Het meest duiverlse regime ter wereld.

[Eliyahu]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

60 miljoen, dat is zowat de helft van de toenmalige bevolking. Waarom geen 60 miljard nu we toch bezig zijn?

Bs'd

Mass killings under Communist regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k...ublic_of_China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide.

According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious – discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

[Eliyahu]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frankenstein

Nogmaals ik ontken het niet; echter betreft uitroeien; indien Stalin zijn zin had doorgezet dan had hij de Oekrainers voor de volle 100% om zeep kunnen helpen, hetgeen dus niet is gebeurd,

Bs'd

Ah, hij had er makkelijk 100 miljoen kunnen uitroeien, dus het was eigenlijk een hele toffe kerel dat hij er maar 60 miljoen uitgeroeid heeft?

[Eliyahu]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Eliyahu

Bs'd

Mass killings under Communist regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k...ublic_of_China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.

Bs'd

Zie daar de zegeningen van de linkSSen.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door djimi

38%, 42%, ja zelfs 45% is nog altijd NIET 'de helft plus één', hé, "tomm", zelfs niet als 'we' dat 'herverdelen'.

En dan zwijgen 'we' nog over zo'n "regional legislature" of "authorities"

Een groot deel van de deelnemers weigerden zich uit te spreken over de vraag of Stalin nu goed of slecht was, dat zijn politiek zowel goede als slechte aspecten had, dat is trouwens ook mijn mening, ik ben geen kritiekloos aanhanger van Stalin. Slechts een kleine minderheid in deze landen vond Stalin ronduit een slechte leider of misdadiger.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Antoon

Hier, het nieuw speelgoedje van de miljardairs in China, waar "de economische fundamenten socialistisch blijven":



En dan noem jij de mensen die je niet volgen 'dom'.

je begint meer en meer op chipie te gelijken. Ik geef je argumenten over de structuur van de economie, jij komt met nonsens af.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door LiberaalNL

Godwinnen is een teken van zwakte en niet boven een conflict kunnen staan. Grieks-Cyprioten vinden dat het noordelijke deel van Cyprus is bezet door de Turken en er loopt een muur over het eiland. Zijn de Turken nu ook opeens nazi's?

Maar de Turken onderdrukken geen Grieken, arresteren niet dagelijks Grieken die dan jarenlang zonder proces in erbarmelijke omstandigheden worden opgesloten, etc. vandaag de dag toch niet meer.
De manier waarop de Joden de Palestijnen behandelen in de bezette gebieden kun je niet anders noemen dan Apartheid, racisme en fascisme.

[Frankenstein]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Eliyahu

Bs'd

Ah, hij had er makkelijk 100 miljoen kunnen uitroeien, dus het was eigenlijk een hele toffe kerel dat hij er maar 60 miljoen uitgeroeid heeft?

die 60 miljoen die zuig je uit je duim, en Stalin had idd meer dan 100 miljoen mensen de grond in kunnen jagen, echter was in tegenstelling geen zelfde moordlust als de rode khmer en taliban toegedaan die destijds door de Amerikanen indertijd gesteund zijn. Ik sta neutraal tegenover Stalin omdat hij het meeste inspanning en werk heeft geleverd om Hitler te verslaan, en de Sovjet bevolking behoed heeft voor totale uitroeing tegen de nazies en zo is er meer. Echter ik begrijp al dat je enkel in de good en bad guy kan denken, een tussenweg is te ingewikkeld voor mensen met een krapte aan geest.

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Eliyahu

Bs'd

Ah, hij had er makkelijk 100 miljoen kunnen uitroeien, dus het was eigenlijk een hele toffe kerel dat hij er maar 60 miljoen uitgeroeid heeft?

While America lectures Russia on the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine, Russian historian Boris Borisov asks what became of over seven million American citizens who disappeared from US population records in the 1930s.

RT: What made you research the history of what you call ‘American Holodomor’?

B.B: It was very simple. As I was doing comparative research of the American Great Depression in the 1930s, and the Great Depression of the 1990s in Russia, I grew interested in the social dimension of the tragedy. It was logical that I looked up official American documents and found out that the discrepancies were so obvious that any independent researcher would not but have doubt about the official U.S. statistic data. All appears to be rather interesting. I will come to that later.

The U.S. Congress added fuel to the fire by adopting resolutions nearly every year blaming the Soviet government for alleged staged famine in the 1930s in Ukraine. The first resolution came in 1988, 50 years after the events described. The current members of Congress wonder about the following, and I quote, “people in the government were aware of what was going on, but did not do anything to help the starving”.

