Okay you lot Put up or shut up

[CharlieG]

Jane, I suspect this site might help you in your endeavours to define 'fascism'.

Contrary to some posts I've made, Britt's characteristics show that Stalinism is very similar to fascism, but doesn't quite fit every single characteristic. That's not saying I support Stalinism, but one must use the right terminology.

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Could you please post the article? That site requires registration, which I'm not inclined to do.

I suspect, though, that you're talking about the situation in Sudan that Powell spoke about?

I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with what he had to say.

Oh, by the way, am I a pseud?

Here's another Washington Post article which basically gives the history.

Crisis in Sudan

By Ed O'Keefe and Jeffrey Marcus
washingtonpost.com Staff Writers
Thursday, July 1, 2004; 2:23 PM


What Is the Situation in Sudan?



An increasingly dire situation in Darfur in western Sudan has devolved into the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, according to international observers. Human Rights Watch reports that more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes and are living in disease-ridden camps. Another 110,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. Hundreds of thousands of people are threatened by starvation, and as many as 30,000 people have already died in Darfur in the past 16 months.

Aid workers warn that the U.N. World Food Program will only be able to reach 800,000 displaced people. If the situation persists, the U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that at least 350,000 people will die of disease and malnutrition.
In Sudan, Death and Denial (The Washington Post, June 27, 2004)
Eyewitnesses to Atrocities Along Frontier of Chad and Sudan (The Washington Post, June 29, 2004)

How Did This Happen?

Tensions between Arabs and Africans competing for scarce natural resources in Darfur first surfaced during the 1970s. In February 2003, rebel groups of African Muslims, fed up with chronic inequalities between Africans and the ruling Arab elite (who are also Muslim), struck out against the Khartoum government. The government responded by arming local militias to crack down on mainly three ethnic groups -- the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

The government-backed groups are known in Arabic as "Janjaweed," which means "men who ride horses and carry G3 guns." The Janjaweed terrorize Africans, destroying villages, killing and maiming men, ransacking food supplies and blocking international assistance. The Washington Post's Emily Wax reports that the Janjaweed also carry out systematic campaigns of rape against African women in an attempt to humiliate the women and their families and weaken tribal ethnic lines. By funding the Janjaweed militants, human rights groups say the government is carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign.

A U.N. report accuses local government leaders of instituting a policy of "forced starvation" that simultaneously has government officials denying problems with food distribution while militias prevent food delivery. Aid workers and journalists have been kept from visiting some affected areas since government-backed militias have blocked access to 31 of the approximately 130 camps in Darfur.
'We Want to Make a Light Baby' (The Washington Post, June 30, 2004)

How Does This Relate to Sudan's Civil War?

Sudan has been wracked by a 21-year civil war between the Arab Muslims in the north, who dominate the government, and black Africans in the south, represented by the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, who are mostly animist or Christian. More than 2 million people have been killed, mostly due to starvation. A U.S.-backed peace deal, signed in May in Naivasha, Kenya, paved the way for a power-sharing agreement designed to end the continent's longest-running civil war.

What Is the International Community Doing?

The U.N. was slow to act in Darfur, according to Jan Egeland, U.N. emergency relief coordinator. But in May, the Security Council adopted a U.S.-sponsored statement of concern over the humanitarian situation. Reuters reported that Sudanese officials would only allow Sudanese trucks to transport aid, and only Sudanese charities or agencies could distribute supplies. But the U.N. has pressed the Sudanese government to allow international relief agencies access to Darfur. Egeland says the U.N. has doubled its effort in Darfur in the past five weeks, and he vows to double it again in the next five weeks.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan visited Darfur this week to survey the humanitarian situation for themselves. It was the first high-level U.S. visit in 25 years. According to The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, who traveled with Powell in Sudan, the secretary called on the Sudanese government to clamp down on the brutal Janjaweed and to lift restrictions hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid.

