The dogma of our politics

[FridgeMagnet]

To be fair my sweeping statement about liberals (of which I'm one I just don't fit the stereotype ) has been backed up by all of your responses.

No it hasn't. I don't think you actually care though. (The preceding sentence, by the way, clearly proves that I am anti-American and part of the Worldwide Muslim Conspiracy.)

"Liberal" doesn't mean a lot these days anyway; you might like to look at the term "Eustonite".

 

[brucepig]

Christ, is it really that black and white for you? Are you suggesting that I'm some sort of Chomsky worshipper? I can think for myself, thanks and while Chomsky is a good writer, I don't hang on his every word. Is that sooooo hard to believe?



Whatever.



No, it seems to be about the merits of latter-day of Palmerstonian gunboat diplomacy that has been given a new 'meaning'.



Did I call you a "neo con"? I don't think I did.



Hein?


You've lost me now.

You are confused. I mentioned Chomsky because your talk of manipulative media and democracy as a mirage could have been lifted straight from one of his essays, I'm not saying you don't make up your own mind. Perhaps you are a master of political conspiracies and the workings of corporate manipulation in your own right.

You take umbridge at me accusing you of being some kind of Chomskyite then you accuse me of being some kind of British imperialist arguing for gunboat diplomacy. Touche.

No you didn't call me a neocon but your posts have been directed at an imaginary imperialistic, neocon who is arguing for "gunboat diplomacy" and supports the Iraq war. You didn't have to call me a neocon it was implied in the words you wrote.

 

[nino_savatte]

You are confused. I mentioned Chomsky because your talk of manipulative media and democracy as a mirage could have been lifted straight from one of his essays, I'm not saying you don't make up your own mind. Perhaps you are a master of political conspiracies and the workings of corporate manipulation in your own right.

You take umbridge at me accusing you of being some kind of Chomskyite then you accuse me of being some kind of British imperialist arguing for gunboat diplomacy. Touche.

No you didn't call me a neocon but your posts have been directed at an imaginary imperialistic, neocon who is arguing for "gunboat diplomacy" and supports the Iraq war. You didn't have to call me a neocon it was implied in the words you wrote.

You're making it up now. Presumably you aren't old enough to remember The Sun front page in 1991 with the headline "Will the last person in Britain please turn the light out", with the picture of a light bulb with Kinnock's face superimposed on it? Kinnock was ahead in the polls btw. Or how about "Labour isn't working" in 1979? Or how Blair met Murdoch before the 1997 general election. Are you seriously suggesting that politicians aren't media savvy these days? That isn't a "conspiracy theory, friend, that is a reality.

You're the one who is confused, not me.

 

[brucepig]

No it hasn't. I don't think you actually care though. (The preceding sentence, by the way, clearly proves that I am anti-American and part of the Worldwide Muslim Conspiracy.)

"Liberal" doesn't mean a lot these days anyway; you might like to look at the term "Eustonite".

Ahh I have signed the Euston Manifesto, it is totally in line with everything I'm saying. So why the animosity towards me FridgeMagnet if we agree?

These are just two points on the Euston Manifesto that I'm arguing for right here and you guys are arguing against.

2 No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy—regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

3 Human rights for all.
We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

There is much more in the manifesto that relates to what I'm saying. I am saying that we should oppose tyranny in all it's forms including Islamic theocratic tyranny and that I don't take the cultural relativist view of human rights that Islamic views on women, gays and apostates are just a different and just as valid as our culture, they are abhorrent and should be opposed. Muslim women deserve every freedom we enjoy. Notice the points about rejecting double standards and condemning "disfavoured governments" for instance I condemn Guantanamo Bay but I realise the public stoning of women for adultery is much worse. This is what you guys have taken me to task for. If you think I'm wrong then so is the Euston Manifesto.

This is the Euston Manifesto coming straight from my heart but you guys are criticising me for my views.

Can you really be a "Eustonite" if you think what I'm saying is so wrong?

