of human history smelling of roses" is insane, shall we say the same about the Nazis? Stalin?

That doesn't make any sense.

The United States is a world empire, and your right, world empires generally do terrible things, which is why I am against world empires, and ALL unjust power, right now the biggest one is the United States.

... the biggest one.... but not the only one.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 14:01

That doesn't make any sense.

Read it again, and try harder.

... the biggest one.... but not the only one.

And what?

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 14:08

Read it again, and try harder.

I did and it still doesn't make any sense. :laugh: It would only make sense if someone were defending the US on this issue- which no one is.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 14:10

I did and it still doesn't make any sense. http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

Ok ... I'll make it easy for you.

If you say "no one comes out of history smelling of roses" should that be an appropriate response when pointing out the atrocities of the Nazis?

And yo usay I juts blame the United States, and that I do, WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY TO BLAME!!!

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 14:24

Ok ... I'll make it easy for you.

If you say "no one comes out of history smelling of roses" should that be an appropriate response when pointing out the atrocities of the Nazis?

Why? Does anyone argue that they smell of roses? :rolleyes:

And yo usay I juts blame the United States, and that I do, WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY TO BLAME!!!

No one is denying that blame though... for the millionth time. What they do accuse you of is bad analysis and double standards. For example, citing the Monroe Doctrine in this... just because it's Latin-America doesn't mean it's automatically connected to the Monroe Doctrine. You also ignore the collusion of some members of the Guatemalan authorities too.

You try and paint a picture of this as some kind of American policy or ideology of the US and yet when confronted with the ideologies of people you support/sympathise with you seek to deny this with an amazing amount of rhetorical mendaciousness and double-standards.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 14:29

Why? Does anyone argue that they smell of roses? http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

what your basically saying is "no big deal, no one comes out of history smell of of roses." Otherwise whats the point of saying it?

What they do accuse you of is bad analysis and double standards. For example, citing the Monroe Doctrine in this... just because it's Latin-America doesn't mean it's automatically connected to the Monroe Doctrine. You also ignore the collusion of some members of the Guatemalan authorities too.

No I don't, except many people on this board are Americans, Guatemaleans should hold their own government accountable for this as well. BTW, Guatemala is not a super power that the US is, to where the US can bully smaller o****ries into submission.

You try and paint a picture of this as some kind of American policy or ideology of the US and yet when confronted with the ideologies of people you support/sympathise with you seek to deny this with an amazing amount of rhetorical mendaciousness and double-standards.

I'm connecting it to the monrow doctrine which is basically, the western hemisphere belongs to us, you can also connect this with the US militarism, that they want to beat out communism, and you have plenty of examples of this. This was an official American policy, there was no official CNT policy to kill priests, also the CNT was in a civil war and the catholic church was bent on their destruction, the circumstances are miles apart.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 14:30

BTW, there is a difference betwee the action of the powerful, the domination of the powerful and the reaction of the powerless.

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 14:50

what your basically saying is "no big deal, no one comes out of history smell of of roses." Otherwise whats the point of saying it?

You can't resist misquoting and inserting extra words to build up strawmen can you? I never said "no big deal"- :rolleyes:

No I don't, except many people on this board are Americans, Guatemaleans should hold their own government accountable for this as well. BTW, Guatemala is not a super power that the US is, to where the US can bully smaller o****ries into submission.

So? Are you tailoring the facts to your audience? No doubt the rest is true enough but you didn't even look into that.

I'm connecting it to the monrow doctrine which is basically, the western hemisphere belongs to us, you can also connect this with the US militarism, that they want to beat out communism, and you have plenty of examples of this.

Yes, I know what the Monroe Doctrine is and it basically guards the Western Hemisphere, as some de facto US fiefdom, against non-Western Hemisphere "interests"- but other than a vague notion of perhaps the US taking a contemptuous attitude towards the Guatemalans at the time, I don't see how you can any more invoke the Monroe Doctrine than you can blame Marx for the Prague Spring to be honest.

This was an official American policy,

Okay, then it will be referenced as such by Congress and there will be laws more or less saying that they were free to do that in Guatemala with political approval of the Senate etc etc... could you reference that here please?

there was no official CNT policy to kill priests, also the CNT was in a civil war and the catholic church was bent on their destruction, the circumstances are miles apart.

