Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote:

On October 23, 1917 (by the Julian calendar still in use in Russia at the time; November 5 by the current Gregorian calendar), Bolshevik leader Jaan Anvelt led his leftist revolutionaries in an uprising in Tallinn, the then capital of Estland. On October 25 (November 7), 1917 , Vladimir Lenin led his forces in the uprising in Petrograd, the capital of Russia, against the ineffective Kerensky Provisional Government. For the most part, the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless, with the Red Guards led by Bolsheviks taking over major government facilities with little opposition before finally launching an assault on the Winter Palace on the night from November 6 to November 7. The assault led by Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko was launched at 9:45 p.m. signalled by a blank shot from the cruiser Aurora. The Winter Palace was guarded by Cossacks, Women's Battalion, and cadets (military students) corps. It was taken at about 2 a.m. The latter date was made the official date of the Revolution. Later official accounts of the revolution from the Soviet Union would depict the events in October as being far more dramatic than they actually had been. (See first hand account by British General Knox). Official films made much later showed a huge storming of the Winter Palace and fierce fighting, but in reality the Bolshevik insurgents faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the building and take it over - more people were killed in the shooting of the film October than in the actual revolution. The insurrection was timed and organized to hand state power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies which began on November 7.

Which tactics were the terrorist tactics, exactly?

And the German angle is ridiculous. Hitler didn't conquer Germany through terrorism. You are simply reaching for anything you can get your mitts on at this point.

Cycloptichorn

A. Most likely, it had been planned by the Talibans, and in this respect we can draw an analogy
not with the Moslem governments of other countries but with the German National-Socialists or
the Bolsheviks. They represented a type of personality called "half-intellectual" in Western
sociology - very self-confident and passionate but having rather superficial knowledge. A type of
man dangerous to the world, in other words. The Bolsheviks challenged the old laws, threatened
to shoot anyone and explode anything they liked, and disapproved old morals as false. The
Talibans behaved in a similar way - the same demonstrative actions to make the rest of the world

Anything the US does in their homelands becomes ammunition for these angry, focused jihadists. Scheuer reminds us that bin Laden's goal is less dramatic and more troubling than it has been described by the Bush administration.

...It often comes as a surprise to people to discover that bin Laden has never claimed that al-Qaeda can or would defeat the US, much less that al-Qaeda's goal was to destroy the "American way of life" or "Western civilization". He is not a man given to grandiose pronouncements and has limited his goal to incrementally increasing the pain inflicted on the US and its allies to force them to disengage from the Middle East to the greatest extent possible.

I will concede that both the German and Russian takeovers produced more terrorism after the takeover than what preceded it.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, so I understand you correctly, Foxfyre, that we were conquered pre-WWII by terrorism?

By utilization, at least in part, of terrorist tactics yes. I am saying that.

Here's Bin Laden in 2004. Their goal? To bankrupt the US. He certainly doesn't mention taking over America.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

I can't actually find anywhere where Bin Laden has wrote or said that his goal is to conquer American and establish a worldwide caliphate.

Here's Micheal Sheuer:

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2006/06/bin_ladens_goal.html

Quote:

Anything the US does in their homelands becomes ammunition for these angry, focused jihadists. Scheuer reminds us that bin Laden's goal is less dramatic and more troubling than it has been described by the Bush administration.

...It often comes as a surprise to people to discover that bin Laden has never claimed that al-Qaeda can or would defeat the US, much less that al-Qaeda's goal was to destroy the "American way of life" or "Western civilization". He is not a man given to grandiose pronouncements and has limited his goal to incrementally increasing the pain inflicted on the US and its allies to force them to disengage from the Middle East to the greatest extent possible.

Here's OBLs 1998 Fatwah. Does it call for the taking over of the world as part of the Caliphate? No it does not. It calls for the ejection of AMerica from the Middle East, and our proxy Israel.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Claims that the ultimate goal of Bin Laden is to take over America and convert everone to Islaam is nothing but Hyperbole.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here's Bin Laden in 2004. Their goal? To bankrupt the US. He certainly doesn't mention taking over America.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/

I can't actually find anywhere where Bin Laden has wrote or said that his goal is to conquer American and establish a worldwide caliphate.

Here's Micheal Sheuer:

http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2006/06/bin_ladens_goal.html

Quote:

Anything the US does in their homelands becomes ammunition for these angry, focused jihadists. Scheuer reminds us that bin Laden's goal is less dramatic and more troubling than it has been described by the Bush administration.

...It often comes as a surprise to people to discover that bin Laden has never claimed that al-Qaeda can or would defeat the US, much less that al-Qaeda's goal was to destroy the "American way of life" or "Western civilization". He is not a man given to grandiose pronouncements and has limited his goal to incrementally increasing the pain inflicted on the US and its allies to force them to disengage from the Middle East to the greatest extent possible.

Here's OBLs 1998 Fatwah. Does it call for the taking over of the world as part of the Caliphate? No it does not. It calls for the ejection of AMerica from the Middle East, and our proxy Israel.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Claims that the ultimate goal of Bin Laden is to take over America and convert everone to Islaam is nothing but Hyperbole.

Cycloptichorn

The Umma and its youth, women, elderly, says Bin Laden must offer themselves, their expertise and all sort of financial support enough to raise Jihad in the battlefields of Jihad. Jihad today is a duty to every Muslim

فيجب على الأمة بكل فئاتها وشرائحها رجالها ونسائها شبانها وشيبها أن يقدموا من أنفسهم وأموالهم وخبراتهم وجميع أنواع الدعم المادي ما يكفي لقيام الجهاد في ساحات الجهاد وخاصة في العراق وفلسطين وأفغانستان والسودان وكشمير والشيشان وعلم الله أن الجهاد اليوم فرض عين على كل مسلم
--Osama bin Laden
SOURCE

Now go back to my other sources posted today and re-read the definition of Jihad.

I don't know where all that stuff came from. It wasn't in what I cut and pasted.

....

فيجب على الأمة بكل فئاتها وشرائحها رجالها ونسائها شبانها وشيبها أن يقدموا من أنفسهم وأموالهم وخبراتهم وجميع أنواع الدعم المادي ما يكفي لقيام الجهاد في ساحات الجهاد وخاصة في العراق وفلسطين وأفغانستان والسودان وكشمير والشيشان وعلم الله أن الجهاد اليوم فرض عين على كل مسلم

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know where all that stuff came from. It wasn't in what I cut and pasted.

....

Disable HTML:

Quote:

فيجب على الأمة بكل فئاتها وشرائحها رجالها ونسائها شبانها وشيبها أن يقدموا من أنفسهم وأموالهم وخبراتهم وجميع أنواع الدعم المادي ما يكفي لقيام الجهاد في ساحات الجهاد وخاصة في العراق وفلسطين وأفغانستان والسودان وكشمير والشيشان وعلم الله أن الجهاد اليوم فرض عين على كل مسلم

Cyclop, I've made my case reasonably well to support my statements.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really, Okie. Be nice.

Cycloptichorn

Hypocrite.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, you aren't due an apology, chicken little.

Quote:

Because it is true

bull sh*t.

Cycloptichorn

Machtergreifung
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Machtergreifung is a German word meaning seizure of power. It is normally used specifically to refer to the Nazi takeover of power in Weimar Germany January 30, 1933.

The term Machtübernahme (takeover of power) is also used for this event. Note that when used in German, both "Machtergreifung" and "Machtübernahme" retain their more general meanings and are not particularly related to the Nazis. "Machtübernahme" can be used for any take over of power, whether peaceful and legitimate or violent and illegitimate.

The term Machtergreifung was first coined by the Nazis themselves in order to portray their accession to power as an active seizure (an alternative term used was Nationale Erhebung (National rising). Since Hitler's accession to power was the result of intrigue rather than of an active revolution, the term has been criticized by historians and is sometimes replaced with the term Machtübertragung (Handing-over of power) or, more polemically, Machterschleichung (Sneaking into power).

The Machtergreifung was followed by the Gleichschaltung, the period to around 1937 characterized by systematic elimination of non-Nazi organizations that could potentially influence people, such as trade unions and political parties.

re "takeover", from wikipedia:

Quote:

Machtergreifung
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Machtergreifung is a German word meaning seizure of power. It is normally used specifically to refer to the Nazi takeover of power in Weimar Germany January 30, 1933.

The term Machtübernahme (takeover of power) is also used for this event. Note that when used in German, both "Machtergreifung" and "Machtübernahme" retain their more general meanings and are not particularly related to the Nazis. "Machtübernahme" can be used for any take over of power, whether peaceful and legitimate or violent and illegitimate.

The term Machtergreifung was first coined by the Nazis themselves in order to portray their accession to power as an active seizure (an alternative term used was Nationale Erhebung (National rising). Since Hitler's accession to power was the result of intrigue rather than of an active revolution, the term has been criticized by historians and is sometimes replaced with the term Machtübertragung (Handing-over of power) or, more polemically, Machterschleichung (Sneaking into power).

The Machtergreifung was followed by the Gleichschaltung, the period to around 1937 characterized by systematic elimination of non-Nazi organizations that could potentially influence people, such as trade unions and political parties.

Cyclop, I've made my case reasonably well to support my statements. You haven't made yours. If you have something more to offer than "bull sh*t" then please offer it. Otherwise again, please give it a rest.

I didn't learn that in the Universities I attended.

Again I trust the sources I posted more than Wikipedia. Each to their own. Whatever floats your boat. Whatever makes you happy. I honestly don't care.

No I did not admit that my point about Germany and Russia was wrong; in fact gave you a link supporting that very point.