The United States is circulating a draft U.N. resolution that would ban the Sudanese government from equipping and training the Janjaweed. It also demands the government halt militia activities and allow unfettered access for relief officials. According to the draft, sanctions would be applied to "any other individuals or groups responsible for the atrocities in Darfur."
Powell, in Sudan, Presses for Action (The Washington Post, June 30, 2004)
Sudan Accused of Blocking Darfur Relief (The Washington Post, May 28, 2004)
Annan Assures Darfur of No Force Return (Reuters, July 1, 2004)

Based on reporting by Washington Post reporters Emily Wax, Colum Lynch and Glenn Kessler, as well as the Associated Press and Reuters.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Contrary to some posts I've made, Britt's characteristics show that Stalinism is very similar to fascism, but doesn't quite fit every single characteristic. That's not saying I support Stalinism, but one must use the right terminology.

There are many similarities but that is largely because they have the same task of trying to control a population and so use the same techiques. They both want to mould their citizens into one cohesive entity.

Facism though stems from the idea of a nostalgic and glorified past. One where strong families and strong institutions like religions, monarcy, military and police created a safe environment. It tries to recapture glory days before society had 'decayed' due to degenerate art, immigration, women's rights and modernistation. It is conservative and right wing.

Communism in contrast comes from a situation where the past is not glorious but oppresive and cruel. Institutions like the church and monarchy are part of the problem and dismantled. It seeks not to recapture the past but to build a new future. It rejects the idea of an existing superior group of people and instead tries to fashion one from all its citizens. It looks on modernisation as the way forward. It is more optimistic than fearful.

They make look similar in that they both try to impose their will on the people through insisting people confrom to the model, but saying they are the same thing is just lazy.

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by Weaver
There are many similarities but that is largely because they have the same task of trying to control a population and so use the same techiques. They both want to mould their citizens into one cohesive entity.

Facism though stems from the idea of a nostalgic and glorified past. One where strong families and strong institutions like religions, monarcy, military and police created a safe environment. It tries to recapture glory days before society had 'decayed' due to degenerate art, immigration, women's rights and modernistation. It is conservative and right wing.

Communism in contrast comes from a situation where the past is not glorious but oppresive and cruel. Institutions like the church and monarchy are part of the problem and dismantled. It seeks not to recapture the past but to build a new future. It rejects the idea of an existing superior group of people and instead tries to fashion one from all its citizens. It looks on modernisation as the way forward. It is more optimistic than fearful.

They make look similar in that they both try to impose their will on the people through insisting people confrom to the model, but saying they are the same thing is just lazy.

Forget where averything stems from.

That practical effect of either system is to oppress, torture. kill and imprison innocent people for daring to hold their own beliefs.

Their secret police use cruel and inhumane methods to torture innocent people.

Theory is all just bs. Communism in practice may seek what it likes, all it does is destroy the character and good nature of people. Your evidence of what communism actually does to a poeples' character is clearly evidenced in Eastern Europe today.

 

[dan warna]

Originally posted by MGREG
Forget where averything stems from.

That practical effect of either system is to oppress, torture. kill and imprison innocent people for daring to hold their own beliefs.

Their secret police use cruel and inhumane methods to torture innocent people.

Theory is all just bs. Communism in practice may seek what it likes, all it does is destroy the character and good nature of people. Your evidence of what communism actually does to a poeples' character is clearly evidenced in Eastern Europe today.

what? like the mercenary death squads used by the USA in Iraq, afghanistan and vietnam? or the torture experts shipped in by the USA in Iraq, afghanistan and vietnam? or the concentration camps used by the USA in Iraq and afghanistan and vietnam?

you'll have to use a better example because the 'leading light' of democracy has been specialising in all those things for the last 40 odd years...

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by dan warna
what? like the mercenary death squads used by the USA in Iraq, afghanistan and vietnam? or the torture experts shipped in by the USA in Iraq, afghanistan and vietnam? or the concentration camps used by the USA in Iraq and afghanistan and vietnam?

you'll have to use a better example because the 'leading light' of democracy has been specialising in all those things for the last 40 odd years...

You can leave the US whenever you like.

If you werea Soviet citizen you had the freedom to be tortured along with 20 million of your compatriots and killed for no reason.

Whatever the shortfalls of the US, it is infinitely better than living under communism. I only wish you experienced those joys of COmmunism. You would be sqeualing then wouldnt you?

Whole country is a concentration camp.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by MGREG
Whatever the shortfalls of the US, it is infinitely better than living under communism. I only wish you experienced those joys of COmmunism. You would be sqeualing then wouldnt you?

But then communism was a step forward from the despotic slavery that pre-existed it. Living under communism was an infinitely better that what went before it.

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Jane, I suspect this site might help you in your endeavours to define 'fascism'.

Contrary to some posts I've made, Britt's characteristics show that Stalinism is very similar to fascism, but doesn't quite fit every single characteristic. That's not saying I support Stalinism, but one must use the right terminology.

Do I think you are a pseud? Sorry haven't answered this before, but haven't the time to refresh my memory. We've really only attempted one extended exchange of views so my knowledge is restricted.

However, here are some observations:

1. Declining to credit Reagan with the early collapse of the western bloc is not evidence in itself of pseudery.

2. However the following posts of yours could be considered pure grade:

Originally posted by CharlieG

As for blogging, do you really think that having a computer will create democracy in Iraq? Do you think that being able to send e-mails will lead to widespread prosperity? Of course not.

Wonder what effect the profits of all those previously state owned enterprises now in American hands would have on health, education and security for a free, independent Iraq? Hmm?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0922-01.htm

And

The best thing that could happen for Iraq's development into a prosperous nation is for these resources to remain in government hands. But no... that won't happen. Because that's not why America launched the war.

I believe in economies that do what an economy is supposed to do - meet societies needs and wants, in that order. I don't see how large profits going OUT of Iraq is going to do that for Iraq. Iraq is potentially a very rich country... but having their enterprises owned by American companies takes that wealth away from the people who should have it. That, to me, is wrong. Very wrong.

Why? Because you don't seem to wish to recognise the correlation between modernising a society and economic growth and prosperity.

You seem to prefer the atavistic ideal of state run enterprises and nanny, (totalitarian) communist governments. You don't seem to accept that model has failed. You clearly don't accept that according to Marx capitalism had to FULLY run its course before the working class could take power.

3. The most interesting evidence of pure pseudery might be your posting of that website above which appears to be dedicated to revealing the USA as a fascist State. Which of course is why its definitions are so narrow and carefully chosen. Michael Moore couldn't have done better.

However you have not indicated whether you accept the propositions of this website or actually have a critical intellectual analysis of it?

Naturally, any website which defines fascism by nationalism and flags and patrotism and not by democratic insitutions like free press, independent judiciary, enshrinement of minority rights etc, rather misses the point.

To conclude: are you a pseud? I don't know. I suspect not. I think you are more of an emotional fellow traveller. Serious pseuds are posters like Dan Warner who have an ideological agenda.

Altho even DW I notice seemed to accept the notion that the UN should be revamped to exclude non democratic nations. Or at least, did not have a ready argument against it. Of course we were talking about Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the time which is in the pseud mind is okay cos its anti American and VERY anti W.

Here's a little prediction: I'm expecting some smart sideways footwork from the pseuds soon on Iraq now that the Iraqi Government has sovereignity. Tariq Ali on Lateline last week, already appeared to be preparing the ground. I think he mentioned the word "democracy" about half a dozen times. At last, catching up with the Iraqi Communist Party.

 

[GuruJane]

1/ should read "Eastern bloc" of course.

 

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by GuruJane

Why? Because you don't seem to wish to recognise the correlation between modernising a society and economic growth and prosperity.

You seem to prefer the atavistic ideal of state run enterprises and nanny, (totalitarian) communist governments. You don't seem to accept that model has failed. You clearly don't accept that according to Marx capitalism had to FULLY run its course before the working class could take power.

Erm, not exactly. I believe in liberal attitudes to social issues, couple with whatever works best for economic issues. In Iraq, I believe that for the moment, that is state capitalism (NOT Stalinism). That way, the profits of their major industry REMAIN in Iraq, REBUILDING Iraq.

American ownership (apart from the fact that the sale of Iraqi assets under US control is unadulterated banditry) of these assets WILL NOT ensure that the benefits remain in the country. State ownership will.

With the right incentives, nationalising key industries need not be less efficient than American ownership. They can still have multiple corporations competing against one another.

3. The most interesting evidence of pure pseudery might be your posting of that website above which appears to be dedicated to revealing the USA as a fascist State. Which of course is why its definitions are so narrow and carefully chosen. Michael Moore couldn't have done better.

However you have not indicated whether you accept the propositions of this website or actually have a critical intellectual analysis of it?

The identifying features of fascism were published by a political scientist, Dr Laurence Britt. They are common features found in five regimes - Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Suharto's Indonesia and Pinochet's Chile, if I remember correctly. I'd just love you to tell me which of them doesn't fit America.

Naturally, any website which defines fascism by nationalism and flags and patrotism and not by democratic insitutions like free press, independent judiciary, enshrinement of minority rights etc, rather misses the point.

I don't think so. The features of fascism were found by analysing fascist regimes. The definition was made to fit the regimes that are CALLED fascist.

To conclude: are you a pseud? I don't know. I suspect not. I think you are more of an emotional fellow traveller. Serious pseuds are posters like Dan Warner who have an ideological agenda.

Altho even DW I notice seemed to accept the notion that the UN should be revamped to exclude non democratic nations. Or at least, did not have a ready argument against it. Of course we were talking about Saudi Arabia and Kuwait at the time which is in the pseud mind is okay cos its anti American and VERY anti W.

Jane, who decides what is 'democratic', and what isn't? Saddam had elections, but there's not a fool in the world who would calle Iraq under Saddam 'democratic'.

By the same token, there are many who query just how democratic America is. If you have to be a multi-millionaire to even have a shot at getting elected President, you're not likely to have widely-ranging views, are you?

Here's a little prediction: I'm expecting some smart sideways footwork from the pseuds soon on Iraq now that the Iraqi Government has sovereignity. Tariq Ali on Lateline last week, already appeared to be preparing the ground. I think he mentioned the word "democracy" about half a dozen times. At last, catching up with the Iraqi Communist Party.

Remember Vietnam's nationwide 1956 elections that never happened, because America's guy might lose? We'll see what happens, huh?

 

[ah_19]

afc9798
I think you might have confused me with someone else. I am not a Muslim and if you read my post and actually responded to the whole text

She/Probobly he though, was referring to me
Your attempts to goad me into a wild goose chase are quite amusing though jane, you may get paid to write this propaganda, but i counter it with facts when/if i get the time, and youre classic methods of attempting to distract/derail the threads/forum from relavent conversation and of analysis of the issues at hand are quite simplistic and should perhaps be reserved for your (asio?) bosses who obviously must be dumb enough to beleive youre succeeding

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by MGREG
Fascism = Communism

MGREG=Fascist.

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by Weaver
But then communism was a step forward from the despotic slavery that pre-existed it. Living under communism was an infinitely better that what went before it.

That is bullcrap.

That was definitely not the case in Eastern Europe.

No one was being tortured for no reason. People werent in concentration camps. Fifteen year olds werent being arrested and tortured, their only crime being that other family members escaped from the prison of a country.

People were allowed to write letters with relatives overseas. People did not go about their lives worried about who was a party lagger and who wasnt.

People werent forced to work for the state for 6 days and volunteer on their seventh day as well.

All these things occurred under communism.

You obviously didnt live it.

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by Bombers 2003
MGREG=Fascist.

Bombers 2003 = ULTRA fascist.

Go KANGAS !!!!!

 

[Tim56]

Originally posted by MGREG
Bombers 2003 = ULTRA fascist.

Go KANGAS !!!!!

Wrong.

Bombers 2003 = Stalinist

 

[MGREG]

Originally posted by Tim56
Wrong.

Bombers 2003 = Stalinist

That is my point Tim56. They are the same thing.

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by CharlieG
Erm, not exactly. I believe in liberal attitudes to social issues, couple with whatever works best for economic issues. In Iraq, I believe that for the moment, that is state capitalism (NOT Stalinism). That way, the profits of their major industry REMAIN in Iraq, REBUILDING Iraq.

One of the success stories of Iraq since the end of the war has been its economy - free market. From what I read from the Iraqi bloggers the education and health system there are doing very well.

As have often commented, if the so called uprising had had any widespread support the University students would have been out on the streets.

And why would you want to stultify Iraq with the long passe notion of state capitalism?

American ownership (apart from the fact that the sale of Iraqi assets under US control is unadulterated banditry) of these assets WILL NOT ensure that the benefits remain in the country. State ownership will.

Don't you realise the new Iraqi Govt controls the OIL?

You are living in an anti American capitalism time warp.

I'd just love you to tell me which of them doesn't fit America.

There you go again!

You seriously think the US is a fascist state?

Well, you're lucky, aren't you? You've never had to live in one , have you? You've never had to flee from one have you? To the United States for eg!

Jane, who decides what is 'democratic', and what isn't? Saddam had elections, but there's not a fool in the world who would calle Iraq under Saddam 'democratic'.

By the same token, there are many who query just how democratic America is. If you have to be a multi-millionaire to even have a shot at getting elected President, you're not likely to have widely-ranging views, are you?

Sorry to have to drone on again, but democracy is defined by its institutions: independent judiciary, separation of legal and the executive, universal suffrage, legal protection of minority rights and so on and so on ..

Perhaps the best way of understanding this is if you look at the Australian system?

Remember Vietnam's nationwide 1956 elections that never happened, because America's guy might lose? We'll see what happens, huh?

Relating foreign policy in 2004 back to US actions nearly 50 years before is definite PSEUDERY!

 

[Lestat]

Re: Okay you lot ...

Originally posted by GuruJane
And as for Lestat and Ah_19's SILENCE ...

What a credit to your faith you are.

Now now Jane...what a short memory you have.....

Originally posted by Lestat
What can I say...well, I'll be the first to admit that the actions of the Janjaweed are an absolute disgrace, and unlike some warmongering racist hypocrites here (you know who you are), I will not even attempt to defend or justifty there actions.

What was that about my silence Jane???

ahem...has someone been telling fibs again.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112754&highlight=Darfur

Isn't it interesting that Jane shows 'outrage' that muslims are being killed in Sudan on the one hand, whilst continually defending America and Israels 'right' to kill arabs in Iraq and Palestine on the other hand.

Hmm...whats the difference Jane....could it be that you are useing the deaths of the fur tribe in Darfour as some sort of political scoring. Are you really concerned about muslim lives Jane...or is it only when they are being killed by other muslims.

I have a number of times condemned muslims for killing innnocents......I have openly condemned the Junjajunaweed for killing muslims, the King Hussien of Jordan for killing Palestinians (yes..the same one who was given a nobel prize)...

Yet you Jane...cannot do the same. You cannot make yourself condemn the Israeli's for continually killing Palestinians. Just yesterday a 9. y. o palestinian was killed in Gaza.....no doubt you believe he was a terrorist.

And do you ever ever condemn these murders...no, never. Yet you start a thread about the sudanese in Darfour. Whats wrong Jane....are these sudanese worthy of your time...because they were killed by muslims. Is that it...

why do you see muslims killing muslims as an opportunity, whilst taking delight when non-muslims kill muslims.

Why do you continue to insist on being a hypocrite when everyone is onto you....

 

[GuruJane]

Re: Re: Okay you lot ...

Originally posted by Lestat

Isn't it interesting that Jane shows 'outrage' that muslims are being killed in Sudan on the one hand, whilst continually defending America and Israels 'right' to kill arabs in Iraq and Palestine on the other hand.

Hmm...whats the difference Jane....could it be that you are useing the deaths of the fur tribe in Darfour as some sort of political scoring. Are you really concerned about muslim lives Jane...or is it only when they are being killed by other muslims.

I have a number of times condemned muslims for killing innnocents......I have openly condemned the Junjajunaweed for killing muslims, the King Hussien of Jordan for killing Palestinians (yes..the same one who was given a nobel prize)...

Yet you Jane...cannot do the same. You cannot make yourself condemn the Israeli's for continually killing Palestinians. Just yesterday a 9. y. o palestinian was killed in Gaza.....no doubt you believe he was a terrorist.

And do you ever ever condemn these murders...no, never. Yet you start a thread about the sudanese in Darfour. Whats wrong Jane....are these sudanese worthy of your time...because they were killed by muslims. Is that it...

why do you see muslims killing muslims as an opportunity, whilst taking delight when non-muslims kill muslims.

Why do you continue to insist on being a hypocrite when everyone is onto you.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually am quite heartened by the fact this thread has attracted 42 replies instead of falling into oblivion!

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Originally posted by MGREG
That is bullcrap.

That was definitely not the case in Eastern Europe.

No one was being tortured for no reason. People werent in concentration camps. Fifteen year olds werent being arrested and tortured, their only crime being that other family members escaped from the prison of a country.

People were allowed to write letters with relatives overseas. People did not go about their lives worried about who was a party lagger and who wasnt.

People werent forced to work for the state for 6 days and volunteer on their seventh day as well.

All these things occurred under communism.

You obviously didnt live it.

You're right about Eastern Europ/The Balkans, but they did occur in Russia under the Tsarists. Nothing really changed with the arrival of Lenin and the Bolsheviks though, it was just Autocracy under a new name with new ideology.

 

[Lestat]

Re: Re: Re: Okay you lot ...

Originally posted by GuruJane
Actually am quite heartened by the fact this thread has attracted 42 replies instead of falling into oblivion!

Unlike this thread which no one thought worthy of response...especially you.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118941

hmm, I wonder why...oh, I know, they're only Palestinians...and they are not being killed by muslims....nope...no opportunity there...is there Jane...

 

[MillerCHF]

Actually the reason nobody responds to you Lestat, is because just like Yasser Arafat,

YOU HAVE BECOME IRRELEVANT.

 

[Lestat]

Originally posted by MillerCHF
Actually the reason nobody responds to you Lestat, is because just like Yasser Arafat,

YOU HAVE BECOME IRRELEVANT.

ahh...our resident clown has returned.

Defeated anyone lately....tool!

The reason nobody responded is because there is no response....oh, I forgot...they're all 'self-hating' jews..right Miller.

Do you have any other response when faced with the fact that many many jews are embarrassed by what you zionists are doing in there name??

How those 100 IDF soldiers who refused to serve in the occupied territories doing...they still in jail for having the nerve to have a conscience...for being human.

So have you spent any time serving in the IDF miller??

Killed any kids??

 

[ah_19]

Originally posted by MGREG
That is bullcrap.

That was definitely not the case in Eastern Europe.

No one was being tortured for no reason. People werent in concentration camps. Fifteen year olds werent being arrested and tortured, their only crime being that other family members escaped from the prison of a country.

People were allowed to write letters with relatives overseas. People did not go about their lives worried about who was a party lagger and who wasnt.

People werent forced to work for the state for 6 days and volunteer on their seventh day as well.

All these things occurred under communism.

You obviously didnt live it.

The world isnt so simple
my dad grew up in a communist state
it was strict in its laws, but everyone was fed, everyone was safe, everyone was educated, and my dad would still prefer it to any system he has lived under since. What Tito achieved in yogoslavia was perhaps more than any western leader has achieved for their nation. For the longest time in known balkan history there was peace, prosperity and hapiness. Look what happened when "demoracy" took over.....

for the record, i oppose communism, but perhaps you can open your eyes a little

 

[Bombers 2003]

Originally posted by MGREG
That is bullcrap.

That was definitely not the case in Eastern Europe.

No one was being tortured for no reason. People werent in concentration camps. Fifteen year olds werent being arrested and tortured, their only crime being that other family members escaped from the prison of a country.

And what about Horthy's Hungary?,Latvia,Poland,Lithuania.Democratic Paradises i suppose?.