I mentioned Jason Acuña
Quite the article. It has, among other attributes, the feature that not one word of it reflects any kind of reality that I have ever seen. It seems to have been entirely manufactured out of the deluded brain of some kind of psychotic, although it’s possible that it’s just an attention-seeking troll.
No, liberals did not fail to be angry as hell about 9/11 – the whole goddam civilized world was angry as hell about it. Liberals just didn’t support invading the wrong country over it just because it happened to be in Cheney and Rummie’s PNAC playbook.
No, liberals didn’t think bin Laden was just a “flawed human being” – it was a liberal president who brought him to a well-deserved justice, and a conservative president who publicly declared that he didn’t think about him much, and indeed Bush’s incompetence and the distraction of Iraq facilitated bin Laden’s escape from Afghanistan in the first place.
And the idea that liberals compare bin Laden and Thatcher (what sane person would even try make such a comparison?) and that in liberals’ estimation bin Laden comes out ahead is not just delusional but seriously deranged and offensive.
One might also wonder what particular demographic is currently supporting a dangerous demagogue like Donald Trump. It’s not liberals. Here’s a further hint – it reflects the thinking of a significant segment of the “Red Tribe”: it’s mostly the same demographic that thinks that President Obama is illegitimate because he was born in Kenya, that he is a Muslim, that he routinely violates the Constitution, that he deserves to be called a liar to his face in an unprecedent display of disrespect for the office, that he is creating Death Panels for the elderly and internment camps for conservatives, and that he is going to set himself up as dictator for life.
As I said, the writer of that article might just be trolling, or presenting it as parody. Nobody could take it seriously unless they were a complete fucking moron like the OP. Hopefully we don’t have too many of those.
If Obama is going to set himself up as a dictator, he really needs to get started.
it is funny merely the highlighting that a muslim country is not matching the negative image of the bigots, the response is a huge Straw Man of “free-religion utopia” (since the actual statement said nothing about utopia, indeed it said only* “that the largest Muslim nation (by population) is actually moderate and practices none of those extremist things you listed”* - which does not in any way imply a utopia or even the excellence, of course if one is a hateful bigot admitting that something is not as bad as the cartoon picture, this is interpreted as ‘apologia’ and claiming utopia.)
Yes indeed by the low standards of the comparison with the well known muslim countries likethe Russia, the China, the Myanmar, … (of course low standards of comparison)
funny, neither are many non-muslim countries that are not rich Western nations…
Indeed the influence of the Salafiste in the recent decades is not a good thing and negatively impacts, particularly in the state of Aceh which is called out in the wiki link - a state of approximately the four millions people of the Indonesia population of the over 200 millions. But of course it is a bad thing that the Aceh has fallen into the influence of the intolerant.
Except that these two terrorists were both funded by the Reagan administration … it’s not really secret information that advanced weapons and training was being funneled into Afghanistan so folks like bin Laden could repel the Soviets …
He’ll be starting tonight …
You read so much into comments that simply neither exist nor are implied. The single statement that I was replying to gave the suggestion that Indonesia was moderate and not prone to extremism. the link I provided gives a fuller picture that is not quite as rosy and show clearly where the bar is set. I don’t know if English is your first language but “free-religion utopia” is quite clearly a sarcastic and hyperbolic statement and very carefully not bounded by quotation marks.
By all means include those as examples of countries that do not allow full freedom of religion and oppress their people as they see fit. But what exactly is your point? I’m agreeing that Indonesia is a muslim majority country with a better record of freedom of religion than other muslim majority countries. Had someone implied something similar for Russia then I’d be slapping up a similar quote for them.
And what of them? This was a comparison of a good muslim majority nation to secular western democracies.
Were you in the UK at the time of Thatchers death and Bin Laden’s assassination?
You might have been surprised by the reaction in some quarters. It is absolutely true that a vocal part of the left were far more celebratory of the former than the latter.
