Activists raided on "suspicion" of terrorism by FBI

[Cycloneman]

FBI cites terror link in raid of Minneapolis activists

The FBI raided the Minneapolis homes of five antiwar activists, including three leaders of the Twin Cities peace movement, Friday morning as part of what it called a probe of "activities concerning the material support of terrorism."

The Minneapolis office of an antiwar organization was also raided, protest leaders said. No one was arrested in any of the raids.

FBI spokesman Steve Warfield said the searches were conducted at about 7 a.m. Lawyers said the agents seized computers, cell phones and documents in the protesters' homes.

The federal search warrants in Minneapolis were related to an ongoing Joint Terrorism Task Force, Warfield said. He offered no details.

Protest leaders said the raids surprised them. Mick Kelly, whose home was searched, played a central role in the 2008 demonstrations at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Asked if he was involved in illegal activities, he replied, "Absolutely not.''

Ted Dooley, Kelly's attorney, called the raids "a probe into the political beliefs of American citizens and any organization anywhere that opposes the American imperial design." He said the warrants cited a federal law making it a violation to provide or conspire to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations.

The warrant for the raid on Kelly's apartment, in the 1800 block of Riverside Avenue, sought notebooks, address books, photos and maps of Kelly's travels to the Palestinian territories, Colombia and in the United States on behalf of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. It also sought materials on his personal finances and those of the group, on Kelly's "potential co-conspirators" and recruitment efforts for the group.

The warrant also sought any information about efforts to support FARC, a guerrilla organization in Colombia, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hezbollah, the political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon.

Other homes raided were those of Jessica Sundin, a leader of a large antiwar march on the GOP convention's opening day, and Meredith Aby, a frequent protest spokeswoman.

The FBI also raided the homes of two other Minneapolis activists and the Minneapolis office of the Anti-War Committee, which has sponsored many protests in the Twin Cities in the past decade, including at the GOP convention.

Subpoenas were issued to the activists to appear before a federal grand jury next month in Chicago. Raids also were conducted on two homes in Chicago, and grand jury subpoenas were issued in Michigan and North Carolina.

Searches seek travel data

Kelly said he hasn't traveled to Colombia or the Palestinian territories although he's been to Lebanon. "To me, this is harassment of antiwar activists and leaders who have spoken against U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Middle East."

The FBI also raided Sundin's apartment in the 2900 block of Park Avenue; Aby's home in the 3000 block of 14th Avenue S.; the apartment of Anh Pham in the 3400 block of Blaisdell Avenue, and the apartment of Tracy Molm in the 1700 block of 2nd Avenue S. Molm is an activist in Students for a Democratic Society; Pham is an antiwar activist.

Steff Yorek, an antiwar spokeswoman, said the Anti-War Committee offices at 1313 5th St. SE. also were raided.

Molm said she woke up to "federal agents pounding on the door. I was told to be seated on my couch and I had no rights to walk around the apartment and I was under an investigation for my connections with groups in other countries, particularly Palestine."

She said she went to the Palestinian territories in 2004 with an international solidarity delegation. She said she saw houses demolished without notice and people jailed without evidence. "I don't believe I've done anything illegal."

Sundin said, "They're targeting us because we've supported struggles for justice in other countries, and we oppose the U.S. government's military involvement in places like Colombia." She said she has traveled to Colombia, but has done nothing illegal.

Aby said the warrant she received also focused on the Anti-War Committee, how money was raised and how recruiting worked. She said she believed the raids were designed to intimidate the committee but "will be unsuccessful."

Attorney Bruce Nestor, who frequently represents the activists, said the FBI seemed to focus on allegations of support for foreign organizations designated as terrorist by executive order of the president.

"There is no process whereby you can contest the designation," he said. "Ever since these laws were passed in 1996, there is a concern that they reach so broadly as to certainly chill or intimidate people in speaking out on foreign policy or support for groups that oppose U.S. foreign policy."

Stephanie Weiner, a peace activist in Chicago, said about 20 FBI agents raided her house and took documents and photos, including one of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. "This is an injustice," she said.

In Chicago, the FBI raided a condo of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, said Tom Burke of the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera, a Colombian revolutionary imprisoned in Colorado. Burke, who was given a subpoena, said he is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, as are some other raid subjects.

Burke said the group "advocates for socialism in the U.S." and opposes U.S. military intervention abroad. "Chicago and Minneapolis are two of the places we are bigger," he said.

On Friday night, more than 100 people gathered at Walker Community United Methodist Church in Minneapolis to sign statements of solidarity with those whose homes were raided and to make plans for a protest at 4:30 p.m. Monday at FBI headquarters in Minneapolis.

"We refuse to let the accusations of a notoriously untruthful, repressive government divide us in any way," the statement said. "Our struggle will continue."

Change we can believe in, folks.

[Broomstick]

What, exactly, is your point?

It's not like the FBI is raiding the home of EVERY anti-war activist in the nation. It is not impossible to be an anti-war activist and to aid and abet an enemy. In fact, an anti-war organization could be a great cover for funneling money to terrorists. It would be no different that al-Qaeda using a charity as cover, which they have, or the Saudi Wahhabis spreading their poison under the guise of "education" and schools that preach hate.

Yes, it is possible that these are innocent people being harassed by the FBI. It is also possible they are assisting anti-US terrorists. There is something that seems "off" about their side of the story to me, and I've spent some time pondering the matter. I don't exactly trust the US government, but I know have a knee-jerk response of the "Feds are evil", either. You hear ONLY the side of the accused here, nothing else. This story is far too slanted to draw a conclusion from it.

[Broomstick]

I do, however, want to point out something - this is all I have time to research at the moment, but it's an illustration of what I mean by "off" with these people:

In Chicago, the FBI raided a condo of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, said Tom Burke of the National Committee to Free Ricardo Palmera, a Colombian revolutionary imprisoned in Colorado. Burke, who was given a subpoena, said he is a member of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, as are some other raid subjects.

Burke said the group "advocates for socialism in the U.S." and opposes U.S. military intervention abroad. "Chicago and Minneapolis are two of the places we are bigger," he said.

The key here is the "Freedom Road Socialist Organization" - which, yes, is anti Gulf War and anti-war in Afghanistan but they are unapologetic Marxist-Leninist Communists who advocate revolution, as in armed and bloody. One of their goals is so-called "self-determination" of blacks and Hispanics, to be accomplished by fracturing the US into three nations - the south becoming an all-black communist nation, the "Spanish west" (which I gather would be Texas/Arizona/Nevada/California/etc.) becoming an all-Hispanic communist nation and... well, I don't know what they have in mind for what's left over. Anyhow, I don't know ANY government with a great deal of tolerance for folks advocating revolution and breaking up of a country, do you? Is it really a surprise that the FBI would keep an eye on such a group? Is such scrutiny unjustified?

As for Ricardo Palmera, the gentleman Mr. Burke wants freed - he, too, is a communist who not only advocates armed revolution he actually participated in it as a member of FARC. Among other such charming things he's been involved with are kidnapping for fun and profit, murder, assassination of a government minister, and threatening Columbian military troops trying to enforce order in the region he operated in. He's been quoted as saying international laws on human rights are a "bourgeois concept", which I gather is communist for "bullshit". He's not a nice guy, OK? Granted, a supermax prison sucks incredibly big time and is arguably inhumane, I still don't think he's a guy who should be set free.

