I found this quote to be interesting...



Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time.

Question:

Why is it that leftist’s seem to decry our own government as being theocratic, yet have been indirectly supportive of the most theocratic and horrid regimes in history?


Discuss.

Simply put:

America is evil.
Americans are evil.

Very insightful, I've come to realize that the left will tolerate your religion and race only if your not a white Christian American. If you are a minority as am I and you are conservative you will be accused as I have, of being white washed.

Indirectly supportive? Because they dont want to attack another country pre-emptively?

How do liberals support the worst theocracies? Do you know who helped the Taliban get into power?

How is that a intresting quote? Its right wing propaganda.

How is that a intresting quote? Its right wing propaganda.

Yeah, I have to take anything Hitchens says and toss it in same the pile with quotes from Colter, Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Lielly.

These folks just push hatred and fear based on false generalizations, and misrepresentations.

He's simply using liberals words against them, not pushing hate or fear. Just voicing his outrage.

Yeah, I have to take anything Hitchens says and toss it in same the pile with quotes from Colter, Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Lielly.

These folks just push hatred and fear based on false generalizations, and misrepresentations.


Yeah, except his comments are spot on about you. You blame the American government for 9/11.

dub2w:

I know who helped put the Taliban in power. Do you?

Yeah, except his comments are spot on about you. You blame the American government for 9/11.

No, I don't blame the american government, I might blame Dick Cheney and a few other rougue agents, along with those that failed to adequately respond, but I admit that most of the "american government" had no clue what was going down


I know who helped put the Taliban in power. Do you?

A lot of different forces from very different directions were behind the Taliban coming to power, one of those forces was our very own CIA, along with help form the local Mujahdeen, and the russians who fled when their puppet government collapsed.

Who were you going to point fingers at? Michael Moore? Bill Clinton? maybe it was Al Sharpton who put the Taliban in power?

.

When did they come into power? Would it be late-1970s, or mid-90s when they became the official Afghan govt??

No, I don't blame the american government, I might blame Dick Cheney and a few other rougue agents, along with those that failed to adequately respond, but I admit that most of the "american government" had no clue what was going down

If you're so sure of this, see the pentagon attack thread and my post then. Then try to come up with a response that doesn't rely on conspiracy geocities pages.



A lot of different forces from very different directions were behind the Taliban coming to power, one of those forces was our very own CIA, along with help form the local Mujahdeen, and the russians who fled when their puppet government collapsed.

Who were you going to point fingers at? Michael Moore? Bill Clinton? maybe it was Al Sharpton who put the Taliban in power?

The CIA taliban connection is 100 percent bunk. The CIA cared about afghanistan only as long as Russians were there. The taliban is a POST RUSSIAN movement that became popular under Mullah Mohammed Omar to clean up the warlords, who were known for vice and cruelty. "Local Mujahedeen" is a laughable term. Mujahedeen is everyone who fights against an opressor to Muslims. It's a blanket term.

The russians fled when the entire Afghan society, CIA backed, including moderates like what eventually became the Northern Alliance, turned against them and began daily killing Russian soldiers. The Taliban started as a student/religious movement some time after the end of Russia's military presence as a response to the mess that was left behind, and it was funded by extremists via Western Pakistan, an area that has not ever been amenable to CIA or any American influence whatsoever.

So, the short answer is: The Taliban put the Taliban in power. The idea of a CIA connection to a religious movement that had nothing to do with anyone but Afghans at the time is silly.

The CIA taliban connection is 100 percent bunk. The CIA cared about afghanistan only as long as Russians were there. The taliban is a POST RUSSIAN movement that became popular under Mullah Mohammed Omar to clean up the warlords, who were known for vice and cruelty. "Local Mujahedeen" is a laughable term. Mujahedeen is everyone who fights against an opressor to Muslims. It's a blanket term.

The russians fled when the entire Afghan society, CIA backed, including moderates like what eventually became the Northern Alliance, turned against them and began daily killing Russian soldiers. The Taliban started as a student/religious movement some time after the end of Russia's military presence as a response to the mess that was left behind, and it was funded by extremists via Western Pakistan, an area that has not ever been amenable to CIA or any American influence whatsoever.

So, the short answer is: The Taliban put the Taliban in power. The idea of a CIA connection to a religious movement that had nothing to do with anyone but Afghans at the time is silly.

Thank you!

Here's another thing...

Why do most liberals think it's so asinine for people to assume our founding fathers may have wanted a Christian nation while welcoming an Islamic nation with a few radical Islamic people and ideals mixed into the batch?

I personally don't believe our founding fathers wanted a Christian nation and believe in the separation of church and state. Regardless, the question is still valid because most liberals seem to welcome the combination of Islam and State when they slam the idea in our own Country as political suicide.

Why the double standards? If you can accept the idea for other countries then aren’t you welcoming failure of their government by doing so?

I’m seriously asking with an open mind here...

Re-read my earlier post.
Christian values are the "status quo" here in the US.
Liberal Socialists do not like "status quo", hence they embrace anything that's a jab at The Establishment.

Here's another thing...

Why do most liberals think it's so asinine for people to assume our founding fathers may have wanted a Christian nation while welcoming an Islamic nation with a few radical Islamic people and ideals mixed into the batch?

I personally don't believe our founding fathers wanted a Christian nation and believe in the separation of church and state. Regardless, the question is still valid because most liberals seem to welcome the combination of Islam and State when they slam the idea in our own Country as political suicide.

Why the double standards? If you can accept the idea for other countries then aren’t you welcoming failure of their government by doing so?

I’m seriously asking with an open mind here...

I'm just trying to understand your post. Your saying that you want liberals to accept the possibility that our founding fathers wanted a christian state?

Your saying that you want liberals to accept the possibility that our founding fathers wanted a christian state?

Based on the fact they're willing to accept an Islamic state, yes.

I don't doubt that the founding fathers DID want a Christian state...as long as it was their type of Christian. The thing is, they were wrong to want that. Don't rely on the founding fathers like they were gods...they were only men as we are now. Fallable, and sometimes selfish, their plans were not perfect. And about liberals 'caring' more about Muslims than Christians...whatever man, liberals care about whoever is in need of help. At the current moment, in America, Muslims have a lot more to fear than Christians on a day-to-day basis. So of course liberals want to make sure their rights are not infringed upon.

At the current moment, in America, Muslims have a lot more to fear than Christians on a day-to-day basis.

You're joking, right?
I can't think of one Christian-sponsored act of terrorism that has occured since Sept 11th.

You're joking, right?
I can't think of one Christian-sponsored act of terrorism that has occured since Sept 11th.


I said nothing about who is "sponsoring" terrorism. I'm saying that day to day, Muslims in America face more people who hate/fear/prejudge them than Christians in America.

And do you really think Muslims all know about every act of terrorism done by Muslims? It's not like because a Muslim does a terrorist act that he/she won't kill Muslims along with all the American Christians, Agnostics, Jews, and Athiests. The terrorists don't discriminate among their victims...that's part of the point of terrorism. So it doesn't matter who does the terrorism if you're looking at who is more at risk.

So like I said, day-to-day, Muslims living in America have more to fear than Chrisitans living in America.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

You claim that followers of Islam have more to fear than Christians.
I said that there has not been any terrorist activity against any Muslims, that I'm aware of, since Sept. 11th.
Sure, there may have been a beating or three, but non-Muslims have not waged a terror campaign against those that follow Islam.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

You claim that followers of Islam have more to fear than Christians.
I said that there has not been any terrorist activity against any Muslims, that I'm aware of, since Sept. 11th.
Sure, there may have been a beating or three, but non-Muslims have not waged a terror campaign against those that follow Islam.


This is true. But there hasn't been any terrorist activity against any Christians either (for the fact that they're Christians). The terrorism is against Americans. Their religion is inconsequential to the terrorists. America is what's seen as an 'evil empire' to terrorists.

..... there has not been any terrorist activity against any Muslims, that I'm aware of, since Sept. 11th. .

I think there are a lot of car bombing victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan who would disagree with that sentiment.

.....but non-Muslims have not waged a terror campaign against those that follow Islam.

And I'd guess there are several hundred thousand innocent civillians in those countries that feel that this is exactly what the US is doing, nothing less.

But you probably don't consider them people, so what does their opinion count for?

I think there are a lot of car bombing victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan who would disagree with that sentiment.

You cut out the whole point of that line. "Christian-sponsored"