They were both attacks on a symbol of state power.
And what is a "hard line communist" or a "soft line communist" for that matter?And was Boris Yeltsin a hard line Communist at that time ? Who was "in" the Russian 'white house' when Yeltsin arrayed tanks against it?
And what is a "hard line communist" or a "soft line communist" for that matter?
These lazy labels that mean nothing.
But one thing your post does mean is blaming the victim. Yeltsin gets the army to shell the Russian parliament building and over 100 people are killed. How can that be justified?
In the Russian White House there was the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet. This was after the Soviet Union had been dissolved in 1991. Others killed were civil servants and military personnel in the defence ministry and internal ministry.
Weren't they human beings then? Why did they deserve to be murdered? You haven't answered that have you. Maybe because you don't have an answer. Who do you think they were and why did they deserve to be murdered?You obviously are not informed of who was already bunkdered down in he Russian White House and with whom Yeltsin was contending. I'd suggest you don't press this further. The point is that that incident was the reverse in nature from what happened last week at the U.S. Capitol.
Let's let it rest there. Just be careful of which analogies you attempt to make going on into the future.
and I think that >100 deaths is worse than 6.But if you look up what Boris Yeltsin did to the Moscow White House in 1993 you'll see that worse things have been done in the lust for political power.
Weren't they human beings then? Why did they deserve to be murdered? You haven't answered that have you. Maybe because you don't have an answer. Who do you think they were and why did they deserve to be murdered?
I think censorship should be the role of the moderators.
My original statement was:
and I think that >100 deaths is worse than 6.
This could be down to you.I'm not understanding any of what you're either asking or saying here.
This could be down to you.
It's nice to see that the USA democracy is a bit more robust than most states.Had the events of last week taken place in many other countries, the rest of the world would have awoken the following day with the news of a very different outcome.
Trump had nullified the election results. He would remain in power until fresh elections could be carried out, free from corruption and voting rigging. In the meantime, the Army has been called in to maintain law and order. Anyone suspected of being involved in the election fraud will be arrested and held in in prison until trial at some unspecified future date. Basically anyone in leadership of the opposition party, and those of Trump's own party who had failed to support his previous allegations, now proven beyond any doubt.
Then perhaps a short time later, new elections, but barring anyone in prison waiting trial, from taking part. This would effectively bar the Democrats, giving Trump a guaranteed win.
Alternatively, after many years, still no elections.
But this did not happen.
No, I don't think it is, and being that I've had an entire semester of Russian Political History at the local state university (here in the U.S., of course), then I'm wondering from where you're getting your 'Russian History' lessons. Care to share those with me?
My point here is simply this. You're free to make analogies; I have no truck against you doing so. Just make sure that you understand the examples you're comparing before asserting that you've indeed made a valid analogy. Are we clear on that, brother Vanellus?
For someone who has such knowledge of Russian political history you still haven't said who you think were in the White House or why they deserved to be murdered.
Do they think that we have lost our minds?
You previously made this assertion:It's not for me to be required to answer since you're the one who first initiated and broached the topic. If anything, it's you who needs to qualify and show scholarly support for his original statements.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with discussing this topic with you.
Thank you, and be blessed!
Your subsequent posts never gave any grounds for this assertion therefore it is reasonable to assume it was groundless.You obviously are not informed of who was already bunkdered down in he Russian White House and with whom Yeltsin was contending. I'd suggest you don't press this further. The point is that that incident was the reverse in nature from what happened last week at the U.S. Capitol.
Yeltsin was the poster boy of the west because of the perception that he ended "communism" - oligarchism and Putin being such an improvement!
But
Maybe Yeltsin wasn't such a great man after all.
Hmm!And which administration in the U.S. was encouraging Yeltsin to pursue and capitalize on his break with the former Communist Regime in 1993?
Here, I'll help you answer this question by posting a link to the entire 'liberal' article that you all too briefly 'cited' up in post #11:
Yeltsin--Father of Democracy?
/Hmm!As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with discussing this topic with you.
Note they were "elected" and I have already shown you that civil servants died as well.In October 1993, Yeltsin used tank cannons to destroy not only the Parliament that had brought him to power and defended him during the attempted coup of 1991 but the entire political, constitutional order of Russia’s post-Communist republic. The US government and media, with few exceptions, acted as Yeltsin’s cheerleaders as the Russian President’s tanks pounded Russia’s first ever popularly elected and fully independent legislature.
I didn't say you were or have. This is a red-herring statement on your part and has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about.Hmm!
/Hmm!
I don't understand why you think I am a Democrat party supporter or have supported any Democrat party administration!
I would rather you read the entire article.Quoting that The Nation article:
Note they were "elected" and I have already shown you that civil servants died as well.
You have still not answered the two questions I asked:
1. Who do you think was murdered in the Russian White House on Yeltsin's orders?
2. Why did all those people deserve to be murdered?
This is a partisan party political question. One could call it a "loaded" question. So why did you ask it if not for a partisan party political reason?And which administration in the U.S. was encouraging Yeltsin to pursue and capitalize on his break with the former Communist Regime in 1993?
Why not say which part of this article you want to discuss? Btw I didn't cite from this article. It was referenced within the Wikipedia page from which I did quote.I would rather you read the entire article.
Well I could call all your questions loaded as well and use that as an excuse not to answer them - hence confirming the idea that polarisation has reached such levels that irenic dialogue is not possible.Essentially, the phrasing of your questions, in my estimation, make them loaded questions, and in my view, loaded questions can be evaluated for what they are, maybe even ignored.
So do you think the fact you label the people inside the White House can as "communist" that it was ok to murder them? Now when did Jesus ever say anything like that about the Romans who were occupying his homeland?I'll just jump to the fact I don't mind seeing what are otherwise Communist regimes.......just disappear. I'm kind of thinking that God doesn't either.
I didn't ask for any political reason. I'm neither conservative nor liberal; I'm purple and not just any purple.This is a partisan party political question. One could call it a "loaded" question. So why did you ask it if not for a partisan party political reason?
How about the part of your wikipedia referenced article that states that it was the Clinton administration (Democrat) who was supporting Yeltsin? Shall we bring that into consideration?Why not say which part of this article you want to discuss?
Right. You cited a bit in a Wikipedia article that was also referenced in that same Wikipedia; I'm just filling in the reference gap for you since you didn't really pay attention to any of that.Btw I didn't cite from this article. It was referenced within the Wikipedia page from which I did quote.
No, I'm fairly confident I'm not loading my questions on you. I'm nudging you to "look further" into your own personal research when you seek to draw comparisons and analogies. My purpose here isn't to humuliate you nor to pull any rug from under you, especially being that you're a fellow brother in Christ.Well I could call all your questions loaded as well and use that as an excuse not to answer them - hence confirming the idea that polarisation has reached such levels that irenic dialogue is not possible.
I didn't label them that way. Did you by chance read the part in the Wikepedia article I chose about who those folks were who invaded the White House and on whom Yeltsin sent in troops and tanks? [This also is not a loaded question... it's a question to nudge you to simply get more facts. That's all.]So do you think the fact you label the people inside the White House can as "communist" that it was ok to murder them?
... I think we both know that governments are generally established by God and "do not bear the sword in vain." This was the case in the O.T., and it's still the case in the N.T., even though the Church itself shouldn't be applying the sword (whether in Russia or the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter).Now when did Jesus ever say anything like that about the Romans who were occupying his homeland?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?