Of course ignoring the whole anti-clerical and anti-religious nature of the movement and the ideology. You're also ignoring the fact that the CNT was in actual fact the government of Anarchist Catalonia (1939-1939)

"It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_sickle) and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said Señor or Don or even Usted; everyone called everyone else Comrade and Thou, and even said Salud! instead of Buenos dias." —George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia), ch. I

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 14:55

You can't resist misquoting and inserting extra words to build up strawmen can you? I never said "no big deal"- http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

I'm saying its the implication.

So? Are you tailoring the facts to your audience? No doubt the rest is true enough but you didn't even look into that.

This was an American program, you can try and shift blame all you want.

Yes, I know what the Monroe Doctrine is and it basically guards the Western Hemisphere, as some de facto US fiefdom, against non-Western Hemisphere "interests"- but other than a vague notion of perhaps the US taking a contemptuous attitude towards the Guatemalans at the time, I don't see how you can any more invoke the Monroe Doctrine than you can blame Marx for the Prague Spring to be honest.

Actually I can blame marx the Praque Spring because a lot of the reasons for it was the desire for self-management in the factories, an idea they got from Marx.

Okay, then it will be referenced as such by Congress and there will be laws more or less saying that they were free to do that in Guatemala with political approval of the Senate etc etc... could you reference that here please?

Are you saying the CIA did not have authority to do this? I'll look it up ONLY if you are saying this.

Of course ignoring the whole anti-clerical and anti-religious nature of the movement and the ideology. You're also ignoring the fact that the CNT was in actual fact the government of Anarchist Catalonia (1939-1939)

There was not centralized government in Anarchist Catalonia, thats the point, thats why the call it anarchist.

almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen.

That happened, and I don't condone it, but your making a false equivilancy and ignoring the context.

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 15:06

I'm saying its the implication.

Ah, so now it's an implication.

This was an American program, you can try and shift blame all you want.

No one is shifting the blame at all.

Actually I can blame marx the Praque Spring because a lot of the reasons for it was the desire for self-management in the factories, an idea they got from Marx.

You could, but it would be ahistorical and inane and I was referring to the crushing of the Prague Spring- which is the usual "implication" of mentioning it.

Are you saying the CIA did not have authority to do this? I'll look it up ONLY if you are saying this.

I'm not saying anything until I've seent the evidence. You claim this was US policy and I would like you to present evidence to prove that.

There was not centralized government in Anarchist Catalonia, thats the point, thats why the call it anarchist.

In 1936 the CNT entered in the Catalan Government along with FAI and there important members become ministers of that government. The degree to which they were centralised or not is another matter- but they were the government. They were also criticised by some anarchist movements for this.

Yet again your opinions are not supported by facts.

That happened, and I don't condone it, but your making a false equivilancy and ignoring the context.

But you do deny that it had anything with them being anarchists and that's what's irritating.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 15:11

Ah, so now it's an implication.

If you read what I said you'd realize that, I said "ITS AS IF you were saying ...."

You could, but it would be ahistorical and inane and I was referring to the crushing of the Prague Spring- which is the usual "implication" of mentioning it.

Oh the crushing of prague spring, well, whats the connection?

I'm not saying anything until I've seent the evidence. You claim this was US policy and I would like you to present evidence to prove that.

The evidence is that the United States government does not deny it, and instead admits to it.

In 1936 the CNT entered in the Catalan Government along with FAI and there important members become ministers of that government. The degree to which they were centralised or not is another matter- but they were the government. They were also criticised by some anarchist movements for this.

Yet again your opinions are not supported by facts.

Yeah, but that government did not have reign over the anarchist regions, so its irrelivant

But you do deny that it had anything with them being anarchists and that's what's irritating.

It does'nt, what it has to do with is the fact that the Catholic Church was actively trying to destroy the revolution ...

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 15:35

The evidence is that the United States government does not deny it, and instead admits to it.

Does the US also say it was official US policy? :rolleyes:

Yeah, but that government did not have reign over the anarchist regions, so its irrelivant

Oh, let's see, Anarchist Catalonia with the CNT-FAI government was completely irrelevant to what anarchists did in err... Anarchist Catalonia.
Cool story bro' :thumbup1:

It does'nt, what it has to do with is the fact that the Catholic Church was actively trying to destroy the revolution ...