That’s moving the goalposts. “The Blue Tribe” is not the same as “a vocal part of the left”. At a minimum, I’d say that if half the electorate are in the middle, you could say 25% are committed members of “the blue tribe”. I’d say it would be fair to make a generalization about their beliefs if anything approaching half of them actually felt a certain way, which would mean that 12% or so would feel that ObL was simply a misunderstood wounded puppy.
If you take the SDMB as being as typically left as everyone seems to think, that would mean that far more than 12% of the SDMB feels that way. Do you have any evidence that that’s the case?
I don’t think it is helpful to start making up numbers. And I’m not moving the goalposts. I merely point out anecdotal evidence that backs-up the article’s main point.
I used to criticize Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, the toughest part was arguing that Israel was actually oppressing anyone. Now because of you, I don’t have to.
Just like I used to argue that the Republican party is racist, but now, because of Trump, I don’t have to.
That ridiculous article really has no point, and frankly your anecdote isn’t at all helpful, for a number of reasons.
First, it’s a mistake to equate the actions of some extremist minority with the presumed mindset of a broad ideology or political philosophy. Second, there’s no direct comparison that I’ve ever seen that can be used to substantiate the kind of allegation the stupid article was making. Third, there is also the problem of what I will call proximate impact. If something bad happens to a hated boss, a hated neighbor, an ex-spouse that was a party to a bitter divorce, a mayor that caused you personal grief over property taxes – a person of nasty disposition might take pleasure in the misfortune of such a personally hated enemy, and consider it a more worthy case of Schadenfreude than justice prevailing over a far more evil person whose impact was much more remote and cerebral rather than visceral. Margaret Thatcher was indeed widely disliked, and for many people, one way or another, it was personal.
IOW, what I’m saying is that such a comparison presented as evidence of some alleged moral failing among liberals, Democrats, or whatever, is just complete absolute utter bullshit. No doubt liberals have faults, as do we all, but that stupid allegation in that completely asinine article sure isn’t an example of it.
Bugs me when Republicans and conservatives use women’s rights and gay rights against Islam. Not that Islam doesn’t deserve it, but you never gave a shit about women’s equality or gay rights and really, you didn’t give a shit about basic human rights for gays. Not buying it. You didn’t give a shit before, you don’t give a shit now, except to use it criticizing Islam.
That’s always convincing.
IDK if you’re an American, but real Americans support Israel because they see the truth and honor countries with honorable values.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Bugs me when Republicans and conservatives use women’s rights and gay rights against Islam. Not that Islam doesn’t deserve it, but you never gave a shit about women’s equality or gay rights and really, you didn’t give a shit about basic human rights for gays. Not buying it. You didn’t give a shit before, you don’t give a shit now, except to use it criticizing Islam.
[/QUOTE]
While from many religious conservatives, it is indeed ironic, the majority of Republicans and conservatives who point them out DO differ with the Islamists in that even they don’t want to enact laws which would put them in long prison terms for being gay, or force women to wear things that look like garbage bags. Plus, given that many moderate Republicans do genuinely support LGB/womens rights and advancement, it does make the hard-left’s embrace of Islam even crazier.
If you want to bring members of the Blue Tribe to your side, you have to be very careful how you depict them.
I don’t find the contents of your post as unreasonable as the reactions to it might suggest. I do wish some of the more peaceful Muslims would be willing to be more outspoken when condemning the dark parts of their faith, which most other religions have been able to accomplish successfully. 
Honorable Americans (and honorable people in general) aren’t unrepentant bigots and cowards like you. As for Israel, one can support the country and the people without supporting every decision an Israeli leader makes.
http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm
It really depends. I suspect that the highest support for Israel’s policies comes from White Evangelical Republicans. I suspect the least support for Israel’s policies comes from oppressed minorities.
But thanks again for helping me make the case against Zionism.
Why woad you want to be careful?
You both need to be whipped. 