Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Dr Brin, I mean Gautam.....<G>..........you seem to
>> be saying that
>> ANSWER has killed people. More peole than the KKK if
>> I am reading you
>> correctly.
>>
>> I think that deserves some explaination.
>>
>> xponent
>> Just Teasing You Dude! Maru
>> rob
>
> :-)  "The people they support".  ANSWER's parent
> organization is Stalinist.  I don't mean this in a
> metaphoric sense - the way Nick used fascist against
> me, for example - but in a literal one.  They actively
> supported Stalin himself, and various Stalinist
> dictators (Kim Jong Il and Saddam himself - Saddam,
> btw, considered Stalin to be his hero, which really
> does tell you everything you need to know).  Ramsey
> Clark similarly didn't just defend Milosevic in court,
> but defended him rhetorically and politically _while
> he was committing genocide_.  Milosevic wasn't Joe
> Stalin, but he wasn't a nice guy, either.
>

I went to answers website (I hope that doesn't make me a commie<G>) 
and couldn't find anything incriminating. (Other than they typical 
extreme left orgs on the steering commitee)
Got Links?

For such an organisation to have supported Stalin, it would have to be 
long lived.
ANSWER has not been around *that* long.

The problem I have with your argument is that Americans will go to 
anti-war protests for their own purposes, not the purposes of some 
sinister organization. So if every American went to an ANSWER 
organized protest, it would not do one whit towards supporting Stalin 
or Stalinism, or commienism, or even consumerism. It might not even 
stop a war.

I think the same logic applies for Republicans (or Democrats). Little 
effort has been made to remove former members of the KKK from party 
membership and quite obviously that has not translated into a public 
acceptance of racist murder and bombings.

I think there is a significant disconnect between the motivations of 
individuals and the intent of camoflauged organizations.  I think a 
suspicion is justified but the automatic claim of connection is not.

xponent
Syllogisms? Maru
rob 


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to