Interesting quote
11-10-2004, 12:30 PM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Interesting quote
I found this quote to be interesting...
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.
Originally Posted by Columist Christopher Hitchens
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.
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.
11-10-2004, 12:43 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 933
Car Info: Stock Legacy Turbo Wagon Silver
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.
11-10-2004, 01:53 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
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 do liberals support the worst theocracies? Do you know who helped the Taliban get into power?
11-10-2004, 02:17 PM
#6
250,000-mile Club President
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bizerkeley
Posts: 4,770
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by Unregistered
How is that a intresting quote? Its right wing propaganda.
These folks just push hatred and fear based on false generalizations, and misrepresentations.
11-10-2004, 02:28 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by psoper
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.
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?
11-10-2004, 02:53 PM
#9
250,000-mile Club President
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bizerkeley
Posts: 4,770
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Yeah, except his comments are spot on about you. You blame the American government for 9/11.
Originally Posted by subaruguru
I know who helped put the Taliban in power. Do you?
Who were you going to point fingers at? Michael Moore? Bill Clinton? maybe it was Al Sharpton who put the Taliban in power?
11-10-2004, 02:57 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
.
When did they come into power? Would it be late-1970s, or mid-90s when they became the official Afghan govt??
When did they come into power? Would it be late-1970s, or mid-90s when they became the official Afghan govt??
Last edited by dub2w; 11-10-2004 at 03:05 PM.
11-10-2004, 03:18 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by psoper
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
Originally Posted by psoper
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?
Who were you going to point fingers at? Michael Moore? Bill Clinton? maybe it was Al Sharpton who put the Taliban in power?
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.
11-10-2004, 09:03 PM
#12
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by subaruguru
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 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.
11-11-2004, 10:24 AM
#13
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
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...
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...
11-11-2004, 11:02 AM
#14
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
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.
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.
11-11-2004, 11:10 AM
#15
Dirty Redhead
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Posts: 7,204
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
Originally Posted by Salty
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...
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...