So.. you've got "anti-war activists" associated with known communist revolutionaries with the stated goal of fracturing the US into at least three pieces, and who apparently haven't ruled out killing people to get their way. Does this change your view of what going on here?

[Cycloneman]

So.. you've got "anti-war activists" associated with known communist revolutionaries with the stated goal of fracturing the US into at least three pieces, and who apparently haven't ruled out killing people to get their way. Does this change your view of what going on here?

I like the quotes around "anti-war activists," as though a cohesive world view which results in anti-war activism means that you're not actually an anti-war activist (if the cohesive world view is one which you disagree with, naturally). Exactly what is the criteria for being an anti-war activist, if it is not engaging in anti-war activism?

As to the rest, no, it does not change my view of what is going on here. Harassment of opposition is still harassment of opposition, no matter if they want to subdivide the United States into three pieces that have the right to secede or fifty.

[Broomstick]

"Anti-war" implies you are against war in general. These people are not opposed to war, they promote it. Now, if they were holding out as anti IRAQ war as a specific it would be accurate, but without qualification stating that you are an "anti-war activist" when really you pick and choose which wars to be against and which to support is nothing more than a lie.

I will also remind you that the question of whether or not a part of the United States has a right to secede by force of arms was settled in 1865. And the answer is "no". So you are in grave error by saying that any part of the US has a "right" to secede. Also, there is the detail of, if they did have their way, what would happen to all the non-blacks in BlackUtopia and all the non-Hispanics in MexiTopia or whatever the hell they'd call these fragments. Will it be the mass displacement of millions, second class citizenship, or maybe genocide? Seriously, what about the rights of THOSE people?

And finally, these people are advocating the dismantling of a sovereign nation. If they are America citizens taking action on that view is treason, which is an actual crime. If they are not American citizens then by advocating the destruction of the United States they are, indeed, an enemy of that nation.

"Oppression of the opposition", huh? What you are saying is the US has no right to protect itself from those who seek to destroy it. Are you fucking stupid or something? Self defense - of either an individual or a nation - is a basic, basic right.

If Marxists were in charge being suspected of wrong thinking would have you imprisoned, if not summarily shot in a back alley. None of that has happened. In fact, they haven't even been detained, they're still at home. They are being called in front of a grand jury, not chucked into a dungeon. Due process, what a concept. Pity that's not the usual methods of the people Freedom Road Socialist Organization admires. These are people who think Stalin and his purges and Mao and his Cultural Revolution were just fine and dandy.

Well, I am a believer in free speech. You're free to support people who subscribe to a discredited governmental system, and I suppose you're free to say you hate the US enough you wouldn't mind seeing it fractured into pieces. I am also free to say I think you're mistaken. No, sorry, that's too mild a word. I think you're damned wrong to support people who seek to release kidnappers and murderers, and who advocate slaughtering people who won't believe as they do. That is, after all, a major difference between me and these scum - I'll let you be wrong. They'll do whatever they can to convince they are absolutely right, even if their methods might wind up killing you.

I know which side I'd choose - but if you want to skip down the merry road to hell that is your problem.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Change we can believe in, folks.

The government had signed search warrants which means that they supposedly had probable cause. I don't see the problem with this? They followed the law. They didn't use the patriot act and engage in warrant-less searches of these peoples homes. They didn't bust down doors with heavily armed SWAT teams, which seems to be a sore spot here.

EDIT - Also, if Broomsticks summary of those who these people support is accurate...they deserve to all be imprisoned for treason for a very long time.

[SVPD]

So.. you've got "anti-war activists" associated with known communist revolutionaries with the stated goal of fracturing the US into at least three pieces, and who apparently haven't ruled out killing people to get their way. Does this change your view of what going on here?

I like the quotes around "anti-war activists," as though a cohesive world view which results in anti-war activism means that you're not actually an anti-war activist (if the cohesive world view is one which you disagree with, naturally). Exactly what is the criteria for being an anti-war activist, if it is not engaging in anti-war activism?

As to the rest, no, it does not change my view of what is going on here. Harassment of opposition is still harassment of opposition, no matter if they want to subdivide the United States into three pieces that have the right to secede or fifty.

Seeing as how they had a warrant, maybe you can explain how this is harrassment of the opposition? Warrants are issued by the courts upon demonstration of probable cause.

[Cycloneman]

"Anti-war" implies you are against war in general. These people are not opposed to war, they promote it. Now, if they were holding out as anti IRAQ war as a specific it would be accurate, but without qualification stating that you are an "anti-war activist" when really you pick and choose which wars to be against and which to support is nothing more than a lie.

You're being idiotic with your use of the term "anti-war activist." In 1919, 90% of the membership of the Socialist Party of America voted to join the Communist International, which advocated the violent overthrow of capitalist governments worldwide. Does that mean that the Socialist Party of America was not anti-war in its opposition to WW1? With such a stringent definition of "anti-war," no one except a radical pacifist can possibly, ever, be considered anti-war, and the term becomes something bad if you twist it that much (someone who is willing to fight a defensive war could not be anti-war under this definition).

I will also remind you that the question of whether or not a part of the United States has a right to secede by force of arms was settled in 1865. And the answer is "no". So you are in grave error by saying that any part of the US has a "right" to secede.

And I'll remind you that plenty of people want to change that to this day. Are we going to start raiding the homes of Republicans? Of course not, because Obama is one.

Also, there is the detail of, if they did have their way, what would happen to all the non-blacks in BlackUtopia and all the non-Hispanics in MexiTopia or whatever the hell they'd call these fragments. Will it be the mass displacement of millions, second class citizenship, or maybe genocide? Seriously, what about the rights of THOSE people?

What happened to all the Russians in the Ukraine, Caucuses and Belarus when the Bolsheviks took charge? What about the Han Chinese in Manchuria and Tibet? GENOCIDE???

And finally, these people are advocating the dismantling of a sovereign nation. If they are America citizens taking action on that view is treason, which is an actual crime. If they are not American citizens then by advocating the destruction of the United States they are, indeed, an enemy of that nation.

So you have evidence that they are taking action on that view? Ah, of course not.

"Oppression of the opposition", huh? What you are saying is the US has no right to protect itself from those who seek to destroy it. Are you fucking stupid or something? Self defense - of either an individual or a nation - is a basic, basic right.

I agree, the Nazi Party's suppression of political opposition (some of which was willing to use force *gasp*) by force was completely justified.

If Marxists were in charge being suspected of wrong thinking would have you imprisoned, if not summarily shot in a back alley. None of that has happened. In fact, they haven't even been detained, they're still at home. They are being called in front of a grand jury, not chucked into a dungeon. Due process, what a concept. Pity that's not the usual methods of the people Freedom Road Socialist Organization admires. These are people who think Stalin and his purges and Mao and his Cultural Revolution were just fine and dandy.

Now this you're going to have to cite, because I really fucking doubt that FRSO actually believes that the Great Purge was a good thing.

I think you're damned wrong to support people who seek to release kidnappers and murderers, and who advocate slaughtering people who won't believe as they do. That is, after all, a major difference between me and these scum - I'll let you be wrong. They'll do whatever they can to convince they are absolutely right, even if their methods might wind up killing you.

