Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

The hysterical left.


  • Please log in to reply
3514 replies to this topic

#21 Corporal USMC

Corporal USMC

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 5668 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:42 AM

Originally posted by Brendon
Mr Teapot,

your hysterical Trotskyite/ unreconstructed Maoist rants do not frighten me.



I guess he hasn't wrestled for the USA against the Iranians in the mid 80's...eeeehhhh..........:tralala:
  • 0

#22 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:42 AM

Mr Teapot,
do you agree with this statement:

...That is a genuine case for a revolutionary war of liberation, such as has occurred in Iraq. But The Left replies: "That's illegal!"

Well, of course revolutionary war is illegal! Legal systems are created by revolutions, not revolutions by legal systems.



Especially given that senior Bush advisor said it was illegal but morally responsible:
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, ... "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
  • 0

#23 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Corporal USMC
I guess he hasn't wrestled for the USA against the Iranians in the mid 80's...eeeehhhh..........:tralala:



Now, THAT would frighten me.



:D
  • 0

#24 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Brendon
Mr Teapot,
do you agree with this statement:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...That is a genuine case for a revolutionary war of liberation, such as has occurred in Iraq. But The Left replies: "That's illegal!"

Well, of course revolutionary war is illegal! Legal systems are created by revolutions, not revolutions by legal systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes why not? If Shroeder and Chirac did not have under the table deals and vast oil contracts with Saddam they may not have vehemently opposed regime change in Iraq. Then the war would have miraculously become legal? Name me one legal war and Korea was technically a police action. The Allies did not declare war.

So all wars are illegal in the eyes of some, especially pacifist neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland.
Legal systems are created by revolutions but so what? Khomeini installed his version of Islamic law after overthrowing the Shah in Iran. Women were stoned to death, hands and feet lopped off, homosexuals butchered.
  • 0

#25 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
Yes why not? If Shroeder and Chirac did not have under the table deals and vast oil contracts with Saddam they may not have vehemently opposed regime change in Iraq. Then the war would have miraculously become legal? Name me one legal war and Korea was technically a police action. The Allies did not declare war.

So all wars are illegal in the eyes of some, especially pacifist neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland.

Legal systems are created by revolutions but so what? Khomeini installed his version of Islamic law after overthrowing the Shah in Iran. Women were stoned to death, hands and feet lopped off, homosexuals butchered.





Defensive wars are legal. It is both legal and moral for a country to DEFEND itself.

It is both ILlegal and IMmoral for a country to START a war.


Starting a war is the most heinous crime there is. Why? Because war is terror magnified a thousand times. In addition, war brings tyranny, corruption, disease, famine, insanity, and the threat of a larger war.

War-making is the quintessential act of the anti-human psychopath. War is a vast human sacrifice, and, as such, represents a regression to the era of pure savagery.




How can you not see hte difference between defense and aggression??!


It's the basic difference between right and wrong. People who lack the ability to understand that difference are termed "sociopaths".




Although you see no difference between right and wrong, defense and aggression, you suggest that there is some sort of absolute categorical difference between
  • Khomeini lopping off hands with a knife, and
  • Bush lopping off hands with cluster bombs

You are delusional.
  • 0

#26 Corporal USMC

Corporal USMC

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 5668 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 04:54 AM

Originally posted by NonZionist


[b]It's the basic difference between right and wrong.
People who lack the ability to understand that difference are termed "sociopaths".

Although you see no difference between right and wrong, defense and aggression, you suggest that there is some sort of absolute categorical difference between

  • Khomeini lopping off hands with a knife, and
  • Bush lopping off hands with cluster bombs

You are delusional.

















That's because it's not Fascism When We Do It...:uh:

Attached Thumbnails

  • fascism_not_us_.jpg

  • 0

#27 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:08 AM

Originally posted by NonZionist
Defensive wars are legal. It is both legal and moral for a country to DEFEND itself.

It is both ILlegal and IMmoral for a country to START a war.

Starting a war is the most heinous crime there is. Why? Because war is terror magnified a thousand times. In addition, war brings tyranny, corruption, disease, famine, insanity, and the threat of a larger war.

War-making is the quintessential act of the anti-human psychopath. War is a vast human sacrifice, and, as such, represents a regression to the era of pure savagery.




How can you not see hte difference between defense and aggression??!


It's the basic difference between right and wrong. People who lack the ability to understand that difference are termed "sociopaths".




Although you see no difference between right and wrong, defense and aggression, you suggest that there is some sort of absolute categorical difference between

  • Khomeini lopping off hands with a knife, and
  • Bush lopping off hands with cluster bombs

You are delusional.



Rubbish.
There are cases where war is the only instrument that could produce a regime change.
The war in Iraq was over in weeks. The Iraqis could have selected candidates and written a constitution in short order. The quickest way to get the Coalition out of Iraq was to go along with democratizing the country. But Baathists and radical Islamists from around the world did not want to see a free democratic Iraq.
Neither did Syria and Iran among other ME nations.

If you want to talk about an evil war move over to Darfur where your Arab pals are butchering the Blacks in Southern Sudan.

How can you not see that insurgent terrorists who car bomb their own citizens is not defense but hostile aggression? Do you want Saddam back screwing the Shiites and the Kurds?
It sure appears that way.
  • 0

#28 Incubus

Incubus

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2347 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:16 AM

Originally posted by NonZionist

[b]War-making is the quintessential act of the anti-human psychopath.
War is a vast human sacrifice, and, as such, represents a regression to the era of pure savagery.



Are you out of your mind? War to the human race is as natural as sex. It's a natural result of competing for limited territory and resourses.

Overpopulation compounds the problem in the modern era.

Get a clue, man.:rolleyes:
  • 0

#29 Incubus

Incubus

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2347 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:23 AM

We are not truly alive until we stare death in the face.

Death is a warrior's constant companion.:devil:
  • 0

#30 Corporal USMC

Corporal USMC

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 5668 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Incubus
War to the human race is as natural as sex. It's a natural result of competing for limited territory and resourses.

Overpopulation compounds the problem in the modern era.




So let me see if I understand you?

You are saying that the invasion of Iraq was just a USA land-grab for Oil and not the WMD or as the goal posts were moved, just for the poor Iraqis freedoms....:cheers:
  • 0

#31 Incubus

Incubus

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2347 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:41 AM

I said nothing of the sort.:tralala:


:D
  • 0

#32 Mr Teapot

Mr Teapot

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4631 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 07:01 AM

and there are witnesses!:P
  • 0

#33 shaukat

shaukat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21822 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 07:09 AM

Nobody is stopping you to join the 'Right'. After all - it's all in the 'Jewish Pot' - Right or Left. :D
  • 0

#34 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
Yes why not? If Shroeder and Chirac did not have under the table deals and vast oil contracts with Saddam they may not have vehemently opposed regime change in Iraq. Then the war would have miraculously become legal? Name me one legal war and Korea was technically a police action. The Allies did not declare war.

So all wars are illegal in the eyes of some, especially pacifist neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland.
Legal systems are created by revolutions but so what? Khomeini installed his version of Islamic law after overthrowing the Shah in Iran. Women were stoned to death, hands and feet lopped off, homosexuals butchered.



Mr Teapot,

then you are in league with the extreme left. Because that is what Mr Albert Langer says. Its what the Totskyite neocons like Kristol and Christopher Hitchens say:

"Modernity comes out of the barrel of a gun"

It is the antithesis of conservatism.

You deny that you are a Trotskyite. But you sprout the same policies.
  • 0

#35 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
Rubbish.

There are cases where war is the only instrument that could produce a regime change.
....






Regime change?? And what regime gets to decide when the regime should be changed?


And what regime gets to decide how many people it is ok to murder in the course of effecting this "regime change"? Who decided that it is ok for Emperor Bush to murder 100,000 Iraqis? How many people have to die before regime change becomes "wrong"? -- 200,000? 600,000? 6,000,000?

What if "regime change" entailed killing 6,000,000 people? Would you still support it?




So in your bizarre world, Emperor Bush -- who can't even keep the streets of our capital safe -- is qualified to determine when the regime should be changed in countries on the other side of the planet? He can't keep the U.S.I. borders secure, but you think he is qualified to secure the borders of Iraq?!


:rolleyes: Is that insane, or what??


Bush is incompetent when governing the U.S.I., but he is competent to govern Iraq? -- so competent that changing from Saddam to Bush is worth 100,000 lives??


Truly, the neo-cons are MAD. :crazy:
  • 0

#36 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 01:03 PM

Originally posted by NonZionist


Truly, the neo-cons are MAD. :crazy:



Worse than mad! The blackguards are left wing! :mad:





:D
  • 0

#37 Brendon

Brendon

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13976 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 01:16 PM

Here is another Marxist type, and it almost goes without saying that he is a devotee of Leon Bush....err, Comrade George Bush:

Norman Geras is Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of Manchester. In a long academic career, he has contributed substantially to the analysis of the works of Karl Marx, particularly in his book Marx and Human Nature and the article The Controversy About Marx and Justice, which remains a standard work on the issue.

Since July 2003 he also writes a political weblog, 'Normblog', which focuses mainly on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which he supported, alongside his academic interests.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Norman_Geras

It seems to me that this is a Right/Left issue.

The commies are firmly behind Comrade Bush and his trotskyite brethren.
  • 0

#38 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
The war in Iraq was over in weeks. The Iraqis could have selected candidates and written a constitution in short order. The quickest way to get the Coalition out of Iraq was to go along with democratizing the country.





A rape is over in half an hour. Does that make it "right"?

Or perhaps I should ask whether that makes it "ok" -- since "right" and "wrong" do not seem to be in your machiavellian vocabulary.


You do not seem to realize that the U.S.I. "coalition" of the bribed initially OPPOSED elections in Iraq. Elections were held ONLY because Sistani mobilized Shiite opposition to the U.S.I. proposal for an unelected puppet regime.




You are hopelessly and incredibly naive if you think the Bushoviks, who have now stolen TWO presidential elections here in the U.S.I., would squander 1,900 American lives and $250,000,000.000 (only the down-payment!) to "democratize" Iraq!

If the Establishment war-profiteers care so much about "democracy", why not give us a genuine democracy here in the U.S.I.??

Or why not democratize fascist Israel? -- Why not grant the 3.1 million Palestinians the rights of citizenship? Why is half of the population of Israel excluded from voting in elections in "The Only Democracy In The Middle East"?

The U.S.I. wouldn't need to start a war to effect badly needed "regime change" in fascist Israel. It would be enough to stop the $3-5,000,000,000 "tribute" the Zionist parasites suck out of us American taxpayers each year.




Yes, the Iraqis could have agreed to hand their country over to Ariel Sharon and Dick Cheney.

Yes, the Iraqis could have agreed to have sham U.S.I.-style "elections", where only Skull and Bones candidates get to "compete", where votes are "counted" by audit-free computers manufactured by companies affiliated with organized crime.

Yes, the Iraqis could have inflicted Israel-style "democracy" on themselves: They could have stripped certain ethnic groups -- groups adding up to half of the population of the country! -- of the right to vote.

Yes, the Iraqis could have employed the "Die now, vote later" strategy Bush employed against Falluja: They could have simply LEVELED all cities where insurgents may or may not be present.

Yes, the Iraqis could have invited Bush to serve as dictator or gangster in chief.




But is it fair to make Iraqis responsible for EVERYTHING while the neo-con mad bombers are responsible for NOTHING?

Here are a few things that the neo-cons could have done:
  • respect national sovereignty
  • respect international law
  • respect the American Constitution
  • get a conscience
  • acquire compassion and empathy
  • get a brain




Neo-cons invite is to inhabit a world of "IF". Unfortunately, REAL human beings get killed by the thousands and tens of thousands when this Trotskyite utopia -- this fantasy world -- collides with reality.

Yes, if only the Iraqis were as mindless as the Murikans, all slaves would "Live Happily Ever After"! -- or would live, at least, till they get to die in the next War Party killing spree.

But not to worry: If reality fails to conform to neo-con ideology and dogma, just drop some more bombs and missiles. Eventually, reality will come into line with the Party teaching.
  • 0

#39 NonZionist

NonZionist

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2218 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Mr Teapot
But Baathists and radical Islamists from around the world did not want to see a free democratic Iraq.

Neither did Syria and Iran among other ME nations.





Yes, and "They hate us because we're free"!

  • They don't hate Canada,
  • they don't hate Switzerland,
  • they don't hate Finland,
  • they don't hate Greece,
  • they don't hate New Zealand,
  • they don't hate Brazil,
  • they don't hate Japan,
  • they don't hate France,
  • they don't hate Germany.
They don't hate countries that are MORE free and MORE democratic than the U.S.I. But forget that!

"They hate us because we're free.". How do we know? We know because Emperor Bush tells us so, and the Emperor would never ever lie to us!!!

Well, the Emperor DID lie us into attacking Iraq.

But the Emperor would never tell a lie about September 11!!!


  • The fact that the U.S.I. regime gives "absolute, unconditional" support to Israeli state terror is NOT A FACTOR!!!
  • The fact that U.S.I. puppets keep the Middle East in chains is NOT A FACTOR!!!
  • The fact that the U.S.I., throughout the 1980s, supported Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan is NOT A FACTOR.
  • The fact that the U.S.I. supported Islamic terrorists in Kosovo in 1999 is again, NOT A FACTOR!!!
  • The fact that the U.S.I. overthrew the democratic Mossadegh government in Iran is NOT A FACTOR!!!
  • The fact that the U.S.I. regime has utterly betrayed our American founding principles is NOT A FACTOR!!!
  • The fact that several million Palestinians, for the last fifty years, have been struggling to achieve freedom and democracy is NOT A FACTOR.

They hate us because we're free!!! That's all we need to know!!!

How do we know? Because the Emperor and his mis-media all tell us so!!! And the corporate mis-media WOULD NOT LIE TO US!!!


Yes, and if you believe that, you must be a Murikan: No other people is capable of such extreme gullibility.




http://www.cnn.com/T...2/18/nd.01.html
+(
Newsday
Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on Capitol Hill
Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
....
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
....
)+


.

Here is conservative representative Dan Burton:

+(
Bush Stops Inquiry - Dan Burton ®: 'We've Got A Dictatorial President'
By Glen Johnson
The Boston Globe / Dec. 16, 2001
....
"We've got a dictatorial president and a Justice Department that does not want Congress involved. ... Your guy's acting like he's king."
....
)+
  • 0

#40 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 28 September 2005 - 10:20 PM

The islamofascists hate any country that isn't muslim. Europe is on their hit list because France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Italy, UK, and Croatia are finally cracking down on them. Serbia for example has less of a problem with rabid muslims because no smart muslim would even think about living there. They just handed over a jihadist to Spain who was part of the Madrid 3/11 group. He was passing through Serbia when he got nabbed. Haha.:cheers:
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru