Talk:National Union Attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 On fascism allegations 2 General comments 3 or, boy, where do I start?! 4 right-wing or left-wing 5 Name 6 The side of the Bulgarian people

[edit] On fascism allegations

I want to ask the person who last edited the article-why did you erase the fact that Attack is not a fascist movement?-Spartan,Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

To all non-English who edit this page:

Please, correct your spelling! The quotation marks in English are ' and not "!!! And the words are not 'betrial' and 'holly' but 'betrayal' and 'holy'!!!Are you illiterate or what????-Spartan,Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.15.141 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, acknowledge the fact that people make mistakes when we write in the English language. The Ataka movement is indeed closely tied to fascism in its beliefs and understanding of political philosophy. I know that being a fascist is a very sad thing for any modern person, but unfortunately Ataka is such. --Cryout 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Anyway, Attack doesn't create ethnic conflicts by itself. DPSMTB (MFRMTB) does. C'mon, who would let in the Parliament a party that is called "Movement for Freedoms and Rights of the Muslims and Turks in Bulgaria"? Sure, I'd support DPS if they were some non-profit organization, but they're a full-fledged anti-national and anti-constitutional party that tries to take over the Bulgarian government and use it for some people's personal gain.- ^Fallenblood^, Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.145.225 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Political parties are always non-profit organisations by law in most countries (although a unique kind of organisation). If you have any info that the DPSMTB is involved in illegal activities, I suggest you take it to the police. BTW, I'm not a Bulgarian but as far as I can tell they're called Movement for Rights and Freedoms so you might want to read neutral sources rather then propaganda from Attack (personally I think National Union Attack is a much worse name then Movement for Rights and Freedoms). Also, you claim Attack doesn't create ethnic conflicts yet that are attacking an entire people for the actions of some of those people. If that isn't creating ethnic conflict I don't know what is. Anyway this is all OT since the talk page is for improvements to the article, not for discussion of the topic. Nil Einne 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] or, boy, where do I start?!

This is hardly an exemplary article of an encyclopaedia entry. Not only does it contain judgemental overtones, but it is also full of factological mistakes and half-truths. The author grants Rumen Vodenicharov a membership in the party Ataka, when in fact, he is part of the coalition Ataka and not of the party itself. This is, of course, a minor mistake, compared to the gross misinformation that the party includes "large group of generals". How large exactly - 5,10,20? Name at least three, please! No, at least one general, who is a member of the party Ataka.

Another misleading quallification is the characterization of the party as professing a "virulent anti-semitism". This is hardly a reality-based observation, because, even though Siderov may have written some books in the past, which could allow the undetached observer to label him as an "anti-semite", this is not endorsed by the party as a whole, nor by Siderov himself in his public appearances lately. He rarely mentions Jews at all (which doesn't necessarily mean that he has no anti-semitic views, but rather that keeps them to himself), let alone do so other representatives of the party.

Anti-semitisim has no wide-spread support in Bulgaria and you can't draw a massive support from the electorate if you run on such a platform. Yes, it's true that attitude towards other ethnic groups, namely Gipsies and Turks, is much more openly expressed by the party, its members and supporters, but it is often not based on a belief in racial supremacy - it's caused by a view (whether it is a justified one is a totally different question) that these two ethnic groups are the beneficiaries of double standards and privilliges, enjoyed solely on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds.

But to stop here would leave us with an incomplete and totally skewed picture of the essence of Ataka and the source of its support. Depicting Ataka as yet another right-wing anti-semitic and xenophobic party is very convinient as it fits the already available stereotype of the typical right-wing European party and, as this page is in English and it is to be read by speakers of the English language, who are unaware of the situation, it will portray Ataka to the average reader in an easily digestible, but factologically incorrect image that fits into the norm of a throw-the-first-stone radical extremist organisation.

The most substantial misrepresentation of reality comes not from what is said in the article, but from what is omitted. The obfurscation of the social and economic stance of the party does no service in the explanation of where it draws it support from. Such issues are ever more present in the party's talking. It directs most of its criticism to the establishment and the ruling elite, but you won't see it even mentioned in the article. In this sense it is a long shot to call it anti-democratic when it has insisted on referenda on a number of key issues of concern to the populace, while the current political elite has decided to play "deaf and dumb" on any dissenting opinions and to go for elitist solutions, thus increasing the resentment of the masses for being ignored in the decision-making process and increasing the rift between the electorate and its rulers. Not to mention the widespread corruption and power-abuse practices of the politicians from the establishment, who do not even think it's worth hiding it anymore (remember how Dogan openly talked about his "circle of firms" on BTV). It's exactly democratic deficit that brought Ataka to the surface, it's what is going to keep it there, as long as many of the people consider it a real alternative to the political model that had prevailed until recently, when choice was, in fact, limited to choosing between "six and half-a-dosen". Instead Ataka looks as something entirely different. And, to conclude, Ataka was going to have much wider support exactly because of this, had it not been the fact that while there are many who agree that it does a good job in spotting the problems, it is not capable of providing the sollutions to them. Slex 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] right-wing or left-wing

The sentence "Another question which remains open to debate is whether Attack is a right-wing or left-wing party" is a bit paradoxical. How can you seriously assume that a party who wants an official religion and a participation of the main (national) church to legislative work, who is antisemitic and xenophobic could be considered as a "left-wing" party? Such a sentence would be in a polemical text against the left at the right place, but not in a factual article. Hubert, France/Germany - hubertgui@yahoo.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.249.163 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just cruising and ended up here, but this left-wing/right-wing classification in Europe is indeed begining to be a bit ambiguous. The "problem" is that in economical terms several "right-wing" parties have traditionaly "left-wing" policies (this isn't absolutely new though, fascism and NS began that way). More to the point Communist parties in several countries have began to swift to highly nationalistic - bordering on racism sometimes - stances (see the Russian Communist Party). --Bellum sine bello 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I would just like to say that in my time in Bulgaria, I have always heard this party referred to as "Ataka." Should some mention of that be made here? I'm not sure of the accuracy on that, or the relevance, but someone else might have some thoughts...

ATAKA IS AGAINST TURKEY EU MEMBERSHIP!!!!--212.25.63.183 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Mars

[edit] The side of the Bulgarian people

Let me be the one to tell all these undeducated ones that write about "Racist Attack." First of all, they are not in the middle of the problem at all. Let me just give you the bulgarian side of things. For more than a decade that Movement for Rights and Freedoms is always with the ruling coalition into Bulgaria. They make alliance with whoever has the power. Then, the movement uses that power to help the etnic Turks into my country with money and food. Not only that but the movement makes excursion around the time of national election for people to come to Bulgaria and vote and then go back to Turkey. There are around 430,000 native turks into my country and they decide the faith of a few millions. Also, the Turks have build jamias into every our town and slowly but surely are taking over the country. Half of the bulgarian ministers are turks. Bulgarian national monuments are destroyed and our history is re-writen to fit the propaganda coming from the movement. Bulgarian people born into the areas where these turks live are turning turks even though they are pure bulgarian borns. The National Movement Attack is here to protect the bulgarian nation and stop the slowly but surely convertion of Bulgaria into a Turkish province. Attack is for everything that is Bulgarian to be preserved. So, before defendind the turkish and go against the real victims into the story (which are the millions of Bulgarians) i STRONGLY and I mean STRONGLY SUGGEST getting the whole story first and then coming to your own conclusion. If anyone has any questions about my writing,e-mail me and I am more than happy to talk more about the subject. Thank you very much. Go Attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasko2481 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)