I can't imagine that we really want to see what their markets have and judge it by that, but if you want to pursue looking at any laws that prevents such books as you mentioned from being distributed, let me know. Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
They may or may not have contacts with each other and may or may not be on friendly terms, but it is patent nonsense to claim that they are "the same group of extremists" when their organisational structure, political goals, strategies, tactics and membership are unrelated, evolved separately and will likely continue to evolve separately. Simply saying "here be commies" is not an argument.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I would also ask that you pay attention. Notice I did not say the Marxists in Vietnam and Cambodia were the same, I said China and Vietnam had the same goals and desires.
Now of course you could be right that they separate their ways, we have seen a lot of groups separate and go their ways. And from I read their was already some falling out during the control of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
Again, I am saying if they recognize each other and abide by the same philosophies and ideologies even to supporting each other in resources then they are the same.
And none of your examples do. FFS, half of the partisans in Vietraq that are being labeled "Al Qaeda" are Shia Muslims. Calling them Al Qaeda is like accusing an Ted Haggard of being a member of the Opus Dei.
And besides, the Marxists in Cambodia (or Viet Nam, if you prefer) manifestly didn't have the same goals and desires as Marxists in China. Both wanted to kick the US out of Indochina and both groups were (more or less) Marxist, but if that's criteria for likeness, then the Pope and the American fundagelicals are the same brand of extremists - both are Christian of some description and both want to kick gays out of America.
Finally, you are begging the question when you argue that there has been "a falling out" - if there was no collusion in the first place, then a falling out is not really the proper description.
So can we please end this detour?
