Maoists kill 20 innocents by accident in terrorist attack! -

[Capitalist Imperial]

Do you commie pukes see why you are a joke?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70744,00.html

[RedCeltic]

Yea, sort of like Accidentally firing on a wedding party in Afghanistan. Besides, Maoists are usually not very bright which anyone can tell if they read one of their newspapers.

[Exploited Class]

Well if the accidental killing of 20 people makes commies a joke, then what about all of America's accidental killings? Oh I'm sorry I mean Collateral Damage, no wait I think innocent lives works well.

So Commies a joke because 20 innocents accidently killed. Then Capitalism must be fucking hilarous, the biggest joke played on mankind. How many daisy cutters killed innocents, how many landmines left in Vietnam killed innocents?

[Xvall]

How about them 2,000,000 vietnamese killed 'accidentally' by your government? Or the Native Population that were 'accidentally' (Ooops!) exterminated! Gee. That sounds a lot WORSE than some 20 people accidentally killed by some maoists.

[Iepilei]

remember: if you point out the flaws of others, you're a hero. if you point out your own flaws, you're a traitor.

[tucows]

wow isnt it great how the right-wing paper doesnt tell both halves of the story. it doesnt even mention why these rebels were attacking authorities in the first place. thats fucking stupid, thats like if the news were to point a finger at bush and said that bush is a terrorist for bombing afganistan.(it wouldnt say that we bombed afganistan due to the 911 attacks(which i think is bullshit anyway)) dont get me wrong, reading that innocent lives have been taken pisses me off, but you cant just take one half of a story and accuse people of bieng terrorists.

[canikickit]

That wasn't very well thought out was it, CI?

[antieverything]

Maoists are usually not very bright which anyone can tell if they read one of their newspapers.

I assume that you are refering to the Progressive Labor Party's "The Challenge". A college professor friend of mine (a member of the PLP) is constantly giving me those pieces of shit. "The Challenge" is without question the worst publication I've ever had the displeasure of coming across...right up there with "Capitalism Magazine".

[guerrillaradio]

I like to the first to absolutely condemn Maoism. It has nothing to with the leftist cause whatsoever.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The difference between the pitiful examples in these responses and my example is that your ill-informed examples represent instances where US forces inflicted collateral damage while attacking legitimate targets, or had bad coordinates from the long position.

The maoists, however, picked the wrong target all together even when within visual range.

How do you mistake a passenger bus for apolice transport?

[tucows]

no one said what they did was right. all i was saying was that you cant post a article that only gives one side of the story and only has one view.

"The difference between the pitiful examples in these responses and my example is that your ill-informed examples represent instances where US forces inflicted collateral damage while attacking legitimate targets, or had bad coordinates from the long position."

i gave an example on how you just cant give one side of the story when i said " thats like if the news were to point a finger at bush and said that bush is a terrorist for bombing afganistan.(it wouldnt say that we bombed afganistan due to the 911 attacks(which i think is bullshit anyway))"

WHEN YOU ONLY GIVE ONE SIDE OF A STORY YOU MAKE YOURSELF OUT TO BE AN IDIOT, because all your doing is saying 'this is my view on things and its the right view because its mine'

[tucows]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2002
The maoists, however, picked the wrong target all together even when within visual range.

How do you mistake a passenger bus for apolice transport?
how does the U.S. mistake afgan civilians as terrorists? how does the U.S. mistake innocent vietnamese civilians as bieng guerilla soldiers? how does the U.S. mistake native americans as bieng a threat to pilgrams? everyones made mistakes. but you cant take an incedent where 20 innocent people were killed because of some dumbasses, and say that commies are idiots. all your doing is generalizing and discriminating.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2002
The difference between the pitiful examples in these responses and my example is that your ill-informed examples represent instances where US forces inflicted collateral damage while attacking legitimate targets, or had bad coordinates from the long position.

The maoists, however, picked the wrong target all together even when within visual range.

How do you mistake a passenger bus for apolice transport?

Yah like when American Troops were in Vietnam they Meant to Kill Children and Woman and whole villages. It was no accident. You are right, communists are all fools because some Maoist rebels in India at dusk setup a landmine to take out a police rig which are many times in other countries buses, but took out a civilian vehicle instead.