At that very period of 1930s, the wealthy city of New York saw kilometre-long lines of people for free soup. There were no queues on the city’s main streets though, but not because there were no hungry people but because most of the cities did not have any money – they were just bankrupt.

So, I became curious about that and carried out some research that brought about interesting results.

RT: You say that America of the early 1930s made over seven million people perish. It’s a horrifying figure and it needs an explanation. What do you base your research on and why do you say the population statistics of the U.S. government of 1932-33 was falsified?

B.B.: Seven and a half million people does not mean the number of particular victims of the famine, but a general demographic loss, or the difference between the supposed population on the date of the census that was due to be held in 1940 and the factual number of people. In reality, the total demographic loss is bigger. The fact is not contested by anyone. The figure is more than ten million people.

However, when you start researching the subject, you find that there is a migration component – people were coming to the country and leaving. All can be calculated. It turns out then, that three million people can be subtracted at the cost of migration – in approximate figures, as it is not a scientific report.

What’s left is 7.5 million people still missing. The question is: where are they?

Voluntary defenders of U.S. values who venture to discuss the matter with me, normally begin with a statement that those people were simply not born. However, if we take the age pyramid and distribute the people according to their dates of birth, it becomes apparent that 5.5 million children and two million grown-ups are missing from the 7.5 million. So, those two million people could not have been non-existent – as they had been born. They could only die.

As a result, I consider the two million of grown-up victims as the limit proved from the bottom – for 10 years, let me emphasise this.

Could the remaining children out of those 5.5 not have been born? The U.S. statistics does not answer this question. If we use the method of international juxtapositions and see how demography reacted to similar disastrous events in other countries, we will see that the distribution of the demographic was divided between the children who had died and had not been born in the ratio of ? to ?. In other words, it’s from 2 to 4 million extra losses.

The overall loss in ten years could be estimated as being from four – or slightly fewer – to six – or slightly more – million.

Let me quote some figures, if you don’t mind – demonstrating how other countries reacted to the similar situation. If you believe that four or six million people is a terrible number, let me quote this: male mortality rate in Russia: 810,000 in 1984; 1,226,000 in 1994 – whereas the population is the same. In other words, as compared with 1984, the year 1996 had an additional number of 416,000 dead males. You have to add females and children to that figure.

As of now the prevalence of the death rate over birth rate yet remains, although smaller. Some say it is horrible, others say it’s normal as the country is developing. So there are different takes about there being half a million dead. Nobody tears his or her hair out to discuss this.

Likewise, there were opposing viewpoints in the USA. Some said it was horrible – “We had millions of people deprived of their land!” – those who read Steinbeck well knew the situation from his documentary-authentic novels depicting starving children. Others say, “No, it’s all right. We’re fighting depression and all is as scheduled.” Like here today, I think.

RT: Imagine the so-called “hungry marches” in the times of President Hoover and quote memories of a child about those events. Did you actually find any survivors still alive to tell the story and confirm the fact of ‘American Holodomor’?

B.B.: Let me draw your attention to the fact that it was not me who called those marches “hunger marches”. They were called so by the participants. When someone goes marching in protest against war, they protest against war because people get killed there. When someone protests against hunger, it means they protest against dying of starvation, and the people are ready for social unrest. You may know that not only the police but also regular military troops were used to disperse those marches.

There is a huge amount of evidence. Let me quote some. For example. The thing is that in summer an article by Dmitriy Lyskov was published in the English translation, with some conclusions drawn from my research. That caused active discussion in English-language blogs, also in the USA, which is understandable.

What do Americans write in their stories? Just three quotes:

1) The ancient members of my family told me how people used to come to the door asking to do a day’s work for only a meal.

2) If this story is true and our federal government knew the enormity of the crisis during the 30s, then it might explain their silence about the famine in Ukraine during the same time.

3) It's a good argument. I heard lots of stories about the Depression from all my relatives, and especially from my mother and father. People were starving, I don’t dispute that. But I don’t think it would have been seven million.

We can see flat ideological statements about democracy and freedom in the USA then, therefore such things just could not have been there. However, we have authentic stories, so numerous that one could make volumes out of them and put them on a shelf.

RT: Such outstanding historical moments are usually reflected in literature, films, and, of course, journalist reports and research articles. The American depression is definitely one of those remarkable periods. Is there any proof of your theory in an article of a newspaper of that time?

B.B.: They did write about it, of course, but in a style similar to that used in our newspapers about the 1990s. They criticised the government, parties fought each other, someone criticised local authorities, someone insisted on their programmes, others on the opposite. As a whole, however, the bigger picture of the epoch will be seen only in a while. As for sources, they can be used for reference about those real events that were happening there.

Of course, journalists may be interested in a fact about a tractor that pulled down a farm. There are many facts of this kind – Steinbeck eloquently tells a lot about such things. But as to what happened to that farm later, the fact being that ten people left but only eight came back, is seldom told – both then and now. It’s not something of big interest to journalists.

For instance, who died in your family in the past two years?

You must bear in mind that those who died are in the lowest stratum of the American society – either had been poor, or became poor and failed to get out of this level. Try to find research details about the death rate among homeless people in Russia now – you will encounter big difficulties. You may find, but that may take a long time. And you will hardly find anything in newspapers, despite the fact that mortality among the homeless is there. And it’s about citizens of Russia and most likely the number of those dying is big. Perhaps the factor that not all of them volunteered to become homeless is the answer.

RT: In your article, you write about the agrarian business lobby you claim is guilty of destroying the state food resources. Can you please tell more about it and maybe compare it to any instance of more recent economic wars or lobbies, maybe?

B.B.: The modern example is obvious – it’s a modern programme of producing fuel from food. It’s not by chance, that the Cuban leader Fidel Castro raised this question, thus dotting the ‘i’s’ and crossing the ‘t’s’. As a matter of fact, producing fuel from food is something to enrich someone, whereas impoverishing dozens of millions of others. The process is already there and the current increase of food prices is already causing political unrest and more deaths. Medical specialists don't do this in third-world countries nor in rich countries so far. The process is under way. Unless stopped, by the end of the 21st century, the programme of obtaining fuel from food will be studied in history books on pages next to Hitler and concentration camps. The scale of the consequences would be comparable, in terms of the number of victims.

This is what concerns the current situation.

RT: We had these discussions in the time of chaos and depression in the world’s financial markets. Hundreds of people are losing their jobs, credits are not paid back, the mortgage crisis is on. As an economist, do you see this as the beginning of a new great depression and, actually, a new Holodomor?

B.B.: Comparing the current crisis with the Great Depression has become commonplace in economic discussions. I would rather not over-load you with some economic terms but let me give you a simple example. The modern crisis radically differs from the one in the early 20th century. Whereas that crisis was of an industrial society, this one is of a post-industrial society and the economy of services.

What does that mean? Imagine yourself a highly-paid specialist in securities. You strike deals and earn a lot. You’re sure you’re worth it, because the deals yield good profits. Who do you need? A legal adviser. Many of them, with an office, secretaries, clerks – all of whom help you not to lose your money and do your business. Who do the legal advisers need? They need bank employees who take their lucrative salaries and deposit them at advantageous terms. This is what makes up the first financial circle.

The first circle is followed by another one, where people need property dealers, as they are very busy themselves and would not build homes on their own. They would need a tourist agent to quickly arrange that their bottoms could be warmed up in Hawaii. And they need transfer agents to arrange all the transportation.

Then follows the third circle of the services industry – including cafes where the guys from the first and second circles have coffee, restaurant where they dine, fitness centres to make them fit sometimes – an they're necessary in the centre of the city, because they cannot afford getting away from the money source spring as someone else can crawl up and scoop from it. Ninety per cent of the fee is taken by the rent of the premises in the prestigious locations.

All the rest is arranged likewise.

Now, imagine that the stock market has collapsed. You have no job and no revenue. So you pack to leave – Lehman Brothers all pack. You don’t need legal advisers anymore. If you do, however, you have no money to pay them with. No bank specialists are required. That is followed by no need for a property agent, and all the rest down the chain.

What have we got as a result? In an industrial economy, an enterprise has some safety factor – some reserves, long-term contracts, some property they can sell or mortgage at the end of the day. There is no such safety margin in the services industry. As soon as the money source stops, the services industry rumbles like a house of cards.

So, things may be developing now much faster than in the pre-WWII times. This is what we can see happening now during a very short period of time, much shorter than in the time of the Great Depression, major financial institutions collapsed, which set the alarm bells ringing, as French President Sarkozy put it, making the economy a little smarter. This is well understood by the leaders, but nobody says how to do this.

Where did America’s missing millions go? Holodomor Lessons

Het is heel gemakkelijk om met cijfers te goochelen.
http://rt.com/usa/interview-with-boris-borisov/

Hier zie je dat de meeste zogezegde misdaden van Stalin een eigen leven leidden, uitgevonden door de nazi's, nadien overgenomen door de koude oorlogpropaganda.

http://www.mariosousa.se/Liesconcern...vietUnion.html

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Eliyahu

Bs'd

Mass killings under Communist regimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_k...ublic_of_China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.[1] Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide.

According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2][dubious – discuss] There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

We kunnen het misschien eens voor de verandering hebben over de doden op het geweten van het vrije Westen, daar wordt vreemd genoeg minder over gesproken in de Westerse media dan over misdaden door Stalin of de Holocaust.


Dit gaat alleen maar over Kenia eind jaren 50, maar natuurlijk hadden de Britten kolonies over heel de wereld en overal hebben ze vreselijke misdaden begaan, zoals hier in Indië toen onder koloniaal bestuur:



Hongersnoden veroorzaakt door de Britse onderdrukkers veroorzaakten miljoenen doden in Indië van de late 19de eeuw tot en met de jaren 40.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ore-atrocities
Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.

No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".

The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.
British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ore-atrocities

In Kenia herinneren ze die misdaden nog heel goed, elke familie heeft wel verhalen over de gruwel die de Engelsen tegen de Kenianen aanrichtten.
Maar de Britse pers schrijft liever over Stalin en Mao dan over hun eigen misdaden...




An Empire on Trial: Race, Murder, and Justice under British Rule, 1870–1935 (review)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/vic/sum....1.kostal.html

An Empire on Trial, as the author states, “takes one issue—interpersonal interracial homicide—and seeks to follow, through a broad range of imperial contexts, how it was dealt with and what that ‘dealing with’ reveals about the nature of the British Empire at the height of its power” (ix). In almost every one of the fascinating (and often shocking) cases referred to in this prodigiously researched book, the term “interracial homicide” actually denotes the killing of dark-skinned men or women by white men. In mustering examples from almost every quarter of the British Empire during the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Wiener seeks to explore how, in coping with the legal consequences of these killings, “the liberalism so strong in modern Britain was to be reconciled with the imperial rule of non-Britons” (ix).
The case studies— drawn from legal and newspaper reports of homicides on the high seas, in Queensland, Fiji, Trinidad, the Bahamas, India, Kenya, and British Honduras—are intensively researched and vividly described. They contain stories of violence callous and horrific enough to give pause to the sturdiest reader.

[tomm]

In de jaren 50 doodden de Fransen ongeveer een miljoen Algerijnen, de meeste van hen waren burgers. Vreselijke misdaden werden begaan door de Fransen, zoals massaslachtingen en genocides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Death_toll

Natuurlijk hebben de Fransen, net als de Nederlanders, Portugezen, Spanjaarden, Amerikanen en Belgen, in elke ,kolonie wel moordpartijen en misdaden op hun geweten.

Vreemd genoeg praten de Franse media liever over Mao of Stalin dan over hun eigen misdaden...

[Jay-P.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

In de jaren 50 doodden de Fransen ongeveer een miljoen Algerijnen, de meeste van hen waren burgers. Vreselijke misdaden werden begaan door de Fransen, zoals massaslachtingen en genocides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Death_toll

Natuurlijk hebben de Fransen, net als de Nederlanders, Portugezen, Spanjaarden, Amerikanen en Belgen, in elke ,kolonie wel moordpartijen en misdaden op hun geweten.

Vreemd genoeg praten de Franse media liever over Mao of Stalin dan over hun eigen misdaden...

Waarom het Franse voorbeeld: ik heb destijds in de humaniora ook niets gehoord over de misdaden van Leopold 2 in "De Kongo".

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Jay-P.

Waarom het Franse voorbeeld: ik heb destijds in de humaniora ook niets gehoord over de misdaden van Leopold 2 in "De Kongo".

Dat is toch al in de media gekomen, hoewel inderdaad ik een frofessor sprak die de staatsveiligheid aan de deur kreeg omdat hij in de jaren 80 z'n boek "rood rubber" had uitgegeven.
Wat minder in de media is gekomen is dat ook de Belgische regering misdaden heeft begaan in Congo.

[Jay-P.]

Ik sprak wel van de Humaniora in de jaren '65 tot '72.
'k Ben al een dagske ouder he.

[tomm]

Ook jammer dat je niet ingaat dat hongersnoden in Rusland door klimaat een natuurlijk gevolg zijn. Afgezien dat de grote hongersnood in Oekraine welke door Stalin gesimuleerd; heeft Stalin wel de hand erop gehad dat de van oudsher steeds weer terugkerend hongersnoden veroorzaakt door klimaat & armetierig karakter boeren en transport van de desbetreffende waren & speculatie in de Sovjet Unie tot een verleden kwamen te behoren.

Hongersnoden kwamen elk jaar voor in het tsaristische Rusland, sommige eisten miljoenen doden. Vanaf de jaren 50 kende Rusland geen hongersnoden meer, met name door de snelle ontwikkeling van economie en levensstandaard. China kende geen hongersnoden meer vanaf de jaren 60.

De hongersnoden in de jaren 40 waren het gevolg van Hitler's invasie van de Sovjet-Unie, die het leven kostte aan 25 miljoen Sovjet-burgers. Met name Leningrad werd 3 jaar volledig van de buitenwereld afgesloten door de nazi's, toch weigerden ze zich over te geven, tallozen stierven toen de hongersdood.

[Eliyahu]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

ik ben geen kritiekloos aanhanger van Stalin.

Bs'd

Maar wel een aanhanger??

[Eliyahu]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frankenstein

die 60 miljoen die zuig je uit je duim, en Stalin had idd meer dan 100 miljoen mensen de grond in kunnen jagen, echter was in tegenstelling geen zelfde moordlust als de rode khmer en taliban toegedaan die destijds door de Amerikanen indertijd gesteund zijn. Ik sta neutraal tegenover Stalin omdat hij het meeste inspanning en werk heeft geleverd om Hitler te verslaan, en de Sovjet bevolking behoed heeft voor totale uitroeing tegen de nazies en zo is er meer. Echter ik begrijp al dat je enkel in de good en bad guy kan denken, een tussenweg is te ingewikkeld voor mensen met een krapte aan geest.

Bs'd

Dus jij staat neutraal tegenover de grootste massamoordenaar in de geschiedenis.

Hoe is 't mogelijk....

[Jay-P.]

Lap, de relikwietische echokamers zijn terug.

Tijd om varkenslapjes te gaan braden.

[Eliyahu]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

In de jaren 50 doodden de Fransen ongeveer een miljoen Algerijnen, de meeste van hen waren burgers. Vreselijke misdaden werden begaan door de Fransen, zoals massaslachtingen en genocides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Death_toll

Natuurlijk hebben de Fransen, net als de Nederlanders, Portugezen, Spanjaarden, Amerikanen en Belgen, in elke ,kolonie wel moordpartijen en misdaden op hun geweten.

Vreemd genoeg praten de Franse media liever over Mao of Stalin dan over hun eigen misdaden...

Bs'd

Al die verhalen van jou van fransten die algerijnen vermoordden, britten die kenianen vermoordden, komen niet in de buurt van Stalin en Mao die samen bijna 100 miljoen van hun eigen volk afslachtten.

Maar je blijft toch een aanhanger van Stalin?

[tomm]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Eliyahu

Bs'd

Al die verhalen van jou van fransten die algerijnen vermoordden, britten die kenianen vermoordden, komen niet in de buurt van Stalin en Mao die samen bijna 100 miljoen van hun eigen volk afslachtten.

Maar je blijft toch een aanhanger van Stalin?

Ah nu is het al 100 miljoen, daarnet nog 60 miljoen, komaan, wie biedt hoger?

Het westers kolonialsme is wereldwijd verantwoordelijk voor talloze miljoenen doden.

[Jay-P.]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door tomm

Ah nu is het al 100 miljoen, daarnet nog 60 miljoen, komaan, wie biedt hoger?

Het westers kolonialsme is wereldwijd verantwoordelijk voor talloze miljoenen doden.

Wel dat noemden ze toen geboortebeperking.
Beats de pil of de vasectomie.
En daarboven op waren er nog zo'n slordige 4,9 tot 5,9 miljoen joden, niet?
De druppel te veel, ja?

In feite was elke genocide er een te veel: in de hele wereld. De ene niet meer af te keuren dan de andere. Het gaat niet echt om aantallen maar om een gedrag.

Eerste steen zonder zonden comes to mind. Westers of Oosters of misschien Ceaucesciaans? Of moet het toch over aantallen gaan, Tomm?