Terminal Illness, I call thee Liberal

[syzygy]

amazingly, i have come to the conclusion that there may not be any bounds to who or what 'liberals'
will cheer and egg on in their continuing ideological onslaught against america.

this threadcontains a number of comments from known liberals - which i think makes them representative
of a larger feeling - that praise osama bin laden's speech. now ! they appear to 'understand' osama
'cause they have read his speech in full. cue the violin.

its a long time in coming, something i feared possible, but the first osama rehabilitation thread is now
here. we know how liberals have soft-pedaled or ignored saddam hussein's record against his own
people. the 'yes, but . . .' crowd - yes, saddam was a very evil man, but . .. . we have also seen a
large number of sympathetic comments about the insurgents, many of whom liberals have cast as
'legitimate defenders', when many of these insurgents are former ba'athists (fedayeen and such)
who had terrorized iraqi citizenry for decades ! ! !

what the heck happened ? a hint - albeit a very small hint - may be in the recent election returns.
the only voting age-group to gain a majority for kerry was the youngest. but who knows . . .

 

[Tarpon6]

Sick stuff. Amazing how they forget the embassies, the USS Cole and the WTC. OBL is a madman, just because he can give an eloquent speech does not make that go away.

 

[Red Dawn]

Funny most of those who are defending OBL are the Muslims members of this board who are anything but liberal. Whacked out yes but liberal no.

 

[Forsythe]

Wow, drop your paranoia. Nobody endorses Bin Laden. At least listening to him would make sense. Yes he was responsible for killing around 2700 armericans. Bush is responsible for around 100k iraq'is. And the money you spend on the iraq war couæd have saved assloads of additional people, elsewhere!

[Edit]
And yes, he is an extremist islamist, who wants to make the entire world an islamist state. But at least he can form a sentence. The fact of the matter, most people would rather support the smart guy than the idiot.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I noticed the same thing, frightening stuff.

Begining to suspect this will degrade into a world war, if the Netherlands can degrade into a church/mosque fire bombing mess, the rest of the world isn't far behind.

Despite 9-11 & the invasion of Iraq, the world was headed in this direction sooner or later.

My Civics teacher in the 70's suggested it'd happen.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
The fact of the matter, most people would rather support the smart guy than the idiot.

Not true especially if the smart guy is a murderer.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Despite 9-11 & the invasion of Iraq, the world was headed in this direction sooner or later.

s/Despite/Because of/

 

[K1052]

Ah, Sultan

Why am I not suprised?

 

[GrGr]

syzygy: "known liberals"

LMAO

The unkown liberals are out to get you! Muuaahahahahhhaaaaaa

 

[kage69]

Sick stuff. Amazing how they forget the embassies, the USS Cole and the WTC. OBL is a madman, just because he can give an eloquent speech does not make that go away.

I remember thinking this about neocons on many occasions. Except for the OBL part, we all know he is no longer an issue to our fearless liar and his cohorts of sheep.

 

[Moonbeam]

syzygy doesn't like any moral ambiguity when he sets out to murder for the good. He believes in clear-eyed, straightforward killing.

 

[biostud]

amazingly, I have come to the conclusion that there may not be any bounds to what 'neo-cons' can generalize and simplify
in their continuing ideological onslaught of human rights and freedom of speech.

Osama and Saddam are/was not insane they're extremely cynical, and that's far worse IMO. If he was insane it would mean that his actions could be explained as an illness and I don't believe that. I see them as to persons who have no boundries in what they will do to achieve their goals. Bush still have boundries but I think they've moved compared to what we've been used to. He has started a preventive war (it even sounds like an oxymoron ) no matter what evidence is found or not found that is what the Iraq invasion was. The idea to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan was a move even though they weren't used.
I think the grayzone we move in lies between: "Diplomacy (non violent)" and "In order to save the village we have to destroy it". Bush have taken a step closer to the latter, and Osama and Saddam are very close to the last one, and part of it if we see democracy as the goal.

What I'm tired of that some persons are not willing to discuss what amount of force should be used to achieve what we believe is right. Calling it un-patriotic and whinning or merciless slaughter of innocents, instead of trying to aknowledge that they themself don't hold the truth, but rather choose what they think will bring a better future. No-one knows what is better for the future, but history contains examples where war solved a problem, and times where war didn't. Based on history and theories we should decide what to do for the future, not because something feels right. Every time a decision is made both a best case and worst case scenario should be made, and they should to some degree be made public so that we know what to hope for and what to fear. As I see it the neo-cons only give the best case and the liberals are therefor forced to give the worst case. Then both sides throw mud on eachother and can't give a open minded discussion about what to do.