 

[brucepig]

You're making it up now. Presumably you aren't old enough to remember The Sun front page in 1991 with the headline "Will the last person in Britain please turn the light out", with the picture of a light bulb with Kinnock's face superimposed on it? Kinnock was ahead in the polls btw. Or how about "Labour isn't working" in 1979? Or how Blair met Murdoch before the 1997 general election. Are you seriously suggesting that politicians aren't media savvy these days? That isn't a "conspiracy theory, friend, that is a reality.

You're the one who is confused, not me.

I think you will find I'm old enough. Please stop projecting things on to me that are not there. I'm not a little boy, I do not support the Iraq war or American foreign policy and I'm not racist so what exactly are you arguing about?

 

[nino_savatte]

No you didn't call me a neocon but your posts have been directed at an imaginary imperialistic, neocon who is arguing for "gunboat diplomacy" and supports the Iraq war. You didn't have to call me a neocon it was implied in the words you wrote.

No, you've been shown to be muddled in your thinking and you're trying to hide behind a feigned sense of injustice. Grow up.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think you will find I'm old enough. Please stop projecting things on to me that are not there. I'm not a little boy, I do not support the Iraq war or American foreign policy and I'm not racist so what exactly are you arguing about?

You're the one doing the projecting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quite right most Islamic countries live under dictatorship which I equally deplore but when the dictatorship falls the usual replacement is theocracy. Theocracy is usually just as bad if not worse than dictatorship.

Actually, I didn't say or imply that "most Islamic countries live under dictatorship", that's another assumption of yours.
You'll find that many nation-states with a majority Muslim population exist under a similar approximation of democracy as "the west" does. Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Iran spring to mind almost instantaneously.

So you basically blame Afganistans situation on the wicked west. Ok no suprise there.

Since when were either the Russian empire or the Soviet Union part of "the west"?
I blame Afghanistan's current situation on a complex web of present-day factors that are directly related to the historical problems left behind by the various imperial regimes that used Afghanistan as a piece in the "Great Game".

It seems you must have a high opinion of yourself as you know the answer to all of mankinds problems and don't waste time on such frivilous things as liberal values.

You're yet again making assumptions.
I don't have a high opinion of myself, I don't need to have. I'm confident in my own knoweldge.
I don't have an answer for all of mankind's problems, and anyone who claims to have any such thing is dangerously delusional.
As for "liberal values", I didn't mention them, I mentioned liberals and the way they lose sight of the big picture.

So America sucks and so do most nation states does that mean you support the theocrats who fight these nation states?

Is the latter the necessary corollary to the former?

And if it all stinks what do you propose to replace it all with? Do you see us become one big happy anarchist family living rural lives with flowers in our hair? You all seem to poo poo democracy but you don't seem to have any better ideas.

There are plenty of "better ideas". You don't have to be a hippy in a commune or an anarchist wherever to know that "power" needs to be of and for people, not alienated.
As for "poo-pooing" democracy, it's called "critique". It's a valid exercise in finding whether an idea and claims made in that idea's name marry up.

As for bigotry I see too many anti capitalists, left wing people and liberals prepared to accept Islamic bigotry as a noble culture that deserves respect.

Really?
I don't. I've lived alongside and been friends with Muslims (Pakistani, North African, Indian and Iranian) all my life, and none of them have practised the bigotry you talk of, in fact most of them are more vehement in decrying violent radical Islam than you are, and as for "anti-capitalists, left-wing people and liberals" accepting such bigotry, while I can think of a few politically opportunistic groupings that fit the description, it isn't by any means a widespread phenomenon.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, of course.

Cultural relativism rules, if Muslims allow domestic violence and persecution of gays or apostates who are we to argue.

Ah, that'll be why Muslims, Hindus, Christians and those of other faiths and of none are all treated equally under the law, then.

We are run by evil corporations after all, who are we to stand in judgment?

Who has claimed that we're "run by corporations"?

It certainly seems that saying that America is not all bad is a taboo and criticising Muslims is tantamount to racism. If they are not taboos I don't know what are but you are just trying to be clever and failing badly. Oh dear

I don't need to "try to be clever", not when you're unable to make a coherent point.
Take a look through the archives of this site. See just how often criticism of the US is focussed on specific acts, how often people who attempt a broad-brush "I hate the USA" get taken to task, see how often evil acts in the name of Islam are criticised strongly and effectively.
If you do so (which you won't) you'll soon realise what utter dreck you're writing.

I gather your definition of democracy is a Chomskyesque nightmare where a shady elite of oil men and arms dealers use the media to control credulous people like me into attacking innocent brown people thereby RULING THE WORLD HA HA HA HAHAHA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Oh dear, the recourse to such a ridiculous and phantasmic argument really does say it all.
Who needs Chomsky to know that globalised capital exerts power in and over nation-states. Even the most conservative political theorists acknowledge that as fact. There's no need for shady elites.

I agree Muslims haven't had an empire since the end of the first world war but there is a movement of millions that would like to reverse that...

Literally a few million worldwide in a belief system that encompasses a billion and a half people.
There are several million evangelical fundamentalist Christians whose goals aren't dissimilar to those of the "Islamicists". They too, though, only comprise a fraction of the totality of the followers of the Christian belief system.

...If there where that many active neo nazis trying to revive the third reich would you not be worried?

1) Why would neo-Nazis attempt to revive the Third Reich?
2) There are millions of neo-fascists in Europe, millions in the US. I don't worry over-much because I'm aware that the majority of people find true fascism unacceptable.

Or is it only the tyranny of Americans and Europeans you fear, do you think a reactionary Islamic force would be your friend?

You really are quite pathetic with your poorly constructed insinuations, aren't you?

 

[Brainaddict]

Well brucepig, the only other interpretation of your posts I can come up with is that you buy into the 'clash of civilisations' thesis and you think America is the better of the two. Which is nothing but a highly theorised xenophobia, so your supposed 'liberalism' doesn't seem to run as deep as you think. All civilisations have good and bad tendencies within them, and it may even be that at a given moment in history one civilisation may have more bad in it than another. Frankly I wouldn't want to put my vote either way right now - certainly in terms of governments - when it comes to the USA versus The Muslims rolleyes, but even if I did, and I decided the USA was significantly better, I would never in my most drug-addled dreams imagine that confrontational politics and/or military intervention was a good solution to the problem.

 

[nino_savatte]

...If there where that many active neo nazis trying to revive the third reich would you not be worried?

This is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Well done.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh but it's all so egalitarian don't you know. Sign up with this lot and you can achieve freedom through the consumption of meaningless commodities.

In other words, it's only as egalitarian as your ability to pay makes it.

Hardly a sound basis for a sustainable (in the existential rather than ecological sense) politics. Still, "the market" has never worried over-much about the future, has it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know you probably see this as a nice little jibe against the "neocon" but I really apreciate it as I have struggled with dyslexia all of my life and really worked hard to improve my grammar, punctuation and spelling. So thankyou ViolentPanda from the bottom of my shrivled, racist neoconservative coal I call a heart LOL

It's actually a jibe against a succession of posters we've had over the years from the "Fr** Republic" board, none of whom had the ability to translate their gobbledygook into a coherent posting.

 

[brucepig]

You're the one doing the projecting.

Ok youv'e totally lost the plot and descended into total absurdity. You are the one who is muddled old bean.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You are confused. I mentioned Chomsky because your talk of manipulative media and democracy as a mirage could have been lifted straight from one of his essays, I'm not saying you don't make up your own mind. Perhaps you are a master of political conspiracies and the workings of corporate manipulation in your own right.

I've read about two-thirds of Chomsky's political output, and a couple of his works on linguistics, and while he does indeed represent the media as manipulative, he always contextualises his claims, i.e "the media can be manipulative, as with this case where...".
As for democracy, what we have in Britain is a parliamentary democracy, a democracy that is only representative insofar as the electorate are allowed to vote for candidates (not specifically on issues) in local and national elections. The US is slightly closer to true democracy insofar as some of their local politics are votes on issues rather than personalities or parties, but neither (or any other nation-state, for that matter) fulfil the primary definition given in the OED as:
"government by all the people, direct or representative, a form of society ignoring all hereditary and class distinctions and tolerating minority views"
Put plainly, we'll never have true democracy, because it is inimical to the needs of power and money.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Well done.

