9/11 was an attack perpetrated by CONSERVATIVES - Discuss

[Ignacio Upton]

Save the LIHOP/MIHOP talk for another thread. Assuming that the people who attacked us on that day were religious extremists, they are more or less conservatives. They want to force women to cover their entire bodies, prevent them from driving, kill anyone who is gay, and stone you to death without any real due process. Oh, and wearing a beard is required in the eyes of some of these extremists. 12th Cenutry living here we come! The terrorists of Al Qaeda are the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Freepers, and their bullying tactics against anyone who does not follow their fundamentalist ways is tyranny.

[BOSSHOG]

1. You are correct

Radical christian clerics in this country are no different that radical muslim clerics elsewhere. Their goal is to force their "beliefs" on the populace. The koran cannot be overruled by anything in the new Iraqi constitution; that is part of the constitution. That's what dobson, falwell etc want for this country. To hell with constitutional liberties for all. Its a full time job fighting their spin of being oppressed because of their religious beliefs.

[mtowngman]

4. I hate being

beaten to the post by someone smarter than me.(please take it as a compliment)

[mtowngman]

2. And don't forget a government founded upon

a single religion's beliefs

[mattclearing]

3. I just don't see how this rhetoric gets us anywhere productive.

Equating Republicans to Al Qaida, as tempting as it may be, seems like a sure political loser for me.

I'm starting to realize that demonizing the enemy doesn't win any votes.

[BOSSHOG]

7. I'm not quite sure I did that

I think comparing christian zealots in america to muslim zealots in the middle east is a very fair comparison. The dominance of one's religion over the population is the goal of both groups. If an acceptable rhetoric can be used I think it would diminish the power of a political party which courts such a group. Radical christian clerics in America want to dictate my life to me via law changes and the oppression of scientific research. I did not spend 24 years in uniform supporting and defending that goal. I agree with you about my radical rhetoric. But telling the truth about the agenda of a group which a large segment of America is unaware of does not equate to demonizing.

[mattclearing]

15. I agree with you in principle...I know there are real similarities.

But as John Lennon said, "If you carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

People want to believe that as bad as the Republicans are, that they have America's best interests at heart.

Even if you and I know that is not true, it is pointless to try to change people's opinion of that. I think it's probably best to fight them on those terms.

Also, are you saying that you're the OP?

[BOSSHOG]

17. I'm not the OP

I was replying to your first msg as a referral to my earlier one. I'm more than willing to fight on a clear and concise definition of separation of church and state issue. If the state cannot involve itself in the affairs of the church than visa versa is also in play. The clerics in this country do their best to muddy the waters on that issue and they do so in a tax exempt status. I believe fight is the right word. We fought against having the church of england imposed on us, I'm willing to fight to keep from having the church of falwell imposed upon us. Its what the constitution is all about. Radical christians in America are, in my opinion, the number one domestic enemy of the constitution today. They prove my point on a daily basis.

[ROH]

21. If you're going to quote John Lennon's lyrics...

please note that in 1972 John said: "I should never have put that in about Chairman Mao. I was just finishing off in the studio when I did that."

In 1980, John added: "The statement in 'Revolution' was mine. The lyrics stand today. It's still my feeling about politics. I want to see the plan. That is what I used to say to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. Count me out if it is for violence. Don't expect me to be on the barricades unless it is with flowers."

[thefloyd]

8. I agrtee

Leave over the top rhetoric to Cons. I know the feeling is tempting to keep pounding on the gop BUT democrats can over reach and create a little backlash. I am not saying one post will tilt public opinion. Simply stating sometimes confidence can get a little to high and we know what happens. Example: Decline of GOP

[BOSSHOG]

11. Stating that christian conservatives in America

want to restrict, limit or do away with constitutional liberties of groups of American Citizens because of their religious beliefs is not going over the top, its telling the truth. I believe separation of church and state is the number one issue facing America today. We would be the christian equivalent of Iran if falwell, dobson etc had their way. And they are attempting to get their way in a tax excempt status. Hopefully your argument is not what we say but how we say it.

[thefloyd]

16. Longtime from happening

Please. Intelligent Design was shut down in Dover, PA. I think things are ok.

[BOSSHOG]

18. Good for the voters of Dover, PA

maybe they think like I do. The defeat will not keep the religious right from tyring to force you to believe as they do. There are anti-gay marriage amendments in many states. There is an attempt underway to ban funding for research that could cure cervical cancer because "it can be cured through abstinence." The scientific community has enough road blocks without those whose religious "beliefs" keeps them from wanting to discover cures. I think things will be ok when we have a clear and concise and universally accepted definition of separation of church and state or all churchs lose their tax exempt status. I'm sure you'll agree choosing one or the other is fair.

[guruoo]

22. I don't believe this was...

intended to be made part of anyone's campaign platform.

[Igel]

5. In 1992's terminology, Lenin

was a conservative.

So Marxist-Leninists were the equivalent of Freepers and Islamists.

One fallacy to look out for in an argument is shifting definitions, or definitions implicitly extended to cover later in an argument that they did not properly cover early on. It's a techique especially common in demagoguery and populism.

[The Magistrate]

9. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

How, by even "1992 standards", was Lenin a conservative?

[Igel]

23. It follows fairly normally from the perspective in the early '90s.

And the usual meanings of the terms.

Conservatives, those on the right, want to conserve the system; liberals, those on the left, want to change it. In the '20s, the Bolsheviks were on the left and the laissez-faire folk on the right; in the '90s ...

The system included repression, GULags, and all the other Soviet horrors, but also full-employment, free health care, free education, decent pensions, subsidized housing, state control of industry, no private property. Of course, it did all of that poorly, but that was what conservatives defended.

The liberals wanted changes that would allow for less than full employment, paying for some health care, reducing pensions, removing housing responsibility from the state, privatizing industry and property. Laissez-faire was extreme left.

It was very stressful to translate public discourse for a few years in there because none of the terms "fit" quite right; but translating the Russian word that usually meant 'right' as 'left' and the usual term for 'conservative' as 'liberal' fit better than leaving them unreversed. Very strange. And you still see it that way from time to time: The Communists/Social Democrats, even stripped of their totalitarian rhetoric, are still sometimes put on the 'right'.

[The Magistrate]

24. That Is Not My Understanding Of The Period, Sir

Lenin, after all, established that system, and it was rather a change from that which had existed before, to a degree that most dubbed it revolutionary. The principal divisions in the political life of Soviet Russia at that time comprised groups termed by the Party as left deviationists and right deviationists, with groups both outside and within the Party identifiable in both camps. Outside the Party as left deviationists were the Social Revolutionaries, who felt the Bolshevik system a dictatorship in regards to the Russian people, but felt also it was not doing nearly enough to stamp out reactionary survivals. Within the Party, Trotsky was a left deviationist, espousing quicker and harsher regimentation of workers along the lines of War Communism, and export of revolution as an ideal rather than a strategy. Neither of these elements cared a fig for the "liberal" changes you have enumerated, most all of which would have been considered right deviationism, as they embodied continuation of some pre-revolutionary capitalist practices in some degree. Lenin himself, in the New Economic Policy put in place shortly after the Civil War, sided as a matter of tactics with the right deviationists, as this policy did incorporate some small scale market elements in the interest of reducng unrest at the harsh conditions of War Communism.

It is true enough that, within the Left spectrum itself, Communist Parties do generally occupy the "right" position: this was particulary true in the Stalin period, and shows up very clearly in the Popular Front movement and the Spanish Civil War. But that does not seem to me quite what you are getting at here.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. What's to discuss? There have been several threads giving

details of its context of numerous extraordinarily damning irregularities, and the obstinate refusal of the authorities to investigate them. And you dismiss LIHOP/MIHOP information as "talk"! You've got some nerve.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

10. The enemy is fanatics

all fanatics including those from the left & right. Christian right & Taliban, Al Quada are all fanatics and have more in common than either wants to emmit. Fanatics are one-side, closed minded, violent,intolerant, totalitarian & hateful. All those characteristics we are not at DU.

It is interesting to note that for a while the * admin was trying call Al Quada a fascist organization & then they switched to leftist. They are attempting to purposely equating these religious terrorist with leftist movements. Listen to their sound bites & you will here this. That is why it is good to point out their hypocrisy & that Al Quada is a religious Conservative movement

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Hmmmmmm.. do some research on Atta. He lived with a lap dancer,

snorted coke, went to strip clubs and gambled. What kind of conservative is that?

[Orangepeel]

13. the GWB kind

:shrug:

So add hypocritical to the list. The leaders of the conservative movement are usually "do as I say, not as I do" kind of people.


edited because I typed :shrub: instead of : shrug: HA!

[NoAmericanTaliban]

14. Sounds like Atta would make a great televanglist

He is your typical hypocritical conservative... Same kind as * - snort cocain, be a drunk, get dui, lie, lie lie, & become president :)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

25. That isn't quite my point. My point is that a fake conservative wouldn't

have given his life for Allah, as claimed.

[shance]

19. More accurately, the Neocons. They are not truly conservatives.

n/t

[leftofthedial]

20. yep.

religiously insane conservatives are waging war against other religiously insane conservatives.

The rest of the world, 90% of us, are caught in the crossfire.

[Rich Hunt]

26. has anyone read this book?

Welcome to Terrorland?

I keep reading these interesting sites that reference this book and other articles.

Like this one:

http://www.breakfornews.com/Mohammed-Atta.htm