Despite the fact that they were perhaps deliberately provoked into this by the constitution of 1931. :rolleyes: Anyway, even if that were indeed the case the response is to murder priests and nuns etc as well as lay people. You're also conveniently overlooking the other religions too. What did the Jews do? The synagogues were all closed down too.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 17:14

Does the US also say it was official US policy? http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

YES .... It was a official operation, for the CIA to do this, its not like it was just some bad apples .... Or are you just playing semantics here

Oh, let's see, Anarchist Catalonia with the CNT-FAI government was completely irrelevant to what anarchists did in err... Anarchist Catalonia.
Cool story bro' :thumbup1:

Not what I said, I said the official government was not ruling over Anarchist Catolonia.

Also the CNT had members IN the government, by no means were they the majority in the government.

Pay attention comrademan

Despite the fact that they were perhaps deliberately provoked into this by the constitution of 1931. :rolleyes: Anyway, even if that were indeed the case the response is to murder priests and nuns etc as well as lay people. You're also conveniently overlooking the other religions too. What did the Jews do? The synagogues were all closed down too.

Provoked into violently opposing the legitimate government, because their property (as was capitalists property) was subject to popular control, and becuase they could'nt control the education system any more????

Really???

As far as I know Jewish Rabbis were not heavily supporting fascists, and as far as I know Jewish rabbis were not killed by anarchist workers.

RGacky3

5th September 2011, 17:15

BTW, they should not have shut down the synagogues ... BUt the anarchists were dismanteling power, not setting up an empire ... There is a difference, and if you were a socialist you'd see that difference.

Misanthrope

5th September 2011, 17:37

Sick things like this still get American imperialism to shock me. While delusional sheep declare America the global force of good..:bored:

ComradeMan

5th September 2011, 21:39

YES .... It was a official operation, for the CIA to do this, its not like it was just some bad apples .... Or are you just playing semantics here

Unlike the semantic you play when it comes to the CNT.

Now, it's easy- if you can provide a source that somehow proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this was an official US policy, with all that entails then I will happily concede. This is in no way an attempt to form apologetics or justify what happened, but I want the facts and sources- I don't think that's unreasonable.

Not what I said, I said the official government was not ruling over Anarchist Catolonia.

Who was the official government of Catalonia then?

Also the CNT had members IN the government, by no means were they the majority in the government.

Except they ran the show and those members were high-ranking ministers- enough so for them to be criticised by other anarchist groups for having compromised anarchist values in order to gain power.

Provoked into violently opposing the legitimate government, because their property (as was capitalists property) was subject to popular control, and becuase they could'nt control the education system any more????

I wasn't aware of any violent actions and atrocities committed by the murdered priests and nuns against groups of leftists. Could you provide some sources? Secondly, do you oppose opposing government? If so why are you here?

As far as I know Jewish Rabbis were not heavily supporting fascists, and as far as I know Jewish rabbis were not killed by anarchist workers.

No but the synagogues were closed down and the Jewish people were denied practising their faith.

Bud Struggle

5th September 2011, 23:45

... There is a difference, and if you were a socialist you'd see that difference.

Gacky seems to be happy to give people the "Socialism Test."

Are You "Socialist" enough to not question Communist behavior--no matter what it is?

I guess there's a little "Stalin" in every person. :)

RGacky3

6th September 2011, 07:40

Gacky seems to be happy to give people the "Socialism Test."

Are You "Socialist" enough to not question Communist behavior--no matter what it is?

I guess there's a little "Stalin" in every person. http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

A question and condemn socialist behavior all the time ... You should see my arguments here with communists.

I've never seen you not stand up for the US, not once, or when its inevitable try write it off as of no significance.

Who was the official government of Catalonia then?

ANARCHISM .... Thats the point.

Now, it's easy- if you can provide a source that somehow proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that this was an official US policy, with all that entails then I will happily concede. This is in no way an attempt to form apologetics or justify what happened, but I want the facts and sources- I don't think that's unreasonable.

Do you really thinkg that the US government is lying when they say they did it? Its unreasonable when its obvious.

Except they ran the show and those members were high-ranking ministers- enough so for them to be criticised by other anarchist groups for having compromised anarchist values in order to gain power.

Except they did not run the show in Catolonia, and whether or not they should have joined hte govenrmnet is a seperate discussion, I don't have an answer.

