NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6171429.stm

It will be recalled that this is the same monster responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, deaths. The same monster whose regime survived only because of military intervention by Cuba. How ironic that the self-proclaimed anti-imperialist, Castro, helped militarily repress Eritrean secessionists, who were themselves colonized by Ethiopia.

I hope they extradite this monster to Addis Ababa and publicly execute the scum.

Why does it matter that he's a Marxist-Leninist? Isn't killing people enough?

Why does it matter that he's a Marxist-Leninist? Isn't killing people enough?

I would use "fascist monster" if he were a fascist.

And yes, it is enough.

So why use the qualifier at all? I mean, why not "dark-haired monster", or "six foot two monster", or "easy listening fan monster"?

I'm sorry, but "genocide" gets tossed around far too freely these days.

hey, I resent that. Nothing wrong with a little easy listening for your average mass murderer. I particularly enjoy the song "Girl from Impanima" as I am hacking some poor souls arms and legs off. It really helps you get on with the job, eh?

hey, I resent that. Nothing wrong with a little easy listening for your average mass murderer. I particularly enjoy the song "Girl from Impanima" as I am hacking some poor souls arms and legs off. It really helps you get on with the job, eh?
That would have been my point: liking easy listening is irrelevant to the crime of genocide. So is being a Marxist-Leninist.

Why does it matter that he's a Marxist-Leninist? Isn't killing people enough?


Because the world needs to be reminded that such actions were characteristic of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Attempted extermination of "class enemies" and the like are rationalized by, and inevitably follow from, its malevolent doctrines. It thus transcends mere criminality.

So no, "killing people" isn't enough. The reasons for it must be publicly exposed as well.

Because the world needs to be reminded that such actions were characteristic of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Attempted extermination of "class enemies" and the like are rationalized by, and inevitably follow from, its malevolent doctrines. It thus transcends mere criminality.

So no, "killing people" isn't enough. The reasons for it must be publicly exposed as well.
So, Pinochet? Does killing people inevitably follow from the evils of privatisation, neoliberalism and the free market, too?

Because the world needs to be reminded that such actions were characteristic of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Attempted extermination of "class enemies" and the like are rationalized by, and inevitably follow from, its malevolent doctrines. It thus transcends mere criminality.

So no, "killing people" isn't enough. The reasons for it must be publicly exposed as well.

Same for every political persuasion. "Reasons" are generally invented anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6171429.stm

It will be recalled that this is the same monster responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, deaths. The same monster whose regime survived only because of military intervention by Cuba. How ironic that the self-proclaimed anti-imperialist, Castro, helped militarily repress Eritrean secessionists, who were themselves colonized by Ethiopia.

I hope they extradite this monster to Addis Ababa and publicly execute the scum.
Am I the only one who thinks he looks a LOT like Lando Calrissian?

So, Pinochet? Does killing people inevitably follow from the evils of privatisation, neoliberalism and the free market, too?

Of course not, just like thats why he was never brought to trial, he saved them from the evil leftists it doesn't matter if he killed a few thousand people while doing it, they were probably commies anyway:rolleyes:

Because the world needs to be reminded that such actions were characteristic of Marxist-Leninist regimes. Attempted extermination of "class enemies" and the like are rationalized by, and inevitably follow from, its malevolent doctrines. It thus transcends mere criminality.

So no, "killing people" isn't enough. The reasons for it must be publicly exposed as well.

Wow, it's no wonder you defended Pinochet. He was a murderer, but he was a murderer that AGREED WITH YOU ON ECONOMICS.

Oh, but I forgot. Disagreeing with you is a crime worse than genocide - and that's why you criticize the marxist mass murderer but not the capitalist one.

How... nice. Really.

he did his share to depopulate the earth.

I'm sorry, but "genocide" gets tossed around far too freely these days.

Hardly. If anything, people tend to be far too casual in reaction to mass murder. Mengistu committed genocide. He has been convicted for his crimes, and it's a shame he will never be brought to justice. Although I oppose the death penalty, so on that point there would be justification for refusing to extradite him (if Zimbabwe were not itself retentionist...).


So, Pinochet? Does killing people inevitably follow from the evils of privatisation, neoliberalism and the free market, too?

Shame I wasn't the one to start the "Pinochet dies" thread. I could have called it "Capitalist mass murderer dies".

Why does it matter that he's a Marxist-Leninist? Isn't killing people enough?

Well, he'd be the first communist to ever be convicted.

Well, he'd be the first communist to ever be convicted.

Who was the first capitalist?

Hardly. If anything, people tend to be far too casual in reaction to mass murder. Mengistu committed genocide. He has been convicted for his crimes, and it's a shame he will never be brought to justice. Although I oppose the death penalty, so on that point there would be justification for refusing to extradite him (if Zimbabwe were not itself retentionist...).
Well, I always thought 'Genocide' meant 'the systematic attempt to exterminate an ethnic or racial group', or something. It seems that was Mengistu was doing was slaughtering people according to their political views - ie those against him. It seems that the meaning has changed, these days.

Well, he'd be the first communist to ever be convicted.

Nicolae Ceauşescu was all just a bad dream brought on by too much cheese before bedtime then?

Cuba did not give direct military support to Ethiopia to combat the Eritrean secessionists.
Although there is some disagreement, most military observers believe that Cuba refused to participate in the operation in Eritrea because Castro considered the Eritrean conflict an internal war rather than a case of external aggression. However, the continued presence of Cuban troops in the Ogaden enabled the Mengistu regime to redeploy many of its troops to northern Ethiopia....

http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/eat/ethiopia/fethiopia1974.htm

Genocide is not the right word for what Mengitsu did. Like Pinochet, he killed and tortured thousands of people who held conflicting political views to his own.

He is unlike Pinochet in three ways: he is alive, has been tried and convicted, and is a leftist.

Hopefully, that will change soon, and I don't mean the bit about him being a tried and convicted person, or a leftist.

Nicolae Ceauşescu was all just a bad dream brought on by too much cheese before bedtime then?

That wasn't a trial, it was a kangaroo court.

Marxist is not the same as Leninist, you know?

They are like, two separate ideologies.

That wasn't a trial, it was a kangaroo court.
It wasn't even that. I get the impression it was some angry men in a room with AKs, and after a few minutes of discussion as to what to do, someone said, "fuck it, we waste him"

Marxist is not the same as Leninist, you know?

They are like, two separate ideologies.

Ah, but in Africa and elsewhere there exists a fusion of the two labelled 'Marxist-Leninism'.

It wasn't even that. I get the impression it was some angry men in a room with AKs, and after a few minutes of discussion as to what to do, someone said, "fuck it, we waste him"

"Fuck it, we waste them", shurely?