That's nice. Do you have any evidence that the FRSO will "slaughter" me if I disagree with them? Or is it just as made up as your claim that they support the Great Purge?

The government had signed search warrants which means that they supposedly had probable cause.

And the warrant for Michael Kelly includes the demand for information related to "the recruitment, indoctrination, and facilitation of other individuals in the United States to join the FRSO." Is that a crime now?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The government had signed search warrants which means that they supposedly had probable cause.

And the warrant for Michael Kelly includes the demand for information related to "the recruitment, indoctrination, and facilitation of other individuals in the United States to join the FRSO." Is that a crime now?

If they have probable cause that this organization is supporting a terrorist organization, what do you think? Yes, it is a crime to support terrorists...duh.

[Broomstick]

EDIT - Also, if Broomsticks summary of those who these people support is accurate...they deserve to all be imprisoned for treason for a very long time.

I hasten to add that whether or not these people served supeonas were complicit or not is yet to be determined by the grand jury. It is possible some or even all of them are innocents who thought they were supporting a good cause, or were lied to, or perhaps espousing views in opposition to the government (which is legal) but NOT sending money to terrorists or enemies of the state (which is illegal).

Rather like those people in that Haitian orphan dust-up - all but one of them was cleared of all charges and let go after an investigation, only the woman organizing the trip was charged - with, among other things, defrauding the others in the group.

This is a legal investigation being legally performed. Just because the FBI knocks on your door and wants to talk to you doesn't mean you're going to disappear into a gulag. Hell, we had them show up at our place once about 20 years ago while they were investigating a crime - seems the crooks bought parts at a particular Radio Shack, so everyone who was a customer who bought those particular items got a visit. Including us. I can't say it was a pleasant visit, but it's actually their job to ask questions and that's how they catch actual bad guys.

I'm just as distrustful of the US government as any other citizen, but holy shit, I don't subscribe to the level of paranoia that decrees everything the Feds do is automatically wrong. That's tinfoil hat land.

[Broomstick]

"Anti-war" implies you are against war in general. These people are not opposed to war, they promote it. Now, if they were holding out as anti IRAQ war as a specific it would be accurate, but without qualification stating that you are an "anti-war activist" when really you pick and choose which wars to be against and which to support is nothing more than a lie.

You're being idiotic with your use of the term "anti-war activist." In 1919, 90% of the membership of the Socialist Party of America voted to join the Communist International, which advocated the violent overthrow of capitalist governments worldwide. Does that mean that the Socialist Party of America was not anti-war in its opposition to WW1? With such a stringent definition of "anti-war," no one except a radical pacifist can possibly, ever, be considered anti-war, and the term becomes something bad if you twist it that much (someone who is willing to fight a defensive war could not be anti-war under this definition).

"Anti-war" means just that - you are against war. Period. Yes, I suppose you could call that "radical pacifist" if you want.

As an illustation - I was opposed to starting the current Iraq War, and thus Anti-Iraq war, but I am NOT opposed to all wars and thus I can not truthfully say that I am "anti war" even if I am against MOST wars.

It is entirely legal to oppose a particular war, or all wars, or just some wars and not other wars, in this country, even to the point of marching through the streets yelling slogans and carrying signs saying "This nation is run by idiots and jackasses". That is NOT what these people are accused of doing, although that's clearly what they'd like you to think. They are not accused of being in opposition to the Iraq war. They are not even accused of secession and advocating the violent overthrow of the current US government those arguably they might, in fact, be doing that because, believe or not, the government and courts in this country do allow amazing leeway in regards to free speech and dissenting viewpoints. They are accused of aiding, supporting, and sending money to terrorists opposed to the US. Those are not words, or viewpoints, they are actions. Actions that may be detrimental to US citizens or the nation as a whole.

If you still can't understand the distinction then you are so stupid as to make most lumps of gravel look intelligent.

I will also remind you that the question of whether or not a part of the United States has a right to secede by force of arms was settled in 1865. And the answer is "no". So you are in grave error by saying that any part of the US has a "right" to secede.

And I'll remind you that plenty of people want to change that to this day.

They are allowed to hold that view. They are even allowed to say they think this would be a better place to live if the Confederates had won their freedom. They are not, however, allowed to raise up a small army, gather funds, and attack anyone.

Their views are not illegal. Acting on them, to bring about a fracturing of the US, that would be illegal.

Are we going to start raiding the homes of Republicans? Of course not, because Obama is one.

What. The. Fuck?

Look, you ignorant cocksucking piece of shit, you're slamming out horseshit through that keyboard. Put down that crackpipe full of whatever you're smoking. Either provide proof that Obama is a member of the Republican Party (Ha! Good luck with that!) or face the consequences.

Also, there is the detail of, if they did have their way, what would happen to all the non-blacks in BlackUtopia and all the non-Hispanics in MexiTopia or whatever the hell they'd call these fragments. Will it be the mass displacement of millions, second class citizenship, or maybe genocide? Seriously, what about the rights of THOSE people?

What happened to all the Russians in the Ukraine, Caucuses and Belarus when the Bolsheviks took charge? What about the Han Chinese in Manchuria and Tibet? GENOCIDE???

Hey, dumbshit - sorry, that's an insult to shit - HEY IDIOT!

The Bolsheviks were Russians, largely, and when not Russia were their allies. It's like asking "What happened to the Germans in Poland when the Nazis invaded?" They did just fine. You've got the whole matter entirely assbackward.

As for the Han Chinese in Tibet - same thing, you're all back to front. It's the Han who invaded, not the Tibetans who took over. It's like saying "Hey, what happened to the white folks when the Europeans invaded North America?" They did just fine - it was everybody else who suffered.

And finally, these people are advocating the dismantling of a sovereign nation. If they are America citizens taking action on that view is treason, which is an actual crime. If they are not American citizens then by advocating the destruction of the United States they are, indeed, an enemy of that nation.

So you have evidence that they are taking action on that view? Ah, of course not.

No, I don't try to do the job of the police or the FBI. I don't try to be a doctor when I'm not one, nor do I portray myself to be other things I am not, such as astronaut or scuba diver.

Determining whether or not these people are breaking the law is the role of the FBI and the courts. See as they were openly served ordinary warrants that require probable cause and the approval of a judge I don't see this as any different from any other instance where a potential - not PROVEN, just POTENTIAL - crime is being investigated.

"Oppression of the opposition", huh? What you are saying is the US has no right to protect itself from those who seek to destroy it. Are you fucking stupid or something? Self defense - of either an individual or a nation - is a basic, basic right.

I agree, the Nazi Party's suppression of political opposition (some of which was willing to use force *gasp*) by force was completely justified.

Seeing as the Nazis usurped a democratic government and never actually WON an election it could be argued they were not a legitimate government. In any case, as I pointed out, the people recently served by the FBI were not whisked away at midnight to be shot behind their homes and either left in an alley or buried by dawn.

I'm sorry you are too mentally deficient to comprehend the difference between the methods used by the Nazis and those used by the FBI. I am also sorry that you are allowed close enough to a keyboard to vomit your nonesense over the internet. On the other hand, I am compelled to defend your right to speak, even as I mock and shoot down your viewpoint.