I hope that Bush will make Iraq a peacefull place to live and bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but I fear that he's doing the opposite.
Is this a neo-con or liberal statement?
Stop putting arguments in boxes with labels, take the argument for what it is not which box you might find it to fit in.

 

[chrisms]

Yea, we don't want to understnad Osama.. just fire them towelheads out of their holes and any evil-doers who are left standing will be terminated by superior American firepower!

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: biostud666
amazingly, I have come to the conclusion that there may not be any bounds to what 'neo-cons' can generalize and simplify
in their continuing ideological onslaught of human rights and freedom of speech.

Osama and Saddam are/was not insane they're extremely cynical, and that's far worse IMO. If he was insane it would mean that his actions could be explained as an illness and I don't believe that. I see them as to persons who have no boundries in what they will do to achieve their goals. Bush still have boundries but I think they've moved compared to what we've been used to. He has started a preventive war (it even sounds like an oxymoron ) no matter what evidence is found or not found that is what the Iraq invasion was. The idea to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan was a move even though they weren't used.
I think the grayzone we move in lies between: "Diplomacy (non violent)" and "In order to save the village we have to destroy it". Bush have taken a step closer to the latter, and Osama and Saddam are very close to the last one, and part of it if we see democracy as the goal.

What I'm tired of that some persons are not willing to discuss what amount of force should be used to achieve what we believe is right. Calling it un-patriotic and whinning or merciless slaughter of innocents, instead of trying to aknowledge that they themself don't hold the truth, but rather choose what they think will bring a better future. No-one knows what is better for the future, but history contains examples where war solved a problem, and times where war didn't. Based on history and theories we should decide what to do for the future, not because something feels right. Every time a decision is made both a best case and worst case scenario should be made, and they should to some degree be made public so that we know what to hope for and what to fear. As I see it the neo-cons only give the best case and the liberals are therefor forced to give the worst case. Then both sides throw mud on eachother and can't give a open minded discussion about what to do.

I hope that Bush will make Iraq a peacefull place to live and bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but I fear that he's doing the opposite.
Is this a neo-con or liberal statement?
Stop putting arguments in boxes with labels, take the argument for what it is not which box you might find it to fit in.

Well said.

syzygy, I read your post in that thread, and see that you are making a common error: The comments you loathed were observations of Osama's apparent eloquence or clarity. That does not presuppose support for him in any way. It is vital to know your enemy, and he is our sworn enemy.
His destruction is second only to understanding how he did it, where he got his support, and preventing the scenario from happening again. If that means a fundamental change in foriegn policy, so be it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: syzygy
this thread contains a number of comments from known liberals - which i think makes them representative
of a larger feeling

See, here's where you run into trouble. You are trying to use your brain for thinking, something it clearly wasn't intended to do. You make some huge assumptions about what people's comments mean, then you apply those assumptions to a very broad group those people are part of. I don't even know where to start with what's wrong with this whole thread, so forget it, I doubt you'd understand anyways.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Wow, drop your paranoia. Nobody endorses Bin Laden. At least listening to him would make sense. Yes he was responsible for killing around 2700 armericans. Bush is responsible for around 100k iraq'is. And the money you spend on the iraq war couæd have saved assloads of additional people, elsewhere!

[Edit]
And yes, he is an extremist islamist, who wants to make the entire world an islamist state. But at least he can form a sentence. The fact of the matter, most people would rather support the smart guy than the idiot.

wth are you jabbering about ? 'most people would rather support the smart guy than the idiot' sounds
like the hordes of young kerry voters who went down in flames. you now, the ones with the advanced
degrees, nose-in-the-air, sanctimonious, pretentious know-nothings. you took the long route to proving
moi correct through the example you set. smell the embers.

as for my paranoia, freud, i don't to 'listen' to osama as you would suggest since i long ago read
his blitherings and watched on the tellie the horror of his thoughts once they were acted out.
thousands dead, 'but at least he can form a sentence'.

as for you idiotically equating the casualties resulting from war to those perpetrated against innocent
civilians, who bin laden himself has explicitly picked out for destruction, i don't see where the difference
is between you and the liberals you are trying to stand apart from. or are you trying to stand apart .. .
hey, secret agent man . . . .

we now have your prescription for forgiveness which i wish you would apply to bush as you does to
osama. if bush has murdered 100k, and osama a mere few 4k, why isn't bush afforded the same
forgivance and idolization that sicko relativists have reserved for third world butchers and islamo-
fascists ? is it the head scarf ? beard ? uh, what ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: syzygy
we now have your prescription for forgiveness which i wish you would apply to bush as you does to
osama. if bush has murdered 100k, and osama a mere few 4k, why isn't bush afforded the same
forgivance and idolization that sicko relativists have reserved for third world butchers and islamo-
fascists ?

Yes, he get it from you.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: biostud666
................I hope that Bush will make Iraq a peacefull place to live and bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but I fear that he's doing the opposite.
Is this a neo-con or liberal statement?
Stop putting arguments in boxes with labels, take the argument for what it is not which box you might find it to fit in.

Not a bad comeback. Intelligent and persuasive.

However, there seems to be a lot of sympathy on this board for Saddam and OBL and a lot of mentions of murder when it comes to a military action.
Shooting at people that are shooting at you is not murder. Blowing up a bunch of school children just because the school was built by the U.S. is murder.

 

[nageov3t]

I agree. those liberals are a scourge on our society with their demands for diversity and not killing people *shakes his fist*

 

[tweakmm]

Known liberals.

Bwahahahahaha.



Sympathy for the insurgents?

Heaven forbid that someone have a broader world view than the first few twists of one's own large intestine.
You think you are right and the insurgents think that they are right.
Who is to decide who is really right?



I am neither a liberal or a conservative, only a realist and the world is currently in a horrible downward spiral and it's of my opinion that the conservatives in power(read:neocons) are doing nothing but hastening the inevitable.

 

[BBond]

If the neo-conservative hero Bush had done the job right in Afghanistan, Osama wouldn't be around to make any speeches. By failing to rid the world of the madman Osama, the madman Bush did more to support him than anyone you neocons improperly suggest does here.

What ever happened to all the tought cowboy talk? Dead or alive. Smoke 'em out. BS.

Bush loves Osama. Osama makes it so much easier for Bush to peddle his wares...fear and division.

 

[Jhhnn]

The usual vitriol from syzygy-

"as for you idiotically equating the casualties resulting from war to those perpetrated against innocent
civilians, who bin laden himself has explicitly picked out for destruction, i don't see where the difference
is between you and the liberals you are trying to stand apart from."

What war? the one in Iraq that was undertaken on the basis of deliberate distortions and deceptions? The war where Our President explicitly picked out Iraqi civilians for destruction? A war undertaken not as a matter of necessity, but as a matter of choice? A war where we are the aggressors? A war whose justification is as trumped up as that for the invasion of Poland in 1939?

And who are you to define idiocy, when 9/11 was the direct result of our so-called leaders and security experts failing to understand that terrorists would engage in such tactics? The terrorists exploited our collective ignorance, and you suggest that we should entrench ourselves deeper in the rhetoric of fear, simply demonize them, reinforce that ignorance by accepting rightwing pablum and knee-jerk rhetoric?

As for forgiveness, you're the only person who has used that word in this thread- your usual false attribution, attempting to frame the issue in a false light.

Sanctimonious pretentious know nothings? You're bordering on self parody, sir, even if your belief structure and state of denial prevent realization of that facet of the image you project.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sanctimonious pretentious know nothings? You're bordering on self parody, sir, even if your belief structure and state of denial prevent realization of that facet of the image you project.

Oh man, so true my friend, so true.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: biostud666
................I hope that Bush will make Iraq a peacefull place to live and bring peace and democracy to the entire middle east, but I fear that he's doing the opposite.
Is this a neo-con or liberal statement?
Stop putting arguments in boxes with labels, take the argument for what it is not which box you might find it to fit in.

Not a bad comeback. Intelligent and persuasive.

However, there seems to be a lot of sympathy on this board for Saddam and OBL and a lot of mentions of murder when it comes to a military action.
Shooting at people that are shooting at you is not murder. Blowing up a bunch of school children just because the school was built by the U.S. is murder.

Got to ask, who applauds either Saddam or OBL here? Hating a war does not make for sympathy. We didn't make war on Saddam. We killed Iraqis. That is what the opposition despises.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Count me among those that sees wisdom in "knowing your enemy". OBL is far more dangerous when he is demonized than when his motives are understood. You don't have to agree with his positions, motives, etc. , but it still boils down to a fundamental lapse in communication; unfulfilled expectations on both sides. Yes, we're talking a monumental scale, but never the less, it's a basic principle.