I admit to having been tempted to mention Godwin's law.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Can you really be a "Eustonite" if you think what I'm saying is so wrong?

Er, no, you misunderstand me - I'm absolutely _not_ a Eustonite. I was just suggesting it to clarify things.

You don't read Harry's Place, by any chance?

 

[brucepig]

Actually, I didn't say or imply that "most Islamic countries live under dictatorship", that's another assumption of yours.
You'll find that many nation-states with a majority Muslim population exist under a similar approximation of democracy as "the west" does. Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Iran spring to mind almost instantaneously.

Since when were either the Russian empire or the Soviet Union part of "the west"?
I blame Afghanistan's current situation on a complex web of present-day factors that are directly related to the historical problems left behind by the various imperial regimes that used Afghanistan as a piece in the "Great Game".

You're yet again making assumptions.
I don't have a high opinion of myself, I don't need to have. I'm confident in my own knoweldge.
I don't have an answer for all of mankind's problems, and anyone who claims to have any such thing is dangerously delusional.
As for "liberal values", I didn't mention them, I mentioned liberals and the way they lose sight of the big picture.

Is the latter the necessary corollary to the former?

There are plenty of "better ideas". You don't have to be a hippy in a commune or an anarchist wherever to know that "power" needs to be of and for people, not alienated.
As for "poo-pooing" democracy, it's called "critique". It's a valid exercise in finding whether an idea and claims made in that idea's name marry up.

Really?
I don't. I've lived alongside and been friends with Muslims (Pakistani, North African, Indian and Iranian) all my life, and none of them have practised the bigotry you talk of, in fact most of them are more vehement in decrying violent radical Islam than you are, and as for "anti-capitalists, left-wing people and liberals" accepting such bigotry, while I can think of a few politically opportunistic groupings that fit the description, it isn't by any means a widespread phenomenon.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, of course.

Ah, that'll be why Muslims, Hindus, Christians and those of other faiths and of none are all treated equally under the law, then.

Who has claimed that we're "run by corporations"?

I don't need to "try to be clever", not when you're unable to make a coherent point.
Take a look through the archives of this site. See just how often criticism of the US is focussed on specific acts, how often people who attempt a broad-brush "I hate the USA" get taken to task, see how often evil acts in the name of Islam are criticised strongly and effectively.
If you do so (which you won't) you'll soon realise what utter dreck you're writing.

Oh dear, the recourse to such a ridiculous and phantasmic argument really does say it all.
Who needs Chomsky to know that globalised capital exerts power in and over nation-states. Even the most conservative political theorists acknowledge that as fact. There's no need for shady elites.

Literally a few million worldwide in a belief system that encompasses a billion and a half people.
There are several million evangelical fundamentalist Christians whose goals aren't dissimilar to those of the "Islamicists". They too, though, only comprise a fraction of the totality of the followers of the Christian belief system.

1) Why would neo-Nazis attempt to revive the Third Reich?
2) There are millions of neo-fascists in Europe, millions in the US. I don't worry over-much because I'm aware that the majority of people find true fascism unacceptable.

You really are quite pathetic with your poorly constructed insinuations, aren't you?

wow wee hot air and venom abounds, you are arguing against a straw man and you don't even know it. You are so quick to see me as some kind of undercover war monger and racist you have gone off to war with only your knob in your hands. Oh dear

I didn't say that "you" said that most Islamic countries are dictatorships. I said that they where.

But you are right and I will amend my comment most Arabic countries live under a dictatorship. Iran lives under a highly repressive theocracy which is not very popular at the moment and with luck will implode or be overthrown but that will not happen by the vote alone without bloodshed. Iranian theocracy is a dictatorship of the clerics and no mistake, I have Iranian friends and believe me it is not a good country to live in if you are secular, liberal and value personal freedom.

