Jump to content

Biggest Mass Murderer of Our Time


Moreau
 Share

Recommended Posts

They were not slaves, they were workers who made sacrifices to turn their country into a world power. In the long-run millions more were saved by the measures, when you consider that future generations never had to deal with famine and hunger again due to the creation of "factory farms". As painful as it was, industrialization was necessary, especially when you consider capitalist encirclement of the USSR and the fact that another capitalist invasion was inevitable. If Hitler had of conquered the USSR the entire Russian race would of been either enslaved or exterminated.

 

Also the cyclical famines were hardly something you can blame the Soviets for, they inherited a country which had been having famines and starvation since the Middle-Ages, the reason the death toll was so much higher in the communist period is because the Russian population was exploding (families now felt safe to have children again), while in the Middle-Ages low food production kept the population low.

 

Britain or America never had to make such painful decisions, they had the luxury of having industrialization take place over gradually over a hundred years, not 10. They also didn't have their entire country almost completely destroyed TWICE.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were not slaves, they were workers who made sacrifices to turn their country into a world power. In the long-run millions more were saved by the measures, when you consider that future generations never had to deal with famine and hunger again due to the creation of "factory farms". As painful as it was, industrialization was necessary, especially when you consider capitalist encirclement of the USSR and the fact that another capitalist invasion was inevitable. If Hitler had of conquered the USSR the entire Russian race would of been either enslaved or exterminated.

 

Also the cyclical famines were hardly something you can blame the Soviets for, they inherited a country which had been having famines and starvation since the Middle-Ages, the reason the death toll was so much higher in the communist period is because the Russian population was exploding (families now felt safe to have children again), while in the Middle-Ages low food production kept the population low.

 

Britain or America never had to make such painful decisions, they had the luxury of having industrialization take place over gradually over a hundred years, not 10. They also didn't have their entire country almost completely destroyed TWICE.

 

No country that hasn't witnessed the scourge of communism has ever had to deal with such high death tolls (I wonder why that is?), and to say those "workers" were not being compelled to work is very disingenuous. There is also no example of communism having ever improved the lives of workers but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and even the deeply flawed system of Capitalism has had some success in improving the lives of workers. (I personally do not subscribe to either ideology.)

Edited by Moreau III

Signed by Sultan Moreau

UqIjjeQ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No country that hasn't witnessed the scourge of communism has ever had to deal with such high death tolls (I wonder why that is?),

Because the two largest countries where communism came to power were also the most backward feudal countries with little industry, they were also countries that capitalist armies invaded to prevent any form of socialist society being built as an example for the working class of the entire world. Nazi Germany gave military support and aid to the capitalist Chinese Nationalists to fight the communists. The Japanese invaded China on the justification of fighting communism (indeed the Anti-Comintern Pact was the alliance Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had!). The Civil War in China was funded by Western aid to the Nationalists in the hope of destroying the hopes of the Chinese peasant for freedom.

 

Fascism was a way for the world capitalist system to fight communism while keeping themselves behind the "democratic" Western countries in case fascism failed to destroy communism. The Western capitalist countries were happy to see Hitler smashing his way through the USSR and they openly hoped he would be successful.

 

It's entirely hypocritical for the imperialists to cry about the "failure" of communism while at the same time they did everything in their power to destroy socialism before it could properly develop itself. They are the reason communism "failed"! Vietnam/Laos? Occupied and bombed for two decades. Cuba? Blockaded, embargoed, invaded, sabotage attacked, etc. Grenada? Invaded.

 

and to say those "workers" were not being compelled to work is very disingenuous.

There were mistakes made, but in most cases the workers were inspired by statues of Marx and Lenin, and slogans of building a better future for the next generation, even if they had to suffer immensely right now.

 

There is also no example of communism having ever improved the lives of workers but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary,

You must be kidding because the living standards in the USSR were many times better than those of the previous Tsarist system.

 

 

and even the deeply flawed system of Capitalism has had some success in improving the lives of workers. (I personally do not subscribe to either ideology.)

Some at the expense of many, many others. Workers in Western capitalist countries enjoy [relatively] high wages and low price goods because of the enslavement of millions of third-world workers in order to produce these nice consumer goods for the Western proletariat, so that they remain happy and content and the capitalist ruling class is firmly in power. I'm in favor of a system where all labor is equal, where workers who want goods make their own, instead of wanting masses of foreign slaves to it for them.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what caused us to upgrade from apes?

why is it that chimpanzees are also from apes but humans are able to rule the earth.