If Marxists were in charge being suspected of wrong thinking would have you imprisoned, if not summarily shot in a back alley. None of that has happened. In fact, they haven't even been detained, they're still at home. They are being called in front of a grand jury, not chucked into a dungeon. Due process, what a concept. Pity that's not the usual methods of the people Freedom Road Socialist Organization admires. These are people who think Stalin and his purges and Mao and his Cultural Revolution were just fine and dandy.

Now this you're going to have to cite, because I really fucking doubt that FRSO actually believes that the Great Purge was a good thing.

Why? Because that means you'll have to re-examine your view that there is nothing quite so evil as the US government? Because it will make you feel bad and upset your tummy?

I don't really care to dredge through the FRSO sites (yes, multiple - there are two groups claiming the name - they used to be one, but split), not the least because I have to shortly go out an appease my capitalist opressors by doing some actual work this afternoon. I think I've made sufficient points to show that the FBI aren't simply opressing the poor, peace-loving hippies but may - MAY - have an actual link between these people and some very bad people who wish us harm.

Oh, sorry about the "hippies thing" - having a flashback to the 1960's there. A time period I actualy do have some memories of, back when the FBI really was harrassing innocents. Unlike yourself, I'm sure. At least, I hope someone old enough to remember the 60's isn't as ignorant as yourself.

I think you're damned wrong to support people who seek to release kidnappers and murderers, and who advocate slaughtering people who won't believe as they do. That is, after all, a major difference between me and these scum - I'll let you be wrong. They'll do whatever they can to convince they are absolutely right, even if their methods might wind up killing you.

That's nice. Do you have any evidence that the FRSO will "slaughter" me if I disagree with them? Or is it just as made up as your claim that they support the Great Purge?

I guess you skipped over the other possible alternatives, didn't you? Nice distortion tactics. Sort of like people who advocate violent revolution and yet say they're "anti-war" and "peace activists".

They're Marxists. Historically, Marxists have not tolerated dissenting viewpoints. Methods have included imprisonment, torture, exile, mental institutions, and yes, slaughter. This is all historical record. Why should I expect these particular Marxists to be any different?

The government had signed search warrants which means that they supposedly had probable cause.

And the warrant for Michael Kelly includes the demand for information related to "the recruitment, indoctrination, and facilitation of other individuals in the United States to join the FRSO." Is that a crime now?

It might be - if the FBI can prove the FRSO is planning terrorist activities, or supporting terrorists, or supporting who are actually taking steps to ACT against the US - then yes, that IS a crime. Just as recruiting for Al Qaeda would be a crime.

[Cycloneman]

"Anti-war" means just that - you are against war. Period. Yes, I suppose you could call that "radical pacifist" if you want.

As an illustation - I was opposed to starting the current Iraq War, and thus Anti-Iraq war, but I am NOT opposed to all wars and thus I can not truthfully say that I am "anti war" even if I am against MOST wars.

If one defines anti-war so stringently, it becomes a useless term that no one would ever use. Answers.org defines antiwar as "Opposed to war or to a particular war," Wikipedia has a similar but longer definition, etc. Whoops, turns out commies are anti-war after all.

It is entirely legal to oppose a particular war, or all wars, or just some wars and not other wars, in this country, even to the point of marching through the streets yelling slogans and carrying signs saying "This nation is run by idiots and jackasses". That is NOT what these people are accused of doing, although that's clearly what they'd like you to think. They are not accused of being in opposition to the Iraq war. They are not even accused of secession and advocating the violent overthrow of the current US government those arguably they might, in fact, be doing that because, believe or not, the government and courts in this country do allow amazing leeway in regards to free speech and dissenting viewpoints. They are accused of aiding, supporting, and sending money to terrorists opposed to the US. Those are not words, or viewpoints, they are actions. Actions that may be detrimental to US citizens or the nation as a whole.

If you still can't understand the distinction then you are so stupid as to make most lumps of gravel look intelligent.

And? What's your point? The people who were persecuted during the McCarthy Era were accused of being communists, which apparently from your viewpoint is a crime. Does that mean they were communists, or that suspicion of communism was the reason they were accused?

What. The. Fuck?

Look, you ignorant cocksucking piece of shit, you're slamming out horseshit through that keyboard. Put down that crackpipe full of whatever you're smoking. Either provide proof that Obama is a member of the Republican Party (Ha! Good luck with that!) or face the consequences.

It was a joke, Jesus Christ you stupid motherfucker.

Hey, dumbshit - sorry, that's an insult to shit - HEY IDIOT!

The Bolsheviks were Russians, largely, and when not Russia were their allies. It's like asking "What happened to the Germans in Poland when the Nazis invaded?" They did just fine. You've got the whole matter entirely assbackward.

You are the one who has the entire matter ass-backwards. Perhaps you could reread some previous posts, where you claim that the desire of the FRSO to subdivide the USA into multiple states with the right to secession on the basis of ethnic boundaries necessarily requires deportation or genocide? One of the very first things the Bolsheviks did was form a union state between Russia Belarus, the Ukraine and Transcaucasia, which guaranteed the right of each constituent state to secede. There was no genocide or mass deportations.

No, I don't try to do the job of the police or the FBI. I don't try to be a doctor when I'm not one, nor do I portray myself to be other things I am not, such as astronaut or scuba diver.

Determining whether or not these people are breaking the law is the role of the FBI and the courts. See as they were openly served ordinary warrants that require probable cause and the approval of a judge I don't see this as any different from any other instance where a potential - not PROVEN, just POTENTIAL - crime is being investigated.

The FBI has not even accused them of attempting to organize the violent overthrow of the government, you dumbass crypto-fascist.

Seeing as the Nazis usurped a democratic government and never actually WON an election it could be argued they were not a legitimate government.

Actually, the Nazis and their parliamentary allies got over 50% of the vote in the March 1933 election. They were the largest party in 1932, etc.

In any case, as I pointed out, the people recently served by the FBI were not whisked away at midnight to be shot behind their homes and either left in an alley or buried by dawn.

I'm sorry you are too mentally deficient to comprehend the difference between the methods used by the Nazis and those used by the FBI. I am also sorry that you are allowed close enough to a keyboard to vomit your nonesense over the internet. On the other hand, I am compelled to defend your right to speak, even as I mock and shoot down your viewpoint.

I am sorry that you are too mentally deficient to comprehend your own points. YOUR POINT is that the state has the right to "defend" itself by using force. I was making the point that no, it does not inherently have that "right" (except in the sense that it can). You have specifically stated that you believe that the state is allowed to defend itself. Well, Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a state which was attacked (sometimes violently!) from within by opposition groups. Does that make those opposition groups wrong, or Germany's suppression of them right?

Why? Because that means you'll have to re-examine your view that there is nothing quite so evil as the US government? Because it will make you feel bad and upset your tummy?

No, because they do not actually do that and you've come up with a fictionalized version of a political party because it makes a more convenient punching bag.

I guess you skipped over the other possible alternatives, didn't you? Nice distortion tactics. Sort of like people who advocate violent revolution and yet say they're "anti-war" and "peace activists".

They're Marxists. Historically, Marxists have not tolerated dissenting viewpoints. Methods have included imprisonment, torture, exile, mental institutions, and yes, slaughter. This is all historical record. Why should I expect these particular Marxists to be any different?

Of course, we get this result. Historically, Marxists have also not committed random fucking genocides for no apparent reason, yet that hasn't prevented you from making the nonsensical argument that the FRSO's three-state subdivision of the USA would require genocide, deportation or second-class citizenship of non-dominant ethnicities within the ethnic republics, even though none of this ever happened in any actual Marxist country.

Beyond which, I could point to dozens of situations where Marxists did, in fact, tolerate dissenting viewpoints. The political alliance between the Bolsheviks and Left-SRs was an alliance between Marxist-Leninists and people who dissented with them (until the latter decided shooting German ambassadors was a good idea and walked out of the government). The overthrow of Khruschev in 1964 relied completely on the development of dissenting viewpoints within the CPSU, and the overthrow of Gorbachev in 1991 relied completely on the development of dissenting viewpoints within the Soviet Union. It was communists who allowed dissent to emerge in Hungary in 1953 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and it was communists who allowed Solidarity to develop in Poland. Or how about the coalition government in France post-WW2, which communists lead? I could go on, but I don't particularly care to.

[xt828]

Actually, the Nazis and their parliamentary allies got over 50% of the vote in the March 1933 election. They were the largest party in 1932, etc.

That'd be the election after the Reichstag fire and the arrest of leading Communist Party figures and the flight of the Social Democrat leadership to Prague for fear of the same happening to them, and the election was "monitored" by fifty thousand SS, SA and Stahlhelm overseers. I wouldn't be jumping to use that one as an example of a fair election - it's reasonable to say that at that point the Nazis had already seized power, and the election was a post facto legitimisation tactic. In any case, Hitler still failed to win a significant enough majority in his own right, needing the DNVP to take power and additionally needing Zentrum to pass his Enabling Act.

[Broomstick]

"Anti-war" means just that - you are against war. Period. Yes, I suppose you could call that "radical pacifist" if you want.
As an illustation - I was opposed to starting the current Iraq War, and thus Anti-Iraq war, but I am NOT opposed to all wars and thus I can not truthfully say that I am "anti war" even if I am against MOST wars.

If one defines anti-war so stringently, it becomes a useless term that no one would ever use.

The Quakers and Amish use such a definition. Therefore your statement that "no one" would ever meet that criterion is, like so much you say, in error.

Answers.org defines antiwar as "Opposed to war or to a particular war," Wikipedia has a similar but longer definition, etc. Whoops, turns out commies are anti-war after all.

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source in a debate. I also reject this "Answers.org" since as a website run by evangelical Christians I can not trust it to be rational or to give answers without a religious agenda. Why would you go to those sites instead of a simple dictionary?

And? What's your point? The people who were persecuted during the McCarthy Era were accused of being communists, which apparently from your viewpoint is a crime. Does that mean they were communists, or that suspicion of communism was the reason they were accused?

Yes, suspicion of communism was why they were accused - you DO know the difference between accusation and conviction, don't you?

As for communism being a crime - it's not a crime to be a communist, it IS, however, a crime to work towards the violent overthrow of the government. As it happens, that does overlap with some communists. Also with some other groups.

What. The. Fuck?

Look, you ignorant cocksucking piece of shit, you're slamming out horseshit through that keyboard. Put down that crackpipe full of whatever you're smoking. Either provide proof that Obama is a member of the Republican Party (Ha! Good luck with that!) or face the consequences.

It was a joke, Jesus Christ you stupid motherfucker.

Then put a smiley after it or otherwise make it clear that it's not yet another one of your insanities.

The Bolsheviks were Russians, largely, and when not Russia were their allies. It's like asking "What happened to the Germans in Poland when the Nazis invaded?" They did just fine. You've got the whole matter entirely assbackward.

You are the one who has the entire matter ass-backwards. Perhaps you could reread some previous posts, where you claim that the desire of the FRSO to subdivide the USA into multiple states with the right to secession on the basis of ethnic boundaries necessarily requires deportation or genocide? One of the very first things the Bolsheviks did was form a union state between Russia Belarus, the Ukraine and Transcaucasia, which guaranteed the right of each constituent state to secede. There was no genocide or mass deportations.

Yeah, right, the right to secede - on paper. When Czechoslovakia tried it in 1968 Brezhnev send tanks to force them to stay in the eastern bloc. Given that, no one but an idiot could possibly believe that Belarus, the Ukraine, or Transcaucasia could actually secede from anything.

As for your assurance that there no genocides - what about Stalin's purges? No mass deportations? What about all those sent to the gulags? The Chinese forcing the urban people to move to the rural countryside? The Khmer Rouge emptying the cites of Cambodia? The fact that this was based on perceived political allegiance rather than ethnicity makes those people no less dead and their lives no less wasted.

No, I don't try to do the job of the police or the FBI. I don't try to be a doctor when I'm not one, nor do I portray myself to be other things I am not, such as astronaut or scuba diver.

Determining whether or not these people are breaking the law is the role of the FBI and the courts. See as they were openly served ordinary warrants that require probable cause and the approval of a judge I don't see this as any different from any other instance where a potential - not PROVEN, just POTENTIAL - crime is being investigated.

The FBI has not even accused them of attempting to organize the violent overthrow of the government, you dumbass crypto-fascist.

"Crypto-fascist"? Been watching too much Red Dwarf lately?

Actually, I haven't read the exact text of the FBI's reason for requesting the warrants, and neither have you. In any case, the FRSO does, in fact, advocate destroying the present US and if those who are members of it are taking action to bring that about they are, in fact, committing a crime. In order to prove that is or is not taking place there must be an investigation. I fail to see why you do not understand this. The FBI had enough probable cause to get a warrant, the Grand Jury will review the results, and they will determine if the case is to go forward. If it does, it will not be the FBI vs. these folks, it will be the US government against these folks.

Get out of your mom's basement occasionally so you can learn how the adult world works.

Seeing as the Nazis usurped a democratic government and never actually WON an election it could be argued they were not a legitimate government.

Actually, the Nazis and their parliamentary allies got over 50% of the vote in the March 1933 election. They were the largest party in 1932, etc

Ably refuted by xt828 (thank you). That was no more a real election than that farce Saddam Hussein held where he got 100% of the vote - of course, he was the only candidate and there was no secret ballot in that case. Rigged elections don't count.

I YOUR POINT is that the state has the right to "defend" itself by using force.

Correct. I'm glad that finally penetrated your skull.

I was making the point that no, it does not inherently have that "right" (except in the sense that it can). You have specifically stated that you believe that the state is allowed to defend itself. Well, Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a state which was attacked (sometimes violently!) from within by opposition groups. Does that make those opposition groups wrong, or Germany's suppression of them right?

You're trying to say we were evil for fighting the Nazis?

These days Nazi Germany would be described as a criminal regime for genocide and various other war crimes - REAL war crimes, not what gets bandied about these days as "war crimes" which are most often friendly fire or mistakes, not pre-meditated destruction of civilians.

It's like asking if a serial killer has right to defend himself - yes, actually, he does have such a right, both physically and legally. That makes him no less a criminal, and it doesn't make those who oppose him and try to stop him evil or "oppressive". Those Europeans who fought the Nazis did so to defend themselves from death or slavery. We got involved in WWII because the Japanese attacked us, and the Nazis were Japanese allies. Also, the Nazis were attacking our Allies in Europe. This is why it was called a "world" war, because so many people wound up fighting each other for interconnected reasons.

