15 Years Ago Started the Revolution in Rumania, The Ceusescus' days were numbered...

Boooo Denes you just reminded me of times that I want to forget... I would've shot our "beloved" ruler myself (10 times in a row) but after a fair trial (he he I did write that down). Anyway right now, after so many years my blood is a little cooled down so to speak, that's why I'm thinking about fair trials 15 years ago I would've put him down right away.

Cheers

As far as I can tell, from both angles (or even all the three of them, Law included) the execution was justified.

1) Ethics (re. cowardice/evilness): Ceaushist "insurgents" were still killing people in the streets. Seeing their leader shot dead "magically" calmed them. Iliescu and other members of the CFSN were themselves shot upon in those days. Besides, the way things worked out, Ceausescu could have lived to become a PRM member of the Parliament or even run for the presidency. Or live his retirement days on the sunny beaches of Cuba, at a Party villa. 6 feet under seems more judicious for him.

2) God's Law: where did you hear that is God's Law that forbids "killing" other human beings? The sense of the Decalogue commandment is "thou shalt not MURDER", i.e. "kill unjustly"; it is an erroneous and/or biased interpretation that takes it that the Bible absolutely forbids the taking of human lives. BTW: here you can find what His Holiness Pope John Paul II says about the death penalty issue:

3) Secular (Criminal) Law: Interestingly enough, the criminal law system of the Socialist Republic of Romania allowed for extraordinary (ad-hoc) criminal courts to be established and to dispatch capital sentences according to extraordinary procedures. And furthermore, Ceausescu himself had instated the state of national emergency, (a pre-requisite for the extraordinary criminal courts), during which hundreds of other REALLY innocent people were machine-gunned in the streets, crushed by tanks or beaten to an inform pulp by militians. No law courts for them, just holes in the ground or the crematorium ovens. Ceausescu's tough luck was to fall into the pit that he had dug for others.

And yes, in case you were wondering, I had and have no pity whatsoever for the senile, blabbering, power-hungry kid-killer secretary-general or his equally blood-thirsty vice-prime-minister and wife, Elena.

This post has been edited by valachus on January 29, 2005 01:37 pm

I took this pic about a few hundred meters South of Intercontinental hotel on B-dul Balescu/Magheru. Does anyone know; is this the marker/memorial of the first person killed in that December?

Attached Image

yeah, i was wondering about that one too...i pass near it almost every week

The first people that were killed in December 89 were at Timisoara.

Really? I thought there were some nigerian that got shot on December the 1st, 00:01...

Edit: if the joke seems not funny, let's look at the history chart:

- You mean in Bucharest, since you were in Bucharest and everyone knows that the first deaths occured in Timisoara?
- Of course, didn't I say that?

- Apparently not....

The fact that during the December 1989 events the first people killed were at Timisoara is undisputable, but then again you can try to bring forth other information if you have it. Many people seem to forget that the city were all this started wasn't Bucharest and that people were being shot in Romania before 21 December 1989.

The memorial may be for the first citizens of Bucharest killed in December 1989, but I personally don't know for sure.

From http://www.pntcd.ro/index.php?option=conte...=4598&Itemid=59

So it seems that they are the victims of the famous "Inter" barricade, where most of the first generation of bucharest revolutionaries fell.... They are indeed the first deaths in Bucharest....

Interesting article, Alexandru. Thanks for sharing it with everyone else.

A lot of head shots, huh? I had no idea the average Romanian soldier aimed for the head, or that they were such good snipers.

Something is definitely strange about the way most of those courageous people were killed.

Look at their ages! So many young people...

About Ceausescu's trial and execution: I think that the execution was necessary at that point, the trial not. The proceedings are a total judicial failure (as acknowledged by most experts today). It proves that we can’t get rid even of a vicious dictator without a proper masquerade.

That magic seems rather suspicious. Also, note the silliness of the "insurgency". If they really wanted to fight what were their goals? Shooting randomly? Sniping civilians? What were their actions besides these examples? Actions that can clearly show some trace of strategic thinking, or coordination?
Did they mount any organised attack whatsover? Ambushes, sabotage? Did they form compact units or just remained isolated snipers magically disappearing in the night after seeing Ceausescu shot on their portable TVs?
Come on... thats disinformation, and I am amazed you accept it from those you identify as being former 2nd echelon commies.

There were no insurgents and terrorists but a diversion to shoot the man that knew a lot and that would have spilled the beans on all the post-1990 politicians and their rotten commie past.

Romania lost the War and her leader was shot bythe "leaders" of the coup. Antonescu revisited.

Will the coup plotters pay the same price one day? Judging by the record...

In that logic I could note the silliness of the "repression" previous to 22.12.1989. As every serious tyrant should have known, using only the sidearms of the repression agents and the occasional heavy MG is no way to deal with a uprising. No artillery fire, no air attacks, no poison gas attacks, how can one think Ceausescu was serious about quashing the "revolution" (the so-called tens of thousands in the street were in fact, in Timisoara, a bunch of agressive hooligans stirred by Hungarian and Soviet secret agents, it's a well-established fact by the reputed "Jurnalul" newspaper, owned by the succesful economist Dan Voiculescu). /sarcasm off

And, as fas as Ceausescu is concerned, unfortunately, i'm afraid there's nothing supplementary that he could have known personally and the post 1989 mass-media didn't. Are you saying Iliescu was NOT of national reputation as an "enlightened" communist? Or Brucan? Or Barladeanu? You seem to forget the fact that in 1990 it was in fact a cause for intense popular dislike to claim not to have been a communist! It was a sign that you were an agent of an unknown western power, and it was VERY BAD! It costed Ratiu and Campeanu the elections, and it almost costed Coposu his life!

Furthermore, I suggest you reconsider your take on the "Romania lost the War" part. Romania didn't lose any war in 1989, the only one to lose a war then was Ceausescu and his war was AGAINST Romania and its people, and against all odds. Reason for him to get what he deserved and for which, with the exception of the deeply brainwashed and his innermost circle of accolytes, he's not regreted for one second by noone with a clear mind and a working memory.

This post has been edited by valachus on February 13, 2005 10:34 am

The revolution would have been stopped the moment the communication facilities were retaken and the revolutionaries left isolated.
How come the "insurgents" did not take out the Romanian Television? How come the phone lines were still working...
Sorry valachus, any intelligence service has the means and knowledge to prevent or make a coup d'etat. Depends what side they choose. However, to think that a revolution can be defeated by MG while the revolutionaries own the TV and use it as HQ/C&C is simply false. And while the revolutionaries did that the die-hard "insurgents" had their kicks randomly shooting people with no logic whatsoever. Right...

Romania, like other Warsaw Pact countries lost the War... The Cold War. Like in '44 some people realised that continuing it would have been futile, and so they shot the "Conducator" and they switched sides.
Its rather obvious...

Did this ever happen:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6370