I would rather make that mistake and be thought a fool than to purposely kill woman and children in a village and be called BUTCHER.

[kidicarus20]

I like the fact that the maosists are at least fighters.

[suffianr]

It was a sad, unfortunate, miserable mistake.

Like the term "friendly fire", of which, according to Defense Link news:

"Friendly fire, or fratricide, incidents killed or injured about 17 percent of the American casualties during Operation Desert Storm in 1991."

Also, friendly fire accounted for 10,800 deaths during the Vietnam War (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/2904/table.html) and "death by misadventure" registered at 1326 deaths, if the source is to be believed.

Further statistics show:

Missing in action: 2,338

POWs: 766 (114 died in captivity).

Wounded in action: 303,704

Severly disabled: 75,000--23,214 100% disabled; 5,283 lost limbs; 1,081 sustained multiple amputations.

Married men killed: 17,539

Average age of men killed: 22.8 years.

The suicide rate of Vietnam veterans has always been well within the 1.7% norm of the general population.

Also, found at http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0654.htm
is another related excerpt:

"One of the most egregious examples of callous disregard for Afghan civilians happened last October when a village north of Kandahar was strafed by AC-130 gunships, resulting in the death of at least 93 civilians. The blunt response by one Pentagon official was that the people there are dead because we wanted them dead. Trying to avoid any further probing of the incident, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said: I cannot deal with that particular village.

In fact, the Pentagon has not kept any statistics about civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Or, rather, there has been no concerted effort to provide the media with the awful death toll of innocents in Afghanistan. Fortunately, Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire has generated substantive information about such deaths and has made them available on his website. By the end of 2001, the US military had killed more than all of those murdered on September 11th.

Over the first six months of 2002, various reports of bombings of wedding parties and family gatherings in friendly villages have accumulated. And the anger of Afghans against the United States has been growing apace. One survivor of the recent attack on the wedding party at Kakrak agonized that the Americans should be put on trial. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the refusal of the Bush Administration to join the International Criminal Court comes amidst the repeated war crimes in Afghanistan."

So, there you have it, CI. There is no absolutism in friendly fire, everything is relative.

[BOZG]

Do you mean wrong target like the 3000+ civilians killed in Afghanistan? Oh and be careful you don't shoot your own Canadian allies while you're out there.

[Xvall]

Yes, Suicide Rates were high for Vietnam vets. How would you feel if you were forced into the military so you can blow apart children and women in the name of 'democracy'?

[new democracy]

Quote: from antieverything on 10:26 pm on Nov. 18, 2002
"The Challenge" is without question the worst publication I've ever had the displeasure of coming across.
disagree. i read some of their articles in their website and it's fascinating in a scary way. and while i am not such a fan of the maoists rebels in nepal, i read in a israeli newspaper that they help poor peasnts in all kind of ways.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Well how bout this one.

Billions of ppl around the world starving to death. If that doesnt make a joker of captalism and their leader america i wouldnt know what to say.

[Tkinter1]

Yeah but I think we can all agree that the some 61,911,000 deaths under that Stalinst rule takes the cake. Leave it to a commie to earn the title 'centuries biggest killer'.

And CCCP, billions of people are not starving around the world as a result of Capitalism. So shutup.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CCCP on 10:34 pm on Nov. 19, 2002
Well how bout this one.

Billions of ppl around the world starving to death. If that doesnt make a joker of captalism and their leader america i wouldnt know what to say.


lol, there are just over 6 billion people on earth and "billions" are starving to death? using the plural, you have to mean at least 2 billiuon or more

hmm, 1 out of 3 people are starving to death, due to america, huh?

i have a question for the leftists, what was your excuse for world pverty before america?

[suffianr]

Capitalism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from suffianr on 5:15 am on Nov. 21, 2002
Capitalism. lol, capitalism is a relatively new concept, as young as america herself, so my question remains

[RedCeltic]

No, capitalism did not invent poverty, it simply perpetuates it. And no, people do not have to be starving to be considered living below the poverty line.

Poverty was first established when agriculture provided the means for the establishment of state level societies.

