Re: The History of Latvia

On May 6, 10:34=A0am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The Black Monk wrote:
> > On May 6, 4:07 am, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> The Black Monk wrote:
> >>> The five people didn't take over the US, they took over a plane with
> >>> 92 people. =A0They established total control over it and did what
they=

> >>> wanted with it, just as the small band of Bolsheviks established
total=

> >>> control over Russia. =A0
> >> This is one of the weirdest analogies 'your side' has ever presented
in=

> >> this forum (and that's saying a lot).
>
> > What do you mean, "my side."
>
> The four or five posters who spend their days in SCB mainly trying to
> defame the Balts and defend the Russians.

So calling the Latvian Red Rifles the monsters that they were is
"defaming" Balts?

> >> Here's what you are comparing:
>
> >> 1) A few armed men hijack an aircraft with less than a hundred
unarmed
> >> passengers and crew.
>
> > Already you've screwed up, sorry. =A0"Armed" with =A0boxcutters.
=A0How =
do
> > you know none of the other 87 pocketknives, sharp scissors, or other
> > "weapons" comparable to those of the hijackers?
>
> A boxcutter is an excellent instrument for sla****ng throats. You only
> need to slit one throat to establish total control of all the others.

Yes.  Now apply the same correct logic to the Red Terror and its
effect on the Russian population.

> >> The whole thing takes place in a confined space at
> >> an altitude of several kilometres. The purpose is to use the aircraft
a=
s
> >> a suicide bomb. The existence of crew and passengers is irrelevant.
>
> > Only for your convenience.
>
> They were meant to die, whereas in Russia the population would have
> another role -- that of upholding the new regime.

So the population of Russia upheld the Bolshevik regime?  Hey, I guess
that until their deaths the passangers on the airplanes "upheld" the
hijacker's regime, too.

> >> =A0And it's all over in a matter of minutes.
>
> > That's all the time that was necessary.
>
> Yes, and how does that sup****t your analogy?

How does it not so so?

> >> 2) A few thousand insurgents
>
> > Actually a few tens of thousands.
>
> OK, let's say 50,000. The 9/11 hijackers were 5% against 95% in the
> aircraft. The Bol****es were 50,000 against 170,000,000 in Russia.

Reread the history of the Revolution and perhaps you won't make such
silly statements.  The Bolsheviks didn't actively fight 170,000,000 -
most Russians were passive, like the hijacked victims.

> That's 0.03% against 99.97%.

The 50,000 Bolsheviks weren't spread out throughout Russia, they first
seized Petrograd, Moscow, etc. consolidated their rule there through
mass terror, and then expanded from there.  It was during the first
crucial phase where the Latvians played their major role.

>
> >> usurp power in the largest country on
> >> earth, a country with 170 million inhabitants. Having done this they
> >> don't blow themselves up with the rest of the place but manage to
stay
> >> in charge for the next 74 years.
>
> > Yes. =A0Do you have a problem with the above?
>
> I'm having a problem with your comprehension. Any sensible person would
> realize that the existence of the totalitarian Soviet state required
> continuing sup****t and acceptance from the Russian people. You are
> trying to explain away this simple fact by again and again bringing up
> the riflemen.

So all totalitarian states in the world are sup****ted and accepted by
their people, according to your logic?  Or is it a uniquely Russian
thing.

You were right at the beginning of this post, when you mentioned the
one slashed throat and its effects.  Bolsheviks came to power through
violent Revolution, and subsequently ruled through fear.  At least
through to the second world war.  You've heard of something called
gulags and people known as Cheka, haven't you?

> >> In the first case the outcome was certain from the very beginning:
> >> whatever crew and passengers might undertake, they (and the
hijackers)
> >> would peril.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because as soon as the aircraft was hijacked and in the hands of these
> suicidal maniacs, there was little to be done. Any attempt to overpower
> the hijackers would only lead to an immediate cra****ng of the plane.
> Remember that contrary to a 'normal' hijacking, in this case the
> hijackers were flying the aircraft.

Now name how many "normal" hijackings involved a mass of passengers
overpowering their hijacker.  Here's a better example: four (four!)
armed Palestinians hijacked a cruise ****p with 680 passengers and 350
crew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro

Now feel free to blame the passengers and crew, or point out that they
went along with it, or accepted it, to deflect blame from the four
hijackers.


BM

> >> In the second case the leader (Lenin) and his helpers (the riflemen)
> >> were gone by 1924, but the whole thing rolled on and on with due
> >> assistance from the hijacked.
>
> > Bolsheviks ruled through terror at least through the 1940's. =A0You
> > didn't know that? =A0Ever hear of the gulags, the millions dead, etc.?
> > You ought to visit your local library.
>
> > BM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -