The Black Monk wrote:
> On May 6, 10:34 am, "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. They established total control over it and did what they
>>>>> wanted with it, just as the small band of Bolsheviks established
total
>>>>> control over Russia.
>>>> 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?
Look, this *is* soc.culture.baltics, but 'your side' is hanging around
here only to criticize, provoke and disturb. You're not really
interested in the Baltics, you don't want to learn or understand
anything about the three countries -- your sole purpose is to promote
your pro-Russian agenda, which is as stupidly simple as this: 'Russia
right, world wrong.'
>>>> 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. "Armed" with boxcutters. How 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.
Sorry, but I can't really help if you are unable to grasp the difference
between a Boeing-767 (with a fuselage area of some 200 sqm) and the
Russian empire. Your analogy is halting, to put it politely.
>>>> The whole thing takes place in a confined space at
>>>> an altitude of several kilometres. The purpose is to use the aircraft
as
>>>> 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.
>
>>>> And 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.
I don't have to reread anything about Russia -- I'm reading about it all
the time. For instance right now I'm on page 538 of Robert Service's
Lenin biography (luckily he will die soon, Lenin, that is), so this
period is vividly before my eyes.
>> 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. Do 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.
It's not a uniquely Russian phenomenon, no. And yes, most totalitarian
regimes have at least some degree of popular sup****t -- in the beginning
to get it established at all, and later on also as a result of
brainwa****ng and/or terror. If you look at the first years of Soviet
rule, quite an effort was needed to throw back the White armies, the
Czech Legion, Balts, Finns, Ukrainians, Pilsudski's Poles etc. It wasn't
your Red Riflemen who achieved all this nor was it the intellectuals in
Smolny or the Kremlin, it was their sup****t from Russia's workers,
peasants, soldiers and sailors. This is something that you obviously
want to deny, and that's why you focus on the 'Latvians'.
> 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. You
>>> didn't know that? Ever hear of the gulags, the millions dead, etc.?
>>> You ought to visit your local library.
>>> BM- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
|