Does any other animal make large houses or use weapons or speak?

nothing, we didn't evolve from apes, (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html#Q01) but if we did it would be because of these things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

because we evolved to do that

no, that is something only we can do, but i am pretty sure that not being able to build stuff does not make you an animal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assad claims  to be a baath but most of his government is alawis

Saddam was a true baath. His government had arabs from all over the system. He had shiites and christians in his government and united the arabs in Iraq whilst Assad and his father have divided syria more than anyone

Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assad claims  to be a baath but most of his government is alawis

Saddam was a true baath. His government had arabs from all over the system. He had shiites and christians in his government and united the arabs in Iraq whilst Assad and his father have divided syria more than anyone

Arab nationalism was a positive and progressive movement, and actually had great success in unifying the Arab masses, abolishing old tribalism and fighting both Western and Zionist imperialism. That said, it degenerated significantly, especially after the death of Nasser, and essentially became a racist chauvinistic form of nationalism, resulting in Saddam's war against Persian Iran and his genocidal Al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, ie Arab nationalism became the very imperialist menace it fought against. Because of that it's not surprising that many of Saddam's old henchmen easily transitioned into Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arab nationalism was a positive and progressive movement, and actually had great success in unifying the Arab masses, abolishing old tribalism and fighting both Western and Zionist imperialism. That said, it degenerated significantly, especially after the death of Nasser, and essentially became a racist chauvinistic form of nationalism, resulting in Saddam's war against Persian Iran and his genocidal Al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, ie Arab nationalism became the very imperialist menace it fought against. Because of that it's not surprising that many of Saddam's old henchmen easily transitioned into Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

 

Isn't the "Saddam's troops make up ISIS" thing a image presented without full context? Saddam had conscription of every young man in the country, meaning if an Iraqi male who was of conscription age during the time of Saddam joins ISIS then that means "one of his old henchman joined ISIS". Saddam wasn't toppled that long ago ultimately, many of his former troops would only be in their early 30s now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, I'm just saying that when you look at the anti-Kurd, anti-Persian racism of the late Saddam era, and compare it to the anti-Kurd, anti-Persian racism of ISIS, well it's almost identical. Also after his defeat in the Gulf War Saddam began a religious campaign and distanced himself from secularism, even having a Quran written in his own blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, I'm just saying that when you look at the anti-Kurd, anti-Persian racism of the late Saddam era, and compare it to the anti-Kurd, anti-Persian racism of ISIS, well it's almost identical. Also after his defeat in the Gulf War Saddam began a religious campaign and distanced himself from secularism, even having a Quran written in his own blood.

 

I'm not sure it's quite comparable. You can hate a group for different reasons, and ultimately I doubt all members of ISIS's armies fully believe the doctrine. It's just a job to some of them I'm sure.

 

Dictators will do things to solidify their power. Historically for example there have been rulers who've even converted to a different religion simply to increase their standing in their territory. Wouldn't surprise me if the shift was simply a pragmatic move more than anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's quite comparable. You can hate a group for different reasons, and ultimately I doubt all members of ISIS's armies fully believe the doctrine. It's just a job to some of them I'm sure.

 

Dictators will do things to solidify their power. Historically for example there have been rulers who've even converted to a different religion simply to increase their standing in their territory. Wouldn't surprise me if the shift was simply a pragmatic move more than anything. 

I'd agree with that, and it's well known that one of the things that makes ISIS attractive was that they paid good salaries, regularly (though I'm not sure if that's still the case today). What I'm pointing out though is that Sunni anti-Persian sentiment in Iraq goes all the way back to the Battle of Qadisiyyah in 636 in present-day Iraq where the forces of the Arab Islamic Caliphate defeated the non-Muslim Persian Empire (today Iran). To Iraq's Sunnis this was like the founding of the Iraqi Arab nation, this isn't a "doctrine" only the highly-educated believe, it's something deeply embedded in the Sunni-Iraqi-Arab consciousness, so it's understandable why anti-Persian/Kurd (Kurds are an Iranian people remember) racism has such a solid foundation. To many Iraqi Sunnis the Shia majority aren't even citizens, they're foreigners from Iran.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that, and it's well known that one of the things that makes ISIS attractive was that they paid good salaries, regularly (though I'm not sure if that's still the case today). What I'm pointing out though is that Sunni anti-Persian sentiment in Iraq goes all the way back to the Battle of Qadisiyyah in 636 in present-day Iraq where the forces of the Arab Islamic Caliphate defeated the non-Muslim Persian Empire (today Iran). To Iraq's Sunnis this was like the founding of the Iraqi Arab nation, this isn't a "doctrine" only the highly-educated believe, it's something deeply embedded in the Sunni-Iraqi-Arab consciousness, so it's understandable why anti-Persian/Kurd (Kurds are an Iranian people remember) racism has such a solid foundation. To many Iraqi Sunnis the Shia majority aren't even citizens, they're foreigners from Iran.

 

Well their money supply has been hit not that long ago so it's likely decreased, but still plenty of "spoils" when you count all the women and children they attack.

 

Well that is true enough. The ridiculous Sunni-Shia hatred at work there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arab nationalism was a positive and progressive movement, and actually had great success in unifying the Arab masses, abolishing old tribalism and fighting both Western and Zionist imperialism. That said, it degenerated significantly, especially after the death of Nasser, and essentially became a racist chauvinistic form of nationalism, resulting in Saddam's war against Persian Iran and his genocidal Al-Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, ie Arab nationalism became the very imperialist menace it fought against. Because of that it's not surprising that many of Saddam's old henchmen easily transitioned into Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Jews are not evil, deal with it. They have caused so much good in the world, while Communists killed off around 1.25% of the world's population... So yeah, I would rather take living in Israel over living in a communist nation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism, deal with it. Zionism is Jewish chauvinistic nationalism. The establishment of Israel was undoubtedly an aggressive imperialist act. The state was formed by European immigrants who were illegally infiltrating Palestine, that is the definition of colonization. Israel has since it's establishment been nothing but a pawn of Western imperialism in Arab lands, it has sided with the US/allies in every major issue, de-facto it is a US puppet.

 

You talk about the massacres of communism but I don't think I've ever heard you talking much about the anti-Slavic, anti-Communist genocide that was perpetrated against the Russian/Slavic peoples by the Nazi's.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jews are not evil, deal with it. They have caused so much good in the world, while Communists killed off around 1.25% of the world's population... So yeah, I would rather take living in Israel over living in a communist nation.

 

Weird, usually a person who responsible to the american market crash, Communist massacre was the Zionist Bolshevik itself

 

Karl Marx was a Jewish himself, remember that.

 

God I'm going to jail tonight...

Edited by lizard noob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird, usually a person who responsible to the american market crash, Communist massacre was the Zionist Bolshevik itself

 

Karl Marx was a Jewish himself, remember that.

 

God I'm going to jail tonight...

Really? Morons are still recycling the old "Judeo-Bolshevism" garbage from old black and white Nazi propaganda films? It's getting a bit old. And who cares that Marx was Jewish.

 

Also Zionist Bolshevik? The USSR was the biggest enemy of Israel during the Cold War, all the military equipment Egypt and Syria got was from the USSR. If Marxism really was a Zionist conspiracy then I think someone must have been one big epic screw-up.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Morons are still recycling the old "Judeo-Bolshevism" garbage from old black and white Nazi propaganda films? It's getting a bit old. And who cares that Marx was Jewish.

 

Also Zionist Bolshevik? The USSR was the biggest enemy of Israel during the Cold War, all the military equipment Egypt and Syria got was from the USSR. If Marxism really was a Zionist conspiracy then I think someone must have been one big epic screw-up.

Then why the Soviet Union hand in hand with "le ebil bourgeoisie boogeyman" capitalist in England and declare war against Nazi Germany just because the Holocaust?

Edited by lizard noob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why the Soviet Union hand in hand with "le ebil bourgeoisie boogeyman" capitalist in England and declare war against Nazi Germany just because the Holocaust?

Wut? The Holocaust wasn't known about in any great detail until after the war was over. The Soviet Union didn't "declare war" on Germany, they were invaded by Germany. Britain and France declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ASSad

CfV-aCvXEAAWuv6.jpg

 

Any counter argument should be backed up with actual statistics. Debate...

 

Right...... 

I request a detailed methodology of how these statistics were compiled, because I know it doesn't exist. Mostly because these numbers don't even add up to the actual death toll or the civilian casualties documented by the opposition forces themselves. Not to mention what Roz said is very true:

 

The source you quoted is known propaganda front funded by the EU orginally to push regime change

 

 

Their propaganda and website isn't even well made. 

  • Upvote 3

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, obligatory show of support for Assad!

 

syrianresist.jpg

  • Upvote 4

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the Civil War in Syria can actually be put down to Assad's own mistakes. Trying to convert the economy from a socialist-style Baathist economy with state-ownership and subsidies for the poor/rural people to a market capitalist system, the result being that the rural people lost hope and were ripe for recruitment by Islamist propaganda. And also of course allowing the Islamists in Iraq to use Syria as a base during their insurgency against the Americans, result being that the Islamists were allowed free reign to recruit and spread propaganda in Syria's countryside. Of course much of the blame goes to the Saudis, Qataris, Turks for supporting the rebels, but the uprising would probably have never even occurred if not for Assad's attempt at liberalization and bringing the country into the imperialist world system of capital (similar situation with Gaddadi and Libya). His father Hafez suffered an Islamist uprising centered on Homs and he crushed it very quickly.

Edited by Andrezj Kolarov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.