[Guest]

About Vietnam.... Who were the agressors? The NVA was the one on the offensive all the time, the objective of the American intervention was to keep the status quo, while the North Vietnamese objective was to destroy South Vietnam. By the way, the extermination of the native population was carried out by the NVA. (The mountainairds were allied to the US Army, they made better soldiers than the South Vietnamese conscripts.) Get you history right punks.

[Vladimir]

Jesus CI, its not like you to leave yorself so open to attack like that. He must be tired. Poor fella
Plus nobody mentioned the Nagasaki and Hiroshimo terrorist attacks.

IrishGuevara

[Umoja]

TK,

Mind you a majority of Russian Deaths were from WW2 when the Allies let the Germans chew on Russia for a bit. That accounts for 20,000,000 deaths at least. Then their was WWI before that, which claimed about 10,000,000 Russian lives. Any country that can survive that and not fall apart is exemplary.

Stalism was still a problem, but under Socialist theory if their is a Dictator it isn't Socialism to start with. It's more of a Police State with a planned economy. To that effect Nazi's called them selves Socialist, it's just a name many people attach even though they don't follow it.

[Tkinter1]

nope over 60 million deaths were from stalinist rule alone.



"Stalism was still a problem, but under Socialist theory if their is a Dictator it isn't Socialism to start with."

There is always a leader, whether pulling the strings secretively or not. It seems that nearly all Socialist/Ccommunist leaders(despite the oxymoronic sound of it) have been unusally harsh to enforce the policies that the system requires. It's too uniform of a system for most people to want to live under. So it requires great purges, restrictions, and laws to keep the dissidents from becoming to large. It's only natural for large scale S/C countries to have these problems.

[Stormin Norman]

This group should be hunted down and killed like any other terrorist organization. Their ideology is beside the point. When they resort terrorism as a form of political violence the message they espouse should be ignored. The main goal of the governments facing any terrorist group should not be accommodation, but extermination.

[Umoja]

If you have to kill 60 million people, then obviously their is something wrong with you, not the rest of the people.

Infact, if your system is in opposition to the views of most of the population to the extent that you need to kill a large percent (More then 1% is to much if you ask me) then theirs a problem with the system. Stalinism doesn't work.

Now can we fight the real enemy, the Capitalist? :-)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Captalist are just comrades blinded with greed. Communists socialists central leftist we are all just ordinary ppl not blinded with greed. We also make mistakes. But we do not help Africa and parts of south america and asia into a starvation death while americans are dieying of fatness. In any leftist system that would get taken care off. I dont say that it is easy. But from every 10 dollar profit of africa, africa receives it back in shape of water wells and that sort of bullshit. While everyone knows that you cant build up an modern nation on water wells. With all the money that america spends this year on war efforts we could build up entire africa. In africa there are entire villages have confidence in western "helping"organisations that they dont even work on the land anymore while villages just miles away are dying of starvation. Instead of dropping grain and building waterwells in africa you could start really helping. in shape of education ,hardend roads , honest trading rules(at this moment its like this that an african company making profit in europe has much more expenses than an european making profit in africa) so there can raise an industry.

I every day think off the question why its ok with ppl that other ppl die of starvation while themselves have plenty money and food. Can one of the captalist bastards answer to that, and change my thought of captalists that they are greedy and will do everything for money and power.

[Tkinter1]

"If you have to kill 60 million people, then obviously their is something wrong with you, not the rest of the people. "

These were people who didn't agree with the government, or who had certain 'diseases' that the government said required extermination. The government didn't just line up random people and shoot them. It had to do it to keep the economy stable. And in the end it still didn't work.

"Infact, if your system is in opposition to the views of most of the population to the extent that you need to kill a large percent (More then 1% is to much if you ask me) then theirs a problem with the system. Stalinism doesn't work. "

Stalinism was the RESULT of Communism or marxism w/e, They just switched the names.

"Now can we fight the real enemy, the Capitalist? :-) "

Funny

[Umoja]

So if a person doesn't agree with the government they should be shot? That doesn't sound at all like economic democracy to me. It sounds like amped up Dictatorship, the Capitalist on this forum have a point. If you people consider Stalinism, or any other type of Russian Communism proper Communism then their is something very wrong.

