Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
The global "jihad" would quickly collapse if most moderate muslims shunned these assholes publicly.
Until then, we will just have to keep killing the extremists.
Except you're one of the extremists who would be first in line.
Who would put him there, you? I think I'm starting to understand why Liberals like the Mujahideen so much. Seemingly polar opposites they both like unquestioned total control of life and explanation of the universe and shun freedom and individualism. Control freaks. Thought, economically and socially and if you don't like it , death. Like Stalin and Mao did.
I could be wrong I'm still developing this thesis.
It's a bit odd to me that in one thread, you see through the biases - on race - and point them out clearly, but here, you fall victim to another set of biases.
OCguy raises the demand to kill people, and you don't blink an eye, but when it's pointed out that if anyone deserves such treatment it's he as someone who is such an advocate for violence, and you see the person pointing out *his* excessive zeal for violence as the one who is notably violent, but not a word for OCguy on the topic.
You did great on race in pointing out the blind spots. Here, you fail to note how people who are fine with their nation using advanced weaponry but object to peasants who use crude violence, fine with 'collateral civilian damage' by the powerful weapons but who object to the people who are so powerless as to have no other targets available than civilian, people who are fine with their nation pointlessly killing millions of Vietnamese but attack others for far less, are the 'menace to peace' more than those they criticize. You fall victim to the bias of the 'powerful side', its wrongs less visible to you.
Liberals are the ones who point out the fallacy of how the Mujahideen were handled, contrary to your unimformed, hack-level 'thesis', while Republicans appear thrilled with the history of arming them as opposition to the USSR. You might have missed my linking an article with an actual left-wing view on the 'Mujahideen' weeks ago, that is at odds with your misrepresentation.
Here is a link for you to review.
Your comments are just bizarrely wrong to me. Liberals are the champions of freedom, of free thinking, or individual rights. Liberals *abhor* Mao and Stalin.
Hitler was a right-winger, FYI; Mao and Stalin were authoritarians, not liberals. The right is the side that cozies up with alliances of convenience with right-wing dictators, even creates and places them, while the left battles for democracy and the good of the people.
You need to rad some history, that's the constant theme. In Spain, it was right-wing Franco against the liberals. In Nicaragua, elected left-wing president Ortega againdt the Reagan-created terrorist right-wing contra army. In Vietnam, the support of colonization and dictators against those who wanted freeom. In Chile, the popular liberal democracy that elected Allende was destroyed by the US-backed dictator Pinochet. In Iran, when democracy led to a leader sho protested the exploitavle low oil prices Britain had obtained at the point of a gun, the CIA replaced him with the dictator Shah of Iran and provided him with a secret police force. There are countless more examples.
Facebook
Twitter