Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Capt. Pork on June 18, 2004, 11:35:30 AM
-
But not all that surprising....
I got this forwarded to me by a family member earlier today. I don't know the original source, obviously, but wanted to know what you guys made of it. Like I said above, nothing here is that much of a surprise, but the question is, is it really this bad and if so, are there any solutions?(The last question is highly rhetorical)
Here it is:
This past Friday evening Phyllis and I attended services at Temple Bethel in Palm Beach. We went there specifically to listen to a lecture by Dr. Khaleel Mohammed. Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni
tradition of Islam. The title of the lecture was "Can Militant Islam Co-exist with the State Of Israel?" What we heard was blood chilling, but not at all surprising. His opening statement was, "The people of the United States worry about Osama. He is nothing but a tiny offshoot of the problem. The main problem is (and I quote) "EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROM THE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BE ANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!! And these mosques don't even consider themselves militant.
Trading land for peace. A big joke! The Koran states (as he quoted) that any treaty between a Muslim and a non-Muslim nation is not binding and is meant to be broken once the Muslim nation becomes stronger than the non-Muslim nation with whom the treaty was made. So all the treaties with Israel to be made in the future will eventually (and must) be broken once the Muslim nation feels it is strong enough. It took 200 years for the Crusaders to be vanquished and driven from the Holy Land.
Israel is a mere 50 yrs old. Islam has patience. Dr. M. has received numerous death threats and is constantly booed and driven off the pulpit in the many mosques that he lectures in because he espouses peaceful co-existence with Israel.
The frightening aspect of this is that there a huge 5th column right here in the USA
A little background on the speaker (http://www.fasspr.com/fsb/KhaleelMohammed.html)
-
....boy, I bet this is BIG news to the Isrealies. (is that how you spell that?? lol)
-
Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam.
Saudi version of Islam is a shame for the rest of Moslim world. In Russia their biggest enemies are traditional Moslims. Wahabits are probably the only "tradition" that really declares war on infidels.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
....boy, I bet this is BIG news to the Isrealies. (is that how you spell that?? lol)
Well, the part that gets me is that this sort of attitude is widely endorsed here in the states. My question is why in god's name would a group whose numbers have risen past the billion mark ascribe so much to a population numbering less than 20 million worldwide?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam.
Saudi version of Islam is a shame for the rest of Moslim world. In Russia their biggest enemies are traditional Moslims. Wahabits are probably the only "tradition" that really declares war on infidels.
Boroda, even if what you say is true, it has no bearing on the information this man has regarding Islam in the States, which is what the real issue is. He's a scholar, and is most likely well acquianted with more than one perspective.
-
"EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROM THE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BE ANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!!
I find this incredibly hard to believe. If every single mosque in the USA was saying this, I expect we'd have heard about it by now.
ravs
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Saudi version of Islam is a shame for the rest of Moslim world. In Russia their biggest enemies are traditional Moslims. Wahabits are probably the only "tradition" that really declares war on infidels.
Perhaps, but they are very powerful in the Moslem world. They are not just a small cult but a major power, they even control most of the Moslem holy sites. They are fighting to keep other Moslems from adopting Western ways. There is no way to confront Wahibis seperately from other Moslems, they are too closely tied.
-
Originally posted by ravells
"EVERY SINGLE MOSQUE IN THE USA ESPOUSES FROM THE PULPIT THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BE ANNIHILATED. No ifs ands or buts!!
I find this incredibly hard to believe. If every single mosque in the USA was saying this, I expect we'd have heard about it by now.
ravs
You mean instead of hearing it from the single lonely email to Captn Pork......mmmmm...you may have a point.
-
Originally posted by ravells
I find this incredibly hard to believe. If every single mosque in the USA was saying this, I expect we'd have heard about it by now.
ravs
One of the most logical posts seen on this BB in quite some time. Kudos for not taking part in the witch hunt. :aok
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
You mean instead of hearing it from the single lonely email to Captn Pork......mmmmm...you may have a point.
I posted the e-mail to question the validity of the Muslim scholar. You should address what he said, and not the form in which his assertion came to me, or, for that matter, to you.
Also, I think your statement would have sounded better if you'd used the word 'solitary' in place of 'lonely', since e-mails aren't widely known for their social needs.
-
Originally posted by ra
Perhaps, but they are very powerful in the Moslem world. They are not just a small cult but a major power, they even control most of the Moslem holy sites. They are fighting to keep other Moslems from adopting Western ways. There is no way to confront Wahibis seperately from other Moslems, they are too closely tied.
This guys sponsor terrorism in Chechnya. I mean - they are the group that pays money to recieve all that beautiful videotapes with Russian federal troops blown up and ambushed. So - I am not surprised they are preaching things like Pork said.
Even his understanding of Koran is distorted. In a special Wahabit way...
I don't know about the "most democratic power in the world", but here this "scientist" could be locked up in jail for statements he made. We have propaganda of war prohibited in Russia, as well as fascist propaganda. And it's pure fascist propaganda.
I am not a big fan of forcing Western values - but some things simply can't be tolerated. Sometimes I don't understand American logics: they prohibit genetic experiments and let prettythangholes like that preach for total annihilation of the whole nation. :confused:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sometimes I don't understand American logics: they prohibit genetic experiments and let prettythangholes like that preach for total annihilation of the whole nation. :confused:
Our policy towards Stem Cell research does indeed suck, but how would you suggest to suppress this guy from saying what he does? And moreover, what laws would you pass regarding the suppression of other people like him? Where would you draw the lines?
-
since our entire medical capitalist system is so bad... why worry if we have stem cell research or not... certainly our effort would be minimal in any case compared to the contributions of the countries with vastly superior socialized medical systems.
I don't know about this proffessor... did he really say that and does he have any validity are the real questions... certainly a chain letter is nothing to get worked up about.
lazs
-
Hey!
If I can get worked up about a connection between a stalker being a Terrorits! We can damn sure get worked up about this!
;)
-
He sounds like a guy we(the UK) used to have (until you guys excuted him lol), with a hook for a hand I can't remember his name but he was preaching this that and the other and stirring alot up but not actully doing anything illegal but eventully we exported him and he something or other to really annoy you guys and now hes either dead or soon to be dead.
-
People that believe that email probably have already shared their bank account number with some Nigerian who is going to share many millions of dollars with them.
:rolleyes:
dago
-
Maybe this will help shed some light on why this "could" be the reason "all" of Islam would be foaming at the mouth to see all the Jews (Isrealis) dead and gone. I'm not supporting the statement, just offering up a rationalization.
It's long
http://www.islam101.com/religions/sacrifice.htm
In a nutshell, those occupying the promised land (Isreal) are NOT gods chosen people, according to Islam. It all comes down to who was the rightful heir to Abraham, Isaac or Ishmael.
-
Islam is Peace.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Islam is Peace.
Doesn't seem to be in practice.
-
Well, that would depend on which muslim you talked to, wouldn't it?
Ravs
-
"Well, that would depend on which muslim you talked to, wouldn't it?
Ravs"
Probably true. However, even Mohamed put a city of Jews to the sword.
Al Queda and Wahabits are to Islam as _ _ _ is to Christianity.
Fill in the blank. 11th letter of the alphabet repeated 3 times seems to fit just right.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Al Queda and Wahabits are to Islam as _ _ _ is to Christianity.
It would be nice to agree with this observation, save for the fact that it seems that militant extremism has more popular support from non-militants than does the KKK from sane christians.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
But not all that surprising....
I got this forwarded to me by a family member earlier today. I don't know the original source, obviously, but wanted to know what you guys made of it.
San Diego State University and the University of San Diego are totally different schools, so that is one strike against it.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
San Diego State University and the University of San Diego are totally different schools, so that is one strike against it.
I'm sure there are many strikes against it to come. I guess the truly frightening thing about the e-mail is that with certain people, the things said within the e-mail do not immediately ring untrue. I'm not necessarily saying that I'm one of those people, but at the same time, being a Jew with family still in Eastern Europe, I do not think it is possible for my people to be reasonably accused of paranoia ever again.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'm sure there are many strikes against it to come. I guess the truly frightening thing about the e-mail is that with certain people, the things said within the e-mail do not immediately ring untrue. .
You still have to consider the source.
Money from Africa.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
"Well, that would depend on which muslim you talked to, wouldn't it?
Ravs"
Probably true. However, even Mohamed put a city of Jews to the sword.
Al Queda and Wahabits are to Islam as _ _ _ is to Christianity.
Fill in the blank. 11th letter of the alphabet repeated 3 times seems to fit just right.
Yes, and the Pope gave his blessing to cities of muslims (and christians) being put to the sword in the middle east too. As for the KKK, they arn't religious really, are they? They're just have this fallacious belief that skin colour equates to a particular way of life which they want to perpetuate.
Where does that leave us?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
It would be nice to agree with this observation, save for the fact that it seems that militant extremism has more popular support from non-militants than does the KKK from sane christians.
True, and for reasons I can barely fathom. One must consider the culture, education levels, and quality of life. If ones quality of life is so poor that dying and going to paradise is a viable option, then...
If my Catholic Priest delivers a sermon in which he calls upon us to go across town and kill the members of another church I would go home and load my weapons in case someone noticed I did not follow his orders and wanted to take exception to it.
I do know this. If it comes down to an us or them situation (which it is starting to look like) then I am in favor of it being us surviving.
If they insist on comparing us to the Crusaders and Romans, they better hope and pray we do not adopt the Crusader or Roman tactics.
-
2slow, the problem is (probably with 'them' as much as for us) is that we and they hear the intolerant minority, rather than the tolerant majority......who just want to live in peace, bring up their families, have a laugh, and have no part of a large, dark, violent world.
ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Yes, and the Pope gave his blessing to cities of muslims (and christians) being put to the sword in the middle east too. As for the KKK, they arn't religious really, are they? They're just have this fallacious belief that skin colour equates to a particular way of life which they want to perpetuate.
Where does that leave us?
Ravs
I just noticed the same attitude. You are with them or against them. They have a Holy mandate, etc.
-
Bit like Bush saying...you're either with the Republicans or with the terrorists, no?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Bit like Bush saying...you're either with the Republicans or with the terrorists, no?
Ravs
In response to the largest terrorist attack on this continent,
so no..I think you're not even close. Of course, you've never
been a big fan of the US..on this BBS at least.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Bit like Bush saying...you're either with the Republicans or with the terrorists, no?
Ravs
Ravs, I doubt Bush thinks this any more than you or I do. This war isn't and hasn't been about partisanship. You're exaggerating a little. ;)
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Our policy towards Stem Cell research does indeed suck, but how would you suggest to suppress this guy from saying what he does? And moreover, what laws would you pass regarding the suppression of other people like him? Where would you draw the lines?
Do you agree that this guy needs to relax and think about some important things in a prison cell for a couple of years? I think he needs it. The line is drawn straight: if he propagates fascist ideas - he must be locked up. Agitation for physical elimination of a certain group of people selected by nationality (or any other condition) is fascist propaganda.
Any person agitating for war or fascism must be isolated.
-
Originally posted by Rino
In response to the largest terrorist attack on this continent,
so no..I think you're not even close. Of course, you've never
been a big fan of the US..on this BBS at least.
What I said was a little toungue in cheek, Rino, VOR seems to have picked it up.
I like the US and have many American friends, but (in common with many Americans) I don't think your current president is the best you've ever produced.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Dr. Mohammed is a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of San Diego. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and is an Imam schooled in the Wahabi-Sunni tradition of Islam.
Saudi version of Islam is a shame for the rest of Moslim world. In Russia their biggest enemies are traditional Moslims. Wahabits are probably the only "tradition" that really declares war on infidels.
can not confirm it but from what i know, Sunni are pretty orthodox and much less tolerant that Shiaa.
For example Sunni man can marry Shiaa girl, but Shiaa man can not marry Sunni girl.
Diferent between Shiaa and Sunni is mainly in line of prophets whitch they respect. Can remember exactly, but Shiaa respect much more of them.
Anyway SA is just porked kingdom of pathetic monarchs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
since our entire medical capitalist system is so bad... why worry if we have stem cell research or not... certainly our effort would be minimal in any case compared to the contributions of the countries with vastly superior socialized medical systems.
lazs
Thats only because they moved there research facilities closer together.:rofl
-
" like the US and have many American friends, but (in common with many Americans) I don't think your current president is the best you've ever produced.
Ravs"
ravs... you could say that at any time in our history and be accurate. That doesn't really say anything.
I myself don't think he is not the best we have ever produced but.... he is better than 50% of past democrats we have had as presidents and miles ahead of any democrat in the recent past or near future.
No see... that gives it some perspective...
lazs
-
Hi Lazs,
ravs... you could say that at any time in our history and be accurate. That doesn't really say anything.
Lol, I was politely trying to say that I think Mr Bush is an utter dork. You may think that he's been a better pres than 50% of democrats, but these are all matters of opinion and not fact, so nobody is objectively right or wrong.
Although how you can rate him as a better president than some future democrat who has not yet even been given the chance to perform, I don't know.
Ravs
p.s. enjoying the Lott book, btw. :)
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Do you agree that this guy needs to relax and think about some important things in a prison cell for a couple of years? I think he needs it. The line is drawn straight: if he propagates fascist ideas - he must be locked up. Agitation for physical elimination of a certain group of people selected by nationality (or any other condition) is fascist propaganda.
Any person agitating for war or fascism must be isolated.
No, Boroda, I don't agree with you. Our constitution protects free speech so long as it does not directly cause a disruptive of dangerous situation(yelling fire in the middle of a crowded movie theater). I tend to agree with this interpretation of the 1st amendment. Yes, it has seen different interpretation when involving children(censorship of profanity and/or pornographic material), as well as in public schools(speeches given before the student body, or articles written in school publications).
But to silence some guy because he spews his opinions in public forum cannot and should not be considered a solution so long as his words are not proven to compell people to break the law. So far, there is no such proof.
Personally, I don't like what he's saying. I also don't like seeing the socialist-liberals in San Fran prancing around, calling us a nation of capitolist pig/fascist-murderers--behavior which, incidentally, is far more disruptive than a questionable lecture given to a seated audience. Nor do I enjoy the concept of KKK rallies. Nevertheless, in order to keep my rights, I must live with others keeping theirs. We, as intelligent, or semi-intelligent beings, have the capacity to make decisions regarding the words and opinions we see and hear propogated every day. The 1st ammendment takes into account our capacity as rational-thinking beings, and most of us welcome it. To supress anyone and everyone who speaks unpopular words takes the right to hear and decide out of the hands of the individual and places it firmly in the hands of the government.
Personally, given the USSR's history of suppression, I cannot believe you can even suggest such a course of action. How many poets, novelists, satirists, dramatists and songwriters did your 'Man of Steel' turn into anonymous ashes during his reign? How many did he send to the gulags to rot? Are you seriously trying to advocate a policy which puts an entire nation on track to doing the same thing? Where do you draw the lines between free thought, unpopular opinion and subversive propeganda?
America is far from perfect but on the topic of human rights, it's head, shoulders, waist, knees and feet above anything the USSR ever achieved.
Sometimes, Boroda, it scares me to think how many of you Soviets there still are.
-
Capt. Pork, the question of "human rights" is an artificial invention, mostly used in political games. Like the "human rights" part of Helsinki declaration of 1975. Brzhezinsky later admitted that Western powers included it into final declaration only to get another instrument of political pressure over USSR, and they didn't give a flying f#@k about Soviet Jews who were "not allowed" to leave for Israel...
If you remember - Soviet press always screamed about "human rights violations" in the West.
It's up to you, Americans, if you want this bloody extremists to speak about "elimination of all Jews". For me - he deserves to be locked up. There are some basic values that are important regardless to current concept of "human rights" according to Party line. Preaching for physical elimination of a certain national/cultural/social group can not be tolerated. As you can understand - the law I mentioned makes things like anti-trotskist hysteria of the 30s impossible.
Also I believe that "freedom of speech" is the last thing that you have to worry about. First you have to be sure that no prettythanghole will go kill Jews/Arabs/Chechens in the streets.
And, if you remember, American history of "free speech" and "human rights" is far from perfect. McCarthyism, things like a "Hollywood Ten" case, Rosenbergs, etc. If you could sentence people to prison only for refusing to answer if they were Communists or not - this "preacher" should be jailed immediately.
Just my 5 kopeykas...
-
Where in this e-mail or anywhere in this guy's lectures did he preach, in specific terms, the annihilation of any race? I want to see it in writing.
My previous question stands, where do you draw the lines between free-thought, unpopular opinion and subversive propeganda.
Moreover, what sort of reaction do you think his imprisonment will elicit from the press, and what sort of reaction will the press elicit from the public? How many others like him will come out of the woodwork to fill the void you created?
I'm probably extremely naive and ignorant, but it's my belief that ideas are best fought with other ideas. Once they're put into physical action, then we should start thinking about physical reaction.
Let him say what he's going to say. More likely than not, people will make the same decision that most on this board did and dismiss him.
Maya Kopeyka
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Doesn't seem to be in practice.
Neither is "Thou Shall Not Kill."
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you remember - Soviet press always screamed about "human rights violations" in the West.
Oh come on Boroda...it's a game of comparatives. If America's human rights record has been bad, then the USSR's record was abysmal, or worse. How can you possibly say that the Soviet press was free to report what it wanted to in those times?
You talk a lot of sense sometimes, but I think your pursuit of the argument kills your good points when you say things like this.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
As for the KKK, they arn't religious really, are they?
No, they are extremely religious.
-
They just think they are.
How do they deal with the fact that the 'son of god' had olive skin?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
How do they deal with the fact that the 'son of god' had olive skin?
I don't know.
Check out some 'Christian Identity' websites and ask them.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Oh come on Boroda...it's a game of comparatives. If America's human rights record has been bad, then the USSR's record was abysmal, or worse. How can you possibly say that the Soviet press was free to report what it wanted to in those times?
You talk a lot of sense sometimes, but I think your pursuit of the argument kills your good points when you say things like this.
Ravs
Another Westerner who thinks I am 100% pro-Soviet Cold-war era believer of Soviet propaganda :D
Soviet press wasn't free to report anthing that contradicted with Party line. Major American press also wasn't free to report things that contradict with your traditions and political interests. There is no such thing as a free press.
What I want you to understand is that both systems were not "good" or "bad", they were different. Soviet propaganda telling people about unemployment in the US was true, but funny for Soviet people: there were no unemployment in USSR, so many people couldn't understand what it meant. Soviet propaganda also told about racial problems in the US, about political pressure (that existed and you have to admit it, in some ways it was worse then Soviet), about poverty and other things. Was it true? Sure it was. Was it working? No, many people believed Voice of America and BBC Russian Service telling fairy-tales about how good the life is in the West. Both societies were so different that some things couldn't be understood correctly. For example: VoA describes the newest Chrysler car, how good it is, and then says: everyone can go and buy it. Reaction from a Soviet listener: WOW! That yankees can just take their money any time and go buy this fantastic car without signing in queue and waiting for 10 years to get a ZAZ (Soviet equivalent of VW Bug). Noone ecplained them on VoA that 90% of Americans can't afford this car, and if they can - they have to pay for the credit for years and years working their prettythang off.
There is no perfect society. And on the common values list "freedom of speech" is far behind rhe right to live, the right to be fed, the right to have a place to dwell. If it contradicts with any of that values - screw it. If there is any prettythanghole preaching that "EVERY SINGLE JEW (not just Israel) IN THE WORLD MUST BE ANNIHILATED" - lock him up. His "right to speak freely" contradicts with someone's else right to live. What you guys protect is a huge, irresponsible distortion of morale, that, in fact, is a set of rules that ensure the survival of human race. It's just like bombing millions of people "to stone age" because some weird regime doesn't ensure the freedom of speech and other Western-style "civilian liberties".
I am not trying to defend Soviet regime in any way. I just try to explain my point of view. Pork calling me "Soviet" (in fact - what he means by "Soviet") is very wrong.
-
Ah, your point of view makes sense now you have explained it.
But understand that I am not talking about 'good' and 'bad', I am talking about the comparative ease in which one could publish critical material in the US as opposed to the old Soviet Union.
Sure, I'm sure there are cases where commercial or governmental pressure may have been brought to suppress a publication in the U.S., but I would say to you that the amount of critical (whether of the government, corporations, people - you name it) material published in the US far outweighs that which was ever published in the USSR (not that I've ever read any Russian material - but you can tell me if I'm wrong about this). This would make sense because in the US there are many competing interests, but in the Soviet Union, the state held all the power, so there was only one interest with almost absolute power. In the US, nobody has a similar amount of power, which means it is more likely for dissenting material to get published.
I agree that there are no perfect societies, but I think that there are some societies which protect basic human rights better than others. The liberties I am talking about are not 'Western' they are universal, as enshrined the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Thanks for your post, though. It was a very interesting read.
Ravs
-
I don't know about the email. It could simply be 'black propaganda' designed to stir up anti Muslim feelings. But like all propaganda it has a grain of truth. Wahabbism (spelling) originated in Saudi Arabia and sponsored by them is quite simply is the leading 'ism' throughout US mosques. It's fair to say it represents the viewpoint of most of the Al Qaeda crowd. That is not to say there is any realistic possibility of it's aims been achieved or that US Muslims are going to rise up and try to take over America.
You really cannot generalise about Muslims any more than you can generalise about Christians. For example Presbyterians are supposed to believe that Catholics are idolators, the Catholic mass is blasphemous and that the pope is the anti-Christ. Apart from a certain Ian Paisley and some others many wouldn't take that too seriously (I hope!)
Not all Muslims are extremists or even potential extremists. That occured to me today when I saw a Muslim woman wearing a skirt that didn't exactly cover her legs. Her only concession to her religion was a headscarf.
You simply can't generalise, Muslims are much like Christians in the way they practice their religion. Every shade is available.
The extremists are not good examples of Muslims anymore than Ian Paisley is a good example of a Presbyterian.
On another issue, Boroda has made some interesting. His comments on human rights reminds me of a remark by my Father that is as true today as it ever was.
'You have no rights other than those other people allow you to have.'
Always bear that in mind.
-
Thank you! :)
You are right about the fact that "freedom of press" in USSR was non-existant. But if you wanted to get information from different sources - you could do it without any problem. Everyone could afford a short-wave radio. I could listen to VoA and BBC on an old tube radio, regardless to jamming. And if you were outside of Moscow/Leningrad or other major cities - the jamming didn't bother you at all.
OTOH the "state censorship" is somethimes greatly overestimated. Some books published in USSR since mid-50s (not even speaking about the freedom of the 20s when even White-emigrant books could be printed without any problems) are amazing. Probably every Western view on WWII history could be found, even the memoirs and studies of former nazi generals and officers were availible in Russian (certainly with comments and prefaces according to Party line).
What modern commies and most of the Western people forget about is a concept of "proletarian internationalism" as an official doctrine. Soviet films, books and press were politicaly correct to the extreme, noone could say that, for example, "all Americans are evil". Propaganda was aimed mostly at social groups. Propaganda of war, violence and nationalism was strictly prohibited.
Again: I don't want to say that Soviet regime was good, I don't want to go back to Soviet times. I just don't like when people in the West think that we had some kind of inhuman society that was pure evil. Unfortunately modern Russia didn't inherit most of Soviet achievements like medical care, science, social stability and confidence in our own future. Education is rapidly going down the drain too... And current internal politics looks as if it is aimed at reducing the population to Brzezinsky's 40 millions by eliminating "unnessesary inhabitants". :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Pork calling me "Soviet" (in fact - what he means by "Soviet") is very wrong.
Do you consider it an insult?
If so, I guess I owe you an apology. I didn't think you would.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Thank you! :)
You are right about the fact that "freedom of press" in USSR was non-existant. But if you wanted to get information from different sources - you could do it without any problem. Everyone could afford a short-wave radio. I could listen to VoA and BBC on an old tube radio, regardless to jamming. And if you were outside of Moscow/Leningrad or other major cities - the jamming didn't bother you at all.
OTOH the "state censorship" is somethimes greatly overestimated. Some books published in USSR since mid-50s (not even speaking about the freedom of the 20s when even White-emigrant books could be printed without any problems) are amazing. Probably every Western view on WWII history could be found, even the memoirs and studies of former nazi generals and officers were availible in Russian (certainly with comments and prefaces according to Party line).
What modern commies and most of the Western people forget about is a concept of "proletarian internationalism" as an official doctrine. Soviet films, books and press were politicaly correct to the extreme, noone could say that, for example, "all Americans are evil". Propaganda was aimed mostly at social groups. Propaganda of war, violence and nationalism was strictly prohibited.
Again: I don't want to say that Soviet regime was good, I don't want to go back to Soviet times. I just don't like when people in the West think that we had some kind of inhuman society that was pure evil. Unfortunately modern Russia didn't inherit most of Soviet achievements like medical care, science, social stability and confidence in our own future. Education is rapidly going down the drain too... And current internal politics looks as if it is aimed at reducing the population to Brzezinsky's 40 millions by eliminating "unnessesary inhabitants". :(
You're welcome :)
I think the future of the Soviet Union would have been very different if it wasn't fighting a cold war. Socialism is a system which will only work if money goes into social causes rather than an arms race.
I know things will pick up for ex-Soviet countries, but it's going to be a long and hard road, I fear.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Do you consider it an insult?
If so, I guess I owe you an apology. I didn't think you would.
No problem :) Nasha Rodina - CCCP! ;) (BTW, it's a adverdisment slogan for FM radio "Russkoye radio-2" in Moscow)
I hope I have made some things clear for you in this thread, about my attitude towards Soviet times...
-
Originally posted by ravells
You're welcome :)
I think the future of the Soviet Union would have been very different if it wasn't fighting a cold war. Socialism is a system which will only work if money goes into social causes rather than an arms race.
This is exactly what I think. The burden was too heavy, especially after the War when half of the country was in ruins.
Look at the Chinese: they didn't abandon communist ideology, but simply have let people work. Now they have some things that were impossible even in USSR: they invited local businessmen to join the Party! Their military spendings are almost unnoticable compared to their GNP.
Originally posted by ravells
I know things will pick up for ex-Soviet countries, but it's going to be a long and hard road, I fear.
So far the country is moving towards some strange kind of olygocracy, with 90% of population considered an "unnessessary human waste". :(