I wasn't aware of any violent actions and atrocities committed by the murdered priests and nuns against groups of leftists. Could you provide some sources? Secondly, do you oppose opposing government? If so why are you here?

Do you really want me to look up abuses by the catholic chuch in Spain?

No but the synagogues were closed down and the Jewish people were denied practising their faith.

If that is the case, I'm not sure it is, then I condemn it, but no they were not denied from practising their faith :rolleyes:.

But whats your point here? we are talking about Guatemala ....

Are you telling me that if a revolutoinary group you support did some bad things during a civil war (MUCH MUCH less than what groups usually do in civil wars), that it negates the right to criticize any imperialism?

Is Bud allowed to criticize the nazis murdering people, if he supports the US? Are you allowed to criticize Stalin? Whats the point here?

ComradeMan

6th September 2011, 10:54

A question and condemn socialist behavior all the time ... You should see my arguments here with communists.

I've never seen you not stand up for the US, not once, or when its inevitable try write it off as of no significance.

I've seen him be very critical of policies, especially the prison system, he does not advocate the death penalty either. I am sure if you asked him directly about a given negative event in US history he would acknowledge that- but he also acknowledges the fact that he is not a communist or anarchist and despite being sympathetic to those ideals he considers them as utopian and idealistic. It seems that you fail to convince him otherwise with solid arguments.

ANARCHISM .... Thats the point.

Cool story bro'! :thumbup1: Yes, this mysterious entity (completely devoid of human interaction) called ANARCHISM suddenly started running Anarchist Catalonia.

Do you really thinkg that the US government is lying when they say they did it? Its unreasonable when its obvious.

No I doubt- but you said it was US policy- I asked you to demonstrate that- as of yet you haven't. If you use the word policy then you have to show that it was indeed policy, promulgated through written authorisation/documentation with statements of purpose, applicability and responsibility etc.

Do you really want me to look up abuses by the catholic chuch in Spain?

What's that got to do with raping/torturing/murdering unarmed priests and nuns as well as lay people?

If that is the case, I'm not sure it is, then I condemn it, but no they were not denied from practising their faith :rolleyes:.

Err... they were. If you can't go to the synagogue you can't pray and hear the Torah readings, you can't have a bar mitzvah and so on... in short you are denined the full ability to practise you religion as a Jew. :rolleyes:

RGacky3

6th September 2011, 11:39

It seems that you fail to convince him otherwise with solid arguments.

You've been around here long enough to know he juts ignores arguments and comes up with strawmen.

Cool story bro'! http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies2/thumbup1.gif Yes, this mysterious entity (completely devoid of human interaction) called ANARCHISM suddenly started running Anarchist Catalonia.

Its called self management, there was no government, the people ran it themselves, thats the point. BTW, it is a cool story, I'd read about it if I were you, you might learn something.

No I doubt- but you said it was US policy- I asked you to demonstrate that- as of yet you haven't. If you use the word policy then you have to show that it was indeed policy, promulgated through written authorisation/documentation with statements of purpose, applicability and responsibility etc.

So if you don't think the government authorized this ... are they just admiting it under tourture ... Or protecting someone ....??? THEY ADMITED IT.

What's that got to do with raping/torturing/murdering unarmed priests and nuns as well as lay people?

What does the history of abuse of the Catholic church and collaboration and enabling of fascists have to do with some angry workers workers using the time of revolutoin to attack symbols of that abuse and oppression? Oh I don't know.

ComradeMan

6th September 2011, 11:58

You've been around here long enough to know he juts ignores arguments and comes up with strawmen.

Well that's for you to debate with him, but I actually don't see you arguing very well against his positions at times.

Its called self management, there was no government, the people ran it themselves, thats the point. BTW, it is a cool story, I'd read about it if I were you, you might learn something.

I have and you don't know what you are talking about. Fundamentally it was the Catalan Government and the Stalinists that defeated the CNT-FAI in Catalonia and contributed to Franco's victory. The CNT-FAI have been criticised from within anarchist circles themselves for compromising just about everything many anarchists hold to be fundamental ideals in order to hold power. We could also talk about the Workers Militia, the anarchist "police force" that was set up too.... ;) Your idea of this anarchist utopia of Catalonia is delusional- the CNT-FAI made many mistakes and this, in combination with other events, led to their demise.

Here's an article
http://struggle.ws/spain/essay/martin_cnt_state.html
and another article
http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=175

So if you don't think the government authorized this ... are they just admiting it under tourture ... Or protecting someone ....??? THEY ADMITED IT.

Yes, the also said quite clearly in the apology that it did not represent the values of the US etc. No one is doubting that it happened, but I for one am asking you to demonstrate that this was an official US policy.

What does the history of abuse of the Catholic church and collaboration and enabling of fascists have to do with some angry workers workers using the time of revolutoin to attack symbols of that abuse and oppression? Oh I don't know.

They didn't just attack "symbols" though, did they- they murdered, raped and tortured a lot of unarmed human beings.

How had the Jews abused and oppressed the Spanish workers by the way in order for them to have the synagogues closed?

RGacky3

6th September 2011, 12:20

but I actually don't see you arguing very well against his positions at times.

he very rarely has positions.

The CNT-FAI have been criticised from within anarchist circles themselves for compromising just about everything many anarchists hold to be fundamental ideals in order to hold power. We could also talk about the Workers Militia, the anarchist "police force" that was set up too.... http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-scientists-knew-t160629/revleft/smilies/wink.gif Your idea of this anarchist utopia of Catalonia is delusional- the CNT-FAI made many mistakes and this, in combination with other events, led to their demise.

The workers militia was juts that .. a workers militia, infact many anarchists later criticized them for not taking power, but instead allowing self governance. The criticisms were from anarchists on those who took part in the republican government, in Catelonia there was no official centralized goverment.

Yes, the also said quite clearly in the apology that it did not represent the values of the US etc. No one is doubting that it happened, but I for one am asking you to demonstrate that this was an official US policy.

Yeah ... Of coarse it does'nt represent the "values" of the US :rolleyes:, whatever that is, I don't think they'd ever say that giving people syphilis is a value, you've got to be kidding me.

Anyway, if you REALLY think that this was not a US government thing, and that they are apologising for something they did'nt do, well here we go

http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html

It was the US public health service, which is under the presidnet.

BTW, this was done hidden from Guatemalean officials, so although you'd love to share the blame from your beloved USA, the facts don't add up.

They didn't just attack "symbols" though, did they- they murdered, raped and tortured a lot of unarmed human beings.

You get what I'm saying though, kick a dog for long enough and don't be suprised if he bites.

ComradeMan

6th September 2011, 12:47

he very rarely has positions.

You have no superior position from which you can argue he has no position. Again, you have to see that your opinion- as much as you are entitled to it- is not some irrefutable maximum point of correctness. You were restricted for your position on abortion, people here might argue the same that you have no positions on that matter.

The workers militia was juts that .. a workers militia, infact many anarchists later criticized them for not taking power, but instead allowing self governance. The criticisms were from anarchists on those who took part in the republican government, in Catelonia there was no official centralized goverment.

More mendaciousness, they were criticised for going into a government with people who did not share their ideals or values in order to cement their position in power only for it to bounce back in their face. When they had the oppurtunity to establish "full worker power", being more or less handed to them, they fucked it up big time because they couldn't see the difference between a polity and a state as such and in the end their own "buddies" turned on them and it culminated in a Franco victory.

Yeah ... Of coarse it does'nt represent the "values" of the US :rolleyes:, whatever that is, I don't think they'd ever say that giving people syphilis is a value, you've got to be kidding me.

But they don't say "Yes it was official US policy" either do they?

Anyway, if you REALLY think that this was not a US government thing, and that they are apologising for something they did'nt do, well here we go
http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html

It was the US public health service, which is under the presidnet. BTW, this was done hidden from Guatemalean officials, so although you'd love to share the blame from your beloved USA, the facts don't add up.

Well I don't see the President's signature on any of the evidence yet presented and I don't see any evidence that it was an official US policy as you try to spin it. Once again, neither I, Bud, nor the US government denies it happened and that it was unethical and wrong but at the same time I do question whether you can say it was official US policy. Also, according to the source YOU provided the Guatemalan authorities of the time are implicated.

You get what I'm saying though, kick a dog for long enough and don't be suprised if he bites.

So arbitrary and summary justice by rape, torture and murder can be meted out to anyone who happens to be loosely connected to a group or organisation that may or may not be perceived to have committed negative acts in the past. Woh--- great sense of justice you have there. :rolleyes: