The Bolshevik’s seized power in a coup d’etat. Not a popular revolution. The only genuine revolution occurred in February, 1917. The Bolsheviks ruled by terror right from the start. They were opposed by all the other socialist parties. They were condemned by all the Marxists for their reign of terror. They crushed the independent trade unions and slaughtered the sailors of Kronstadt who had helped them seize power.

Bad English

Bring back vietnam memories. He was very active in those days

Let's be sincere, you're a s.t.u.p.i.d. person's idea of what a s.m.a.r.t. person is.

That called Osama Bin Laden an anti colonial fighter when he wanted to build an empire.

That's probably because there was about 5 minutes of coherence in all of his mumbo jumbo. Leftists always take the longest time to summarize a simple idea leading to a weak or wrong argument.

+Le Polygone I was talking about how i felt one hour talk and this was subjective and personal. This was something you shouldn't care, as long as it doesn't concern you or the points he talked about. Why did you feel bad about it? I didn't mention any logical or argument related his points. Let's talk about what you think as a solution to the problems facing the world and humanity now and let's hear it, if you got guts and mind!! I'm tired of dismissive, self-rightous, euro-centric, racist, right-wingers, who care only the whites and white culture and never care others after 3 or 5 centuries of colonization and hegemony in different levels with the use of voilence, force and the worst means. If there are incoherent points you heard in this talk, then come with it and let's discuss about it or do you only care to hate leftists?

Quite a word soup there! First off, stop embarrassing yourself. You assume a whole lot here. I won't play the left's race baiting game and btw, you should know that there's no such thing as a "white culture" just like there's no "black culture". That's pretty racist in itself; as if Jamaicans, Afro-Americans and Somalis share the same culture... it's pretty insulting and uneducated. To summarize; yes, I do hate the marxist left for being so incompatible with logic and liberty. This unkept demagogue is lecturing people on the inequity of big government while not really understanding that nanny states are mostly born from marxism. Try defending any points he just made; it'll only end up in feeling pandering, victimization and demagoguery.

Keep your hate, if the two emotions you have and good at are hate of the other and love of your gangs. There is another world, which is debate, discussion and respecting each other and a range of different emotions. Stop to dismiss the fact, that you care europe, whites and their different cultures. Then blaming the left on all the mistakes the right-wingers are known for like demagoguery, victimization and hate of the others. I call this a foolishness and double-standard. To do something practically on daily basis and blame others for it. All leftists aren't Marxists. There are alot of other types of leftist lines, so be precise with your terms. You called the "white culture" as uneducated, though it's a word i meant as a general idea of whites all, wherever they live in east or west and it's not that nuanced or specific, but you did here worse, because you call all leftists as Marxists.

Wow, you just keep on sinking. Your hairy buddy IS a marxist, i'm talking about him, remember!? Stop hitting the bong if you can't follow simple sentences. Again with the "white culture", a "general idea of whites"... I don't think you're thinking this thru. So in your view (i'll repeat myself), Jamaicans, Somalis and Afro-Americans are from the same culture, right? Just like Swedes, South Africans and French Canadians...hmm, yeah. I know you're not out to harm anyone, i'm not either. I know it would be hard for you to conceive that you're actually part of the problem when you make everything about race. Bullshit propaganda like; systemic racism, internalized racism, the patriarchy, rape culture in the western world,... are all dividing schemes adding to further the gap between reasonable, logical people and the mindless idiots fighting against the realities of this world. I'm all for debates but logic, facts and statistics will ALWAYS have the better hand over close-minded, lazy intellectuals.

I honestly love your posts and always enjoy reading them in my lonely spare time. I'm so sorry I invaded your privacy, but I'd love to be friends with someone who could share such sensitive post content, which means you're a woman of integrity. I wanted to add you but sending you a friend request without your consent is inappropriate because I'm a public figure and it wouldn't take much either, I'd appreciate it if you send me a friend request now so we can be friends and text better here on KZfaq

What is your country and what is the event to which you are referring? Also, by the way, there is no pre-Lenin, "early Communism." The revolution was in October/November 1917, led by Lenin and Trotsky. Are you perhaps talking about actions prior to that, by the Tsar of Russia? The tsar wasn't a communist, nor does Putin want to "bring back" communism.

those three were successfull

Edward kirkhope "I am not religious, but I hate the attacks on religion that ignore all other factors. [...] the minute a tragedy takes place, the same imbeciles are all over the web, blaming a single religion". You're proving his point while attempting to smear him. Ignorance or dishonesty?

He's an Atheist

@@samuelvendemiaire6367 the 1st and 2nd world wars were fought between Christians.

Mark Dyer, being born in the Pakistani Punjab and educated in the fundamentals of Islam may not make Tariq an expert on theology and religion, but as far as Islam is concerned I'd be more incline to take his word than yours, particularly as he was educated in Islam in order to argue against it. You are straw-manning him as an apologist for Islam, which he obviously isn't. He's just irritated by the western tendency, which you show in spades, to demonize Islam, which is just as daft as idolizing it. I'd like you to take some time out from your glib dismissal of Islamic academic achievement and reflect on the fact that between the 9th and 13th centuries there was an immense flowering in astronomy, mathematics, physiology, zoology, medicine etc etc while Europeans weren't able to say that the earth was spherical and the church had a monopoly on learning.. There obviously isn't anything in Islam per se which prevents intellectual enquiry. I think you have to look to political, social, economical and historical factors for that. BTW which religions do you define as quasi-religions and why?

Mark Dyer the Muslim scientists did not just save Greco Roman knowledge but enhanced it and added to it and created new ones such as one that you use today such as algebra and chemistry which did not exist before them. Don't discount that.

You should perhaps read Orientalism by Edward Said. You may revise your position on 'Islam' in such as case.

Because you don't actually know what Islam is, neither do I. You make value judgements of a whole religion and culture of over a billion people from multiple continents and languages as a single political entity, when the reality is much more fluid. How can you have any sort of constructive debate if you reduce every Ill within the Islamic world to an issue with their religion and theology? It's like saying all Christians are homogenous and have the same beliefs and abilities. Just because you don't understand Islam, that doesn't make them less complex people than us with complex lives and goals... Moreover to conflate Salafi Jihadism with Islam is just complete naivety.

I'm not in fact and in doing so you actually disregard the many many many theological disputes between Salafi groups. One look at the complex exegesis and debates within Christianity would illuminate this fact. Not all muslims follow the Quran word for word just as no christian does, and there are multiple conflicting chapters regarding strenuous exegesis and debate, or the applicability of certain hadiths, ie. Sword verses have been disregarded by established institutions and imams. The 'perfect' interpretation, clearly is open to interpretation. No one see's protestantism as the perfect and final form of christianity so why are you so quick to judge the WHOLE OF ISLAM based on a literalist reading of the text? Religion is more than just the holy book, it's not hard to grasp, also doing so ignores how this form of terrorism is unique to this current epoch in history, so to make some essentialist claim on the Quran is obscurantist.

And so you will be too

@@XX-tq1oe if he's lucky.