Why? Because that means you'll have to re-examine your view that there is nothing quite so evil as the US government? Because it will make you feel bad and upset your tummy?

No, because they do not actually do that and you've come up with a fictionalized version of a political party because it makes a more convenient punching bag.

FSRO does, in fact, support FARC which does in fact want to violently overthrow the Columbian government.

FSRO does, in fact, want the release of a muderer, kidnapper, and violent revolutionary.

FSRO does, in fact, advocate dividing the United States into three or more nations and approves the use of violence to do so, and doesn't give a flying fuck what the majority of people in the US may or may not want, they feel they're correct even if their a tiny minority.

This isn't fictional, it's based on facts, their own actions and their own words. Theirs, not mine.

Of course, we get this result. Historically, Marxists have also not committed random fucking genocides for no apparent reason, yet that hasn't prevented you from making the nonsensical argument that the FRSO's three-state subdivision of the USA would require genocide, deportation or second-class citizenship of non-dominant ethnicities within the ethnic republics, even though none of this ever happened in any actual Marxist country.

I didn't say all that was required, I was asking if that's what would happen.

But, seriously - do you honestly think the south, with its nuggets of pro-Conferedate good ol' boys, would peaceably become a one-party nation (because that's what FSRO wants) by and for blacks (because that's what FSRO wants) without a bloodbath? And in a one-party system if you aren't in the party you're dirt. And since the party will be based on ethnicity anyone who isn't black won't be able to join - not just the whites but all those Vietnamese fisherman down in the Gulf, the Hispanics, the Natives who still live there...

And in SpanishLand the same will apply, only the favored group will be Hispanics - sucks to be anything else.

They're advocating racial apartheid, one-party systems, communism, and the use of violence to get their way. And yet you defend them. Why?

Beyond which, I could point to dozens of situations where Marxists did, in fact, tolerate dissenting viewpoints.

Bullshit. Divisions among Marxists don't count. The USSR was a one-party system, as is China, as is every other remaining communist country. There may be dissent within the party among the elite, but NONE is permitted elsewhere.

Here's the point: During the Cold War the US did, in fact, have a Communist Party. And a Socialist Party. God help us, we even have a Nazi Party in some places.... but in all those communist countries, where were the Democratic Parties? The Royalist/Tsarist/Imperial parties? No real, genuine opposition parties are ever permitted.

Meanwhile the US has two separate dominant political parties battling it out continuously, plus a handful of smaller ones that have local importance (in my area we have, in addition to Democrats and Republicans, the Greens, the Socialists, the Libertarians, the LaRouche (occasionally) and, in Chicago proper, the Harold Washington party). Other democracies have even more parties than that. None of those other parties would ever be permitted in a communist country.

It was communists who allowed dissent to emerge in Hungary in 1953 and Czechoslovakia in 1968

And, as I pointed out, that dissent in Czechslovakia was crushed by actual, real-life TANKS. Yeah, tolerance. It doesn't exist in Communist countries.

How about the Chinese running over unarmed, peacefully demonstrating college students with tanks in Tienanmen Square in 1989? Oh, and having the army shoot on the medical people going to help the wounded, nice touch, that.

Tolerance that allows dissent for a brief time then brutally crushes it is no tolerance at all.

[Bottlestein]

[
And, as I pointed out, that dissent in Czechslovakia was crushed by actual, real-life TANKS. Yeah, tolerance. It doesn't exist in Communist countries.

The CSSR was "Communist" before Brezhnev's invasion. It was in fact this act that started the "2nd fracturing" of the Eastern Bloc since it was the invasion of a Communist nation by another Communist nation. This is what caused fractures between Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, and cause political upheavals in the DDR.

You should be easily able to take apart Cycloneman's defense of the FRSO without claiming things that you are ignorant of.

[Liberty]

I'm only going to jump in here to make two points real quick:

1. There is a difference between the ideal of communism and the way it actually played out in the Soviet Union, China, etc. None of these countries actually lived up to the ideal. You can't simply say communism is evil because Stalin, Mao, etc.

2. There is also a difference between the beliefs of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, etc. Marx (if I remember correctly from class) did not approve of oppressing dissent, but Lenin did, and then Stalin took those ideas further. Marxism is not the same thing as Leninism.

[Akhlut]

In addition to Liberty's point, it'd also be helpful to remember that the USSR's actions were comprable to the US's actions at the time as well; neither acted according to idealism, but according to realpolitick machinations. While the USSR was often a bit more heavy-handed with its own citizens, the US was little better, and often jailed or had extrajudicial killings of its own citizens who were politically unorthodox (for instance, it is well known that the FBI and CIA worked diligently to counteract MLK's influence, and have been implicated in the deaths of many Civil Rights organizers as well as supporting terrorist organizations like the Klan, as well as overthrowing sovereign governments in Central and South America because of how their free and fair elections turned out).

So, I'm a little reserved on saying anything about this case in particular. While the FBI had warrants on these men, that in and of itself is not particularly indicative of much, as they also had warrants on MLK. Also, I couldn't find much on the FRSO.org website about advocating armed revolution, but, then again, I couldn't find much beyond general statements about things. Thus, I can't really conclude anything, given that the US has been rather happy to jail Socialists and Communists, regardless of how willing to commit armed insurrection they are, since Woodrow Wilson was in office; they support FARC-EP, so they might be involved in things that aren't so nice. As I said, hard to really say anything in particular without more knowledge.

But, my main point still stands: while one can certainly criticize a number of Communist nations and groups, that doesn't mean one can instantly conclude that the US government is arresting these men because they actually are a threat, given the US's past history of brutally repressing those who are not politically correct. Without more information, it is difficult to make a decent conclusion on the matter.

[Kanastrous]

You can fairly and accurately state that the reality of state Communism is an evil, and a deadly one at that based upon the historical record.

The loveliness of Communism on paper counts for nothing, at all. We don't exist in an idealized paper world wherein all systems work precisely as envisioned by their creators (who in fact had zero political or leadership experience and therefore can't even have been expected to grasp the implications of the systems they proposed). So however nice one might think the ideals of Communism might be those ideals are damned irrelevant.

And that's not even tackling how distinctly un-lovely even theoretical state Communism looks, from a viewpoint that doesn't find its conceptions particularly sound.

[Samuel]

Technically it is only one party state communists that have been a problem- communist groups that have been members of democratic governments have not been so bloody.

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source in a debate. I also reject this "Answers.org" since as a website run by evangelical Christians I can not trust it to be rational or to give answers without a religious agenda. Why would you go to those sites instead of a simple dictionary?

Because they are the first two links? Because your definition means that no member of this forum could count as antiwar because they would have supported the government during the second world war?

As for your assurance that there no genocides - what about Stalin's purges?

Stalin's purges were against internal opposition in the communist party and government. The closest they had was forced relocation of ethnic minorities that had questionable loyalty and the killings during the civil war.

The Chinese forcing the urban people to move to the rural countryside?

During the culutral revolution? That wasn't to kill people but to make them closer to the peasents (Mao was a nut).

Given that, no one but an idiot could possibly believe that Belarus, the Ukraine, or Transcaucasia could actually secede from anything.

Except they did secede from the Soviet Union peacefully in 1991.

The fact that this was based on perceived political allegiance rather than ethnicity makes those people no less dead and their lives no less wasted.

So you nitpick the definition of antiwar, but complain when someone does the same to you for the word genocide? Genocide is defined by The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It's like asking if a serial killer has right to defend himself - yes, actually, he does have such a right, both physically and legally.

Resisting arrest is illegal.

Other democracies have even more parties than that. None of those other parties would ever be permitted in a communist country.

Salvador Allende wasn't a communist?

[Cycloneman]

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source in a debate. I also reject this "Answers.org" since as a website run by evangelical Christians I can not trust it to be rational or to give answers without a religious agenda. Why would you go to those sites instead of a simple dictionary?

I went to a dictionary (m-w.com), it wasn't in there. Type the words "define anti-war" into google and see what you get.

Yes, suspicion of communism was why they were accused - you DO know the difference between accusation and conviction, don't you?

No, communists were used as a boogey man to target domestic political opposition, even non-communist parts.

Yeah, right, the right to secede - on paper. When Czechoslovakia tried it in 1968 Brezhnev send tanks to force them to stay in the eastern bloc. Given that, no one but an idiot could possibly believe that Belarus, the Ukraine, or Transcaucasia could actually secede from anything.

Czechoslovakia was not part of the USSR, and the constituent republics of the USSR did eventually exercise their right to secede. You may have heard about that?

"Crypto-fascist"? Been watching too much Red Dwarf lately?

Actually, I haven't read the exact text of the FBI's reason for requesting the warrants, and neither have you. In any case, the FRSO does, in fact, advocate destroying the present US and if those who are members of it are taking action to bring that about they are, in fact, committing a crime. In order to prove that is or is not taking place there must be an investigation. I fail to see why you do not understand this. The FBI had enough probable cause to get a warrant, the Grand Jury will review the results, and they will determine if the case is to go forward. If it does, it will not be the FBI vs. these folks, it will be the US government against these folks.

Get out of your mom's basement occasionally so you can learn how the adult world works.

Actually I have read both the warrant and subpoena served to Michael Kelly, and there is not a single fucking mention of an attempt to overthrow the government. The documents they are allowed to search for solely relate to the premise that the FRSO is supporting foreign terrorists. Or does the government normally raid people's houses and not look for documents relating to the crimes it believes they've committed?

You're trying to say we were evil for fighting the Nazis?

These days Nazi Germany would be described as a criminal regime for genocide and various other war crimes - REAL war crimes, not what gets bandied about these days as "war crimes" which are most often friendly fire or mistakes, not pre-meditated destruction of civilians.

Okay, so what's your point? You have just defined a criteria by which one can be morally justified in violence against the state, and in such a case the state is morally unjustified to counteract rebellion. These people (i.e. the FRSO) just disagree with your criteria and have their own.

As to the serial killer analogy - I have the right to defend myself against a serial killer. I don't have the right to kill him just because he is a serial killer. Do I have the right to overthrow the Nazi state just because it is the Nazi state? Or am I only allowed to do so if the Nazi state busts down my door and points a gun at my face?

FSRO does, in fact, support FARC which does in fact want to violently overthrow the Columbian government.

And the US government wants to violently overthrow the government of Venezuela.

FSRO does, in fact, want the release of a muderer, kidnapper, and violent revolutionary.

And the United States government wants Luis Posada Carriles to walk free. Unlike the FRSO, it can actually accomplish this.

FSRO does, in fact, advocate dividing the United States into three or more nations and approves the use of violence to do so, and doesn't give a flying fuck what the majority of people in the US may or may not want, they feel they're correct even if their a tiny minority.

Everyone feels they're correct even if they're a tiny minority.

I didn't say all that was required, I was asking if that's what would happen.

But, seriously - do you honestly think the south, with its nuggets of pro-Conferedate good ol' boys, would peaceably become a one-party nation (because that's what FSRO wants) by and for blacks (because that's what FSRO wants) without a bloodbath? And in a one-party system if you aren't in the party you're dirt. And since the party will be based on ethnicity anyone who isn't black won't be able to join - not just the whites but all those Vietnamese fisherman down in the Gulf, the Hispanics, the Natives who still live there...

Like I said, you're coming up with a pretty crazy result for a system that has been repeatedly applied and not ever resulted in this. Between 1924 and 1985, there was no large-scale ethnic violence in the USSR, for example.

Bullshit. Divisions among Marxists don't count. The USSR was a one-party system, as is China, as is every other remaining communist country. There may be dissent within the party among the elite, but NONE is permitted elsewhere.

There are multiple political parties in Cuba, actually, and there are fewer political prisoners in Cuba under Cuban control than there are under American control.

[stormthebeaches]

Czechoslovakia was not part of the USSR, and the constituent republics of the USSR did eventually exercise their right to secede. You may have heard about that?

They were able to secede because Gorby repelled the Brezhnev doctrine and reversed most of the communist systems with his reforms.

And the US government wants to violently overthrow the government of Venezuela.

Please provide evidence.

And the United States government wants Luis Posada Carriles to walk free. Unlike the FRSO, it can actually accomplish this.

Luis Posada Carriles already is free. And he is soon to go on trial in Texas so I don't know what your blabbering about.

Actually I have read both the warrant and subpoena served to Michael Kelly, and there is not a single fucking mention of an attempt to overthrow the government. The documents they are allowed to search for solely relate to the premise that the FRSO is supporting foreign terrorists. Or does the government normally raid people's houses and not look for documents relating to the crimes it believes they've committed?

The FSRO's stated goal is to split the USA into three nations. Since the US government will never allow this the only way for FRSO to achieve their goal to to overthrow the government.

Like I said, you're coming up with a pretty crazy result for a system that has been repeatedly applied and not ever resulted in this. Between 1924 and 1985, there was no large-scale ethnic violence in the USSR, for example.

First of all, Broomstick was referring to the idiotic goal of FSRO to split the USA up into three racially segregated nations. That will require mass deportations to ensure that only people of the "correct" race live in each nation. Secondly, there have been mass deportations under Communist regimes. Stalin had millions of ethnic minorities deported. Mao's cultural revolution resulted in tens of millions being deported into the countryside. And do I really need to bring up Pol Pot.

There are multiple political parties in Cuba, actually, and there are fewer political prisoners in Cuba under Cuban control than there are under American control.

I want evidence of multiple political parties in Cuba. And Cuba was never under American control. The US and Batista didn't see a eye to eye. In fact, one of the main reasons why the Cuban revolution was successfully is because the US had recently had a falling out with Cuba.

Stalin's purges were against internal opposition in the communist party and government. The closest they had was forced relocation of ethnic minorities that had questionable loyalty and the killings during the civil war.

None of Stalin's purges count as genocide. The events in Ukraine, however, might.

Salvador Allende wasn't a communist?

For a start, Salvador Allende never had as much power as other Communist leaders due to the fact that he was democratically elected in a system with political institutions that he had to legally obey. In addition to this, Allende only ruled for a few years until he was removed in a military coup. He never had the chance to push through his agenda.

Secondly, in Allende's short rule he was heavily criticized by the Chilean courts for his illegal actions and his policy of collectivization encouraged many strikes and caused a huge amount of damage to the country. In his short rule he showed the power hungry nature that his typical of Marxist leaders.

In addition to Liberty's point, it'd also be helpful to remember that the USSR's actions were comprable to the US's actions at the time as well; neither acted according to idealism, but according to realpolitick machinations. While the USSR was often a bit more heavy-handed with its own citizens, the US was little better, and often jailed or had extrajudicial killings of its own citizens who were politically unorthodox (for instance, it is well known that the FBI and CIA worked diligently to counteract MLK's influence, and have been implicated in the deaths of many Civil Rights organizers as well as supporting terrorist organizations like the Klan, as well as overthrowing sovereign governments in Central and South America because of how their free and fair elections turned out).

The FBI worked to country MLK's influence but this pales in comparison to what happens in most Communist countries. How long do you think that a dissident like MLK would have lasted in the Soviet Union or Communist China before disappearing? Hell, how long do you think the counter culture movement in the US would have lasted in the Soviet Union or Communist China? Reform was brought to the US after several years of campaigning by the civil rights activists. In comparison, it wasn't until the Soviet Union was falling apart that Gorby tried to make his reforms. And he was disposed of in a military coup by Communist hardliners (this would be like white supremacists staging a military coup in the US after LBJ passed the civil rights bill).

Also, I would like some evidence of civil rights activists being assasinated by the FBI and CIA (considering how it is illegal for the CIA to operate on American soil I would like some solid evidence). And none of this changes the point that the US (and liberal democracies in general) allow multiple political parties to operate. In comparison, Communist nations are one party states.

[Samuel]

Mao's cultural revolution resulted in tens of millions being deported into the countryside. And do I really need to bring up Pol Pot.

Those weren't ethnically based though. They wanted to reeducate the city workers to have them... okay, I don't know what their plan was or how it was to make sense.

I want evidence of multiple political parties in Cuba.

According to wiki they both exist, have never recieved any political power and are banned from meeting or advertising their existence. It looks like a one party state with some nice window dressing to appease the annoying college kids.

[stormthebeaches]

Those weren't ethnically based though. They wanted to reeducate the city workers to have them... okay, I don't know what their plan was or how it was to make sense.

Broomy said mass deportation, not ethnic deportation. Although, if FSRO is to achieve its goal it will need to do some ethnic deportation to create three racially separate nations.

As for Mao, I believe that his plan was to remove bourgeousie elements from society and strengthen the peasantry. Too bad it failed and had a horrendous human cost. According to recent studies, his great leap forward was responsible for the deaths of 45 million people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 81630.html

[Akhlut]

In addition to Liberty's point, it'd also be helpful to remember that the USSR's actions were comprable to the US's actions at the time as well; neither acted according to idealism, but according to realpolitick machinations. While the USSR was often a bit more heavy-handed with its own citizens, the US was little better, and often jailed or had extrajudicial killings of its own citizens who were politically unorthodox (for instance, it is well known that the FBI and CIA worked diligently to counteract MLK's influence, and have been implicated in the deaths of many Civil Rights organizers as well as supporting terrorist organizations like the Klan, as well as overthrowing sovereign governments in Central and South America because of how their free and fair elections turned out).

The FBI worked to country MLK's influence but this pales in comparison to what happens in most Communist countries. How long do you think that a dissident like MLK would have lasted in the Soviet Union or Communist China before disappearing? Hell, how long do you think the counter culture movement in the US would have lasted in the Soviet Union or Communist China?

And? I quite clearly said that "while one can certainly criticize a number of Communist nations and groups, that doesn't mean one can instantly conclude that the US government is arresting these men because they actually are a threat, given the US's past history of brutally repressing those who are not politically correct." It is, frankly, irrelevant to my point how repressive totalitarian states are, when my point was that the US isn't exactly a shining light in the world and we shouldn't necessarily trust it when it is arresting people.

And, frankly, I'm much less worried about some FRSO d-bags than Tea Partiers who have openly said that some senators need to face "second-amendment solutions," and haven't been arrested.

Reform was brought to the US after several years of campaigning by the civil rights activists.

Try 14 decades rather than "several years."

In comparison, it wasn't until the Soviet Union was falling apart that Gorby tried to make his reforms. And he was disposed of in a military coup by Communist hardliners (this would be like white supremacists staging a military coup in the US after LBJ passed the civil rights bill).

Yeltsin wasn't exactly a hardliner.

Also, I would like some evidence of civil rights activists being assasinated by the FBI and CIA (considering how it is illegal for the CIA to operate on American soil I would like some solid evidence).

It is relatively difficult to get any solid evidence pointing directly to FBI/CIA gunmen, as everything's classified, but there are some solid leads.

For instance, it is known that John Ali was an undercover FBI agent who met up with Talmadge Hayer a night before the latter assassinated Malcolm X. ( http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terr ... index.html a bit of a hokey site, yes but with a fairly expansive bibliography for a 5 page article)

Then there's Fred Hampton and several of his compatriots, who were brutally murdered by the Chicago police and the FBI. ( FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose by Swearingen)

I would find more, but I'm pressed for time. I will redact my claims about the CIA in particular, though, as I can't seem to find anything on that.

And none of this changes the point that the US (and liberal democracies in general) allow multiple political parties to operate. In comparison, Communist nations are one party states.

Oh, hey, good thing my entire point was about how the US's past behavior should make us consider this arrest with a grain of salt, then!

[stormthebeaches]

And? I quite clearly said that "while one can certainly criticize a number of Communist nations and groups, that doesn't mean one can instantly conclude that the US government is arresting these men because they actually are a threat, given the US's past history of brutally repressing those who are not politically correct." It is, frankly, irrelevant to my point how repressive totalitarian states are, when my point was that the US isn't exactly a shining light in the world and we shouldn't necessarily trust it when it is arresting people.

That is true but it doesn't mean that every arrest should automatically be deemed wrong. Especially in this case, where the FBI is merely conducting an investigation and had warrants when issued by the supreme court when they launched those raids.

And, frankly, I'm much less worried about some FRSO d-bags than Tea Partiers who have openly said that some senators need to face "second-amendment solutions," and haven't been arrested.

Actions, not words. The Tea Partiers are a crazy lot and have said some crazy things but they have yet to match their words with actions. FRSO is being investigated for illegal actions. Not words, actions.

Try 14 decades rather than "several years."

Their were several civil rights movements throughout American history. I was referring to the most recent one in the 60s that was tied to MLK, Malcom X and the counter culture movement.

Yeltsin wasn't exactly a hardliner.

I wasn't referring to Yeltsin. I was referring to the military coup led by Communist hardliners. The military coup was a failure although it did remove Gorby from power. In the power vacuum Yeltsin was able to take over.

It is relatively difficult to get any solid evidence pointing directly to FBI/CIA gunmen, as everything's classified, but there are some solid leads.

For instance, it is known that John Ali was an undercover FBI agent who met up with Talmadge Hayer a night before the latter assassinated Malcolm X. ( http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terr ... index.html a bit of a hokey site, yes but with a fairly expansive bibliography for a 5 page article)

Then there's Fred Hampton and several of his compatriots, who were brutally murdered by the Chicago police and the FBI. ( FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose by Swearingen)

I would find more, but I'm pressed for time. I will redact my claims about the CIA in particular, though, as I can't seem to find anything on that.

Solid evidence will be required. Keep in mind that the Black Panthers had many internal power struggles and were not above petty violence and street thuggery (which would have made them quite a few enemies).