Using a term like the pro-terror left definitely has the ability to insult. I recommend taking a page from David Horowitz’s play book & using a more acceptable euphimism: The Unholy Alliance.
[
Not sure what your beef is, so I’ll try to address some possibles.
You believe there’s no such thing the pro-terror left:
Too bad and fuck you. You’re wrong. They exist.
You believe that I characterized everyone on the left, or who disagrees with U.S. policy with respect to the terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, as pro-terror:
Too bad and fuck you again. You’re wrong. In that very thread I specifically referred to at least some on the left as “legitimate do-gooders.”
You believe that I called a specific person on this board or off it pro-terrorist.
Too bad and fuck you. I did not. In fact, I demurred from an opportunity to do precisely that.
You believe that although I did not call a specific person on this board pro-terror, I insinuated it:
Too bad and fuck you. Your defensiveness is not my concern.
You believe that I slurred Muslims by referring to them as “allegedly moderate”:
I did not. I referred to a specific community in the West Midlands. And mixed in with all the actual moderate Muslims out there there is a radical community which hates the west and supports Osama bin Laden’s jihad against us. The three terrorists to whom glee was referring were among them.
Among the billion or so Muslims are some who are the bad guys. Some of those bad guys are in Iraq trying to prevent their countrymen from holding free elections; some are right next door. And to deny it is just insanity.
I believe on this matter you’re a fucking clueless cunt.
Manhatten
So if there is this community in the Midlands who are extremist, why do you not explain this, it is GD after all, instead of leaving us with the disitinct impression you were applying your phrase to all Muslims, moderate or otherwise.
You also didn’t specify which terrorist supporting left, you are very disengenuous, I think looks very much like justifying after the fact.
You know damn well that not all on the left of the political spectrum, wherever left might actually be, are supporters of terrorism, but you never qualified your statement in any way whatsoever, it was just a bald statement, your desperately seeking Manhatten act, desperately seeking for cites that is, happens to be another very poor attempt at crap post justification again.
Its a good job we can’t edit posts, because its clear to me that your dishonest backpedalling is the only way you can attempt to regain the moral high ground, and you sink pretty low to do that, at least its there for all to see.
I can see why you would be pretty hacked off with Al-Qaeda, it would be pretty much personal to you, however, you do no favours to the memory of the 9/11 victims by advocating detention without trial, or maybe looking the other way when torture takes place, or denying rights of advocacy.
Many times the police will detain someone for crimes they might have committed, almost certainly have committed, but, there is such a thing as proof and evidence and they are released, and they will then commit further crime.
The rules governing evidence, and proof are there because we must moderate authority if we are to remain free.
If we support the horrors of Abu-Ghraif, or false imprisonment in Gitmo then the freedom that the terrorists want to destroy is already gone, and what is left is just a matter of degree.
I dont think that would be a fitting memorial to 9/11, do you?
Of course, manhattan now pretends that he wasn’t drawing with a broad brush in his use of the term “pro-terror left.” But his actual post in the other thread suggests otherwise:
Well, the release of those prisoners came about after agitation by groups such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, lawyers’ groups, other human rights organizations, various sections of the press, many members of the American public, and even some foreign governments.
I guess that’s who you must be referring to when you say “pro-terror left.”
With regard to the expletive, is Manhattan female? For some reason I’d always assumed otherwise, probably because people, including manhattan himself/herself, sometimes use the nickname Manny.
Manny is male, which explains the brief moment of cognitive dissonance when I see him being called a c*nt.
In other words, you got nothing. No clear-eyed reasoning. No sharp rhetoric. Not even any colorful and creative insults, just schoolyard name-calling.
Loser.
where I come from ‘c*nt’ is usually directed at males.
where I come from ‘c*nt’ is usually directed at males.
Interesting. The Bush folks respond compliantly to “pressure from the pro-terror left”, avers Manny. By illustration, he offers photos from a demonstration in SF, also known as “cloud cuckoo land”.
Two of those are (apparently) concerned with Native American issues (“how many violated treaties?”) I rather thought the whole Geronimo matter had been cleared up long since, it is difficult to see otherwise how this stance impacts on “terror”. Another is a non-specific statement of shame and embarassment for one’s country, a sentiment of heart-sickness I share. Needless to say, I would strenuosly object to having that sentiment be characterized as “pro-terror”.
Another encourages the insurgency in Iraq. Now this is more difficult. I would remind that resisting an invading force, even one with the best of intentions, is generally accorded to be the inherent right of any population, it is why terms like “collaborationist” carry such pejorative context. I would further remind that the war in Iraq’s connection to the war on terror is based on the flimsiest of pretexts.
But more pointedly: we are given to understand that the “pro-terror left” has, apparently, enormous political clout, hitherto unrecognized. Try as I will, it is difficult, nay, impossible to see the Bushiviks cringing before such as these, and rushing to change policy in order to comply.
So…really, Manny? These are the people who compelled the Bushiviks to change policy? Ya think? Really?
True or false:
There are leftists in this country that may fairly and legitimately be described as “pro-terrorist.”
True or false:
There are rightists in this country that may fairly and legitimately be described as “child molestors.”
We should all be so lucky.
Oh! I want to play.
True or False:
Holding a sign reading “I am ashamed of my country” is clear evidence that one is “pro-terrorist”.
This is fun!
Enjoy,
Steven
The title “Manhattan of the SDSAB” sounds neat, like “Sgt. Preston of the Northwest Mounted Police” or “Rumpole of the Bailey”.
Or, I suppose, with small extension one has Spectre of (the) Pithecanthropus or Twistof(the)Fate…
Notice that in his usual fashion, elucidator won’t answer a point that makes him look bad; he just moves on to another argument, never conceding the original point.
I don’t do that, so…
TRUE.
FALSE.
Where are my answers, gentlemen?
Who are the leftists that might legitimately be described as “pro-terrorist”? :eek:
That straw dog won’t hunt. Your question is illegitimate, it does not deserve an answer, it is an empty rhetorical device. I would be willing to profer such an answer if you could offer any reason to believe that the presence of some “pro-terror” nuts on the left has any more significance than the presence of “child-molestors” on the right. I stand assured that there isn’t the slightest chance of that.