Of course, to the Capitalist, if you consider survival of the fitness the thing that we've advanced to and should stop at then their is also something wrong with you. Why have someone suffer if you don't have to?

[Tkinter1]

ok?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Dont blame us for their mistakes. Like you cant blame the moslims that 0.05%has chosen the side of al'qaida andso. I do not shout that everyone should be equal and than shoot some guys. This is not how i think communism should be. The founder of communism is marx. And he had written some other things.

And you really need to shut up. How many ppl have died in Israel and palistine cuz of imperialists? How many have died in Afganistan in 1979 till 2002 cuz of imperialists?How many have died in Angola cuz of imperialists? andso on and on. The captalism is just one wrong system. Prove: Bush and america

[Tkinter1]

right...

[antieverything]

The Stalinist death toll is one of the most inflated numbers in all of history. Even so, 60,000,000 is larger than any number I've ever seen and I've read some pretty mindless accusations of communism based on Stalin's terror.

The real number is about 2 million deaths that can be directly attributed to Stalin and his policies...still pretty terrible, but not 60 million.

[Tkinter1]

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.CHAP.1.HTM

I looked for more, but every site retroverts to this site. 2 million is WAY off.

[Som]

That site is quite a bit off, for most standards.

First of all, its not just stalin, its the entire soviet history untill 1987.

It also puts casualties of war in there, which were huge, as the soviets were forced to fight quantitively.
It doesn't mention how the vast majority of the people died.

The usual number is between 10 and 20 million.
About 10 million attributed to forced collectivization, political prisoners are hard to tell also, some say about 2 million political prisoners purged, others give it more like 8 million, and the rest due to famines and the like, often forced.

a link to that:
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/revision.html


Its all really vague, the soviets were fairly good at covering their tracks


(Edited by Som at 1:10 am on Nov. 26, 2002)

[Tkinter1]

Your dates are far more narrow than the ones I have presented. It doesn't necessarily matter who is in control as long as it's Soviet history.

Collectivization (1929-33), 6 to 10 million peasants
In 4 years!

The Great Purge (1936-1938)
In two years over 6 million!

I agree with you that information is somewhat vague. But in all cases the numbers are extremely high.

[Pete]

If your looking at Stalin/Soviet deaths, why not look at Capitalist murders during the same period. Like, say, the Holocaust, Bombing of Heroshima/Nagyoski (completely a waste of lives) or in any of the US sanctioned genocidal dictatorships around the world. Sept 11 1971 (is that not correct) in Peru I believe, shit I always forget the names, or Indonesia to present. It doesnt matter who was in charge, it was still on the Plutocrats' hands. It is probaly much higher then whatever the Soviets inflicted.

[Tkinter1]

100% wrong pete. Honestly, that really angers me that you just said that.

[Pete]

i was speculating. i don't know the numbers for all those events. but they must be up there. ill look into then post back in a couple days with sources tkinter.
but seriously Hiroshima and Naygaski were useless espeacilly since the Japanese where sueing for peace the whole time. Senseless slaughter to show the world your new pretty weapon. Iraq 1991. Wow.

[antieverything]

Whoops...sorry, 2 million political prisoners. About 8 million died from forced collectivization and resistance efforts...according to my encyclopedia here at home.

that's still only 10,000,000.

[Tkinter1]

"i was speculating. i don't know the numbers for all those events."
then don't put them

"but seriously Hiroshima and Naygaski were useless espeacilly since the Japanese where sueing for peace the whole time."

We had no choice, if it weren't for the bomb, we would have had to invade, and more lives would have been needlessy lost.

"Senseless slaughter to show the world your new pretty weapon."

and we never had to use it again.

[Tkinter1]

What encyclopedia is that?

[antieverything]

Bullshit. We would have had no problem blitzing the rest of Japan just like we did to Tokyo. Japan didn't surrender until several weeks after the atomic bomb...they kept fighting until we bombed the shit out of the rest of the country...the a-bomb was completely unneccesary.

[antieverything]

Brittanica...an older one, though.