It might suprise you that I have lived in the worlds most liberal Islamic state. Malaysia, it is a wonderful place and very liberal but Islamic law runs concurently and much of the time supercedes secular law in Malaysia. Apostates can lose their children and be ubducted for "re-education" and musem exhibitions have been closed by Sharia courts. It is on the whole a relaxed place but it is constantly being troubled by the draconian rulings of the Sharia courts. Please understand my criticism of Islam does not come from ignorance, racism or any desire to see an American hegemony over the Islamic world.

I too have grown up with Muslims from many different parts of the world and most of my Muslim friends agree with me on much of what I say but they are invariably secular.

It is the devout Muslims I know who are homophobic, misogynistic and have symapthy for the totalitarian Islamic movements of the world. I found even these fundamentalist Muslims a plesure to sit with a chew khat but I still reserve the right to condemn the parts of their religion that go against universal human rights.

You all seem to have a problem with this.

I will ask you please to read the Euston Manifesto and understand that is where I am coming from. I'm not some bigot with a desire to bash Islam but as someone who knows the Koran, has grown up in London with Muslims and lived in a Muslim country. I have seen how repressinve Islam can be and I condemn it excess and opressive application. I have no problem with Islam as a private faith but if it refuses to stay private it should be opposed.

If you read the Euston Manifesto you will see it talks about not making excuses for totalitarian ideologies or condemning certain "disfavoured governments" for lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse.

This is what I'm talking about I pick on Islam because it is more violent than Christianity at this time in history plus Islam is strong in Europe and it has a more imediate affect on me than American Christianity. The fact that American Christians are bad doesn't get Islamic nutters off the hook. And once again it's that reletavism again. Christianity doesn't have a death cult building in it's midst Islam does.

I will leave it there. I will read the other threads that you so arrogantly assumed I would not read and you read the Euston Manifesto. Deal?

 

[brucepig]

Er, no, you misunderstand me - I'm absolutely _not_ a Eustonite. I was just suggesting it to clarify things.

You don't read Harry's Place, by any chance?

I don't please enlighten me about Harry's Place. It sounds intriguing. So do you oppose the Euston Manifesto? If so why. It is surely a good chance to distance the left from Islamist apologists and rampant anti Americanism.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

No, I can't be fucked going on about the Euston Manifesto again to be honest, and from what you're posting here it wouldn't do any good. You'd love Harry's Place though. It's a blog - I can't remember the URL exactly, but google will send you there. They're mad for the whole "Islamics are the greatest threat since sliced bread" / "why do the left hate America" thing.

 

[Brainaddict]

I read the Euston Manifesto. It had a critique of 'muslim' tyrannies but no critique of Western imperialism as it has been practiced for the last sixty years. I therefore concluded that it was written and signed by people so assured of their own cultural superiority that they didn't feel the need to balance their criticism of other nations with criticisms of their own. From that I concluded that they were (a) ignorant (b) xenophobic or (c) power-hungry.

Take your pick.

 

[brucepig]

So in other words I am getting all of this harsh opposition in this thread because most of you are anti-American and proud and you do view any criticism of Islam as racist. If the Euston Manifesto is unpallatable to most of you then I assume that this must be the case.

Please rather than atacking American foreign policy or me for my views on Islam can you clarify your positions on the basic ideas in the Euston Manifesto.

 

[Brainaddict]

I just did.

To expand: written as it is, with a prejudice towards attacking other states and forgetting to criticise our own states, it's nothing but an apology for imperialism.

You see, it's all about balance. Criticising Islam isn't racist in itself, but when it goes alongside a complete failure to criticise the horrendous policies of the Western nations abroad, people begin to suspect it is.

Of course criticising our own states without cricitising 'islamic' ones is also an unacceptable prejudice in my view, but I don't think people are doing that here. You just read that because you're so convinced that you are right.

I'm not just against America's foreign policy, I'm against the UK's as well. We just sold billions of pounds worth of top-of-the-range fighter jets to an islamic theocratic state with few enemies but it's own internal insurgents. If you don't criticise that at the same time as you criticise the 'islamic' states, then people will think you are either a total fool or an apologist for imperialism.

Get a fucking grip.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I read the Euston Manifesto. It had a critique of 'muslim' tyrannies but no critique of Western imperialism as it has been practiced for the last sixty years. I therefore concluded that it was written and signed by people so assured of their own cultural superiority that they didn't feel the need to balance their criticism of other nations with criticisms of their own. From that I concluded that they were (a) ignorant (b) xenophobic or (c) power-hungry.

Take your pick.

Personally I thought it was mostly composed of platitudinous high-minded statements and venomous denunciation of "left" groups for not agreeing with those statements, said disagreement being expressed by the fact that they didn't support interventionist policies and weren't vocal enough about shouting at Muslims.

Mind you, infighting is of course an age-old cultural practice of the UK trout-left which we as PC liberals should of course unthinkingly defend etc.

 

[Brainaddict]

That too

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So in other words I am getting all of this harsh opposition in this thread because most of you are anti-American and proud and you do view any criticism of Islam as racist. If the Euston Manifesto is unpallatable to most of you then I assume that this must be the case.

Please rather than atacking American foreign policy or me for my views on Islam can you clarify your positions on the basic ideas in the Euston Manifesto.

You're a natural for Harry's Place. Seriously, you could become a contributor. And it's only a short step from there to a column in the Observer about the dhimmitude of the left.

 

[frogwoman]

Don't forget also that the West supports Islamist movements, even those linked to al-Qaeda, when it is in their interests to do so.

And they have never stopped doing so.

There was an interivew published in the Times ages ago about some Sunni insurgents in Iran who called themselves al-Qaeda, who America were alleged to be helping in their attempts to destablise and weaken Iran as a regional power. They actually said "we don't care about America because they're helping us against the Iranian government".

The Iranian state is a terrible regime, and Sunnis do get oppressed there - but it's an outright lie to suggest that the West is somehow defending us all against terrorism. What about the innocent Iranians that get killed in their bombs, or does terrorism somehow not matter when it is against Muslims?

wake the fuck up

 

[brucepig]

I read the Euston Manifesto. It had a critique of 'muslim' tyrannies but no critique of Western imperialism as it has been practiced for the last sixty years. I therefore concluded that it was written and signed by people so assured of their own cultural superiority that they didn't feel the need to balance their criticism of other nations with criticisms of their own. From that I concluded that they were (a) ignorant (b) xenophobic or (c) power-hungry.

Take your pick.

I'm trying hard to think of the American colonies, there is no British Empire or American Empire. The Americans have undertaken some very illadvised military adventures and supported some highly questionable regimes but they do not have an empire.

I'm starting to understand why I'm recieving all of this harsh opposition. Many of you actually see America as a brutal military empire which wants to crush everything in it's path. When I criticise Islamists you see me criticising a noble vanguard of oppressed people who are bravely standing up to a terrifying regime on a par with the Nazis.

It seems you actually think that George Bush is another Hitler. When babies die from an American bomb there must have been the intention to kill babies from the Americans.

Do you all think the Americans are just pretending not to be genocidal and would open gas chambers for Muslims if only they had the chance?

In that light I can see why you have all atacked my position.

I'm inadvertantly supporting the BEAST and condemning the beasts victims as bigger beasts. Which in light of a world view where America are as terrifying as Hitler on steroids my position is quite simply beyond the pale.

You are all hysterical if you think thats the case but I can see that you all have very entrenched views on America and my small voice of reason will not budge you from this view.

The Euston Manifesto is talking about respect for freedom, Universal Human Rights, freedom of speech and condemnation of those who oppose those ideals.

Now I know America has violated these with their war on terror but their violations have strong opposition within their own country and they do not kill those who openly criticise their wrong doing. America is not as bad as you think it is.

America doesn't oppose the Universal Declaration of Human Rights most if not all Islamists do.

I see the need to notice this fundamental difference, you do not.

Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas are worse violators of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights than America are. I don't think this gets America off the hook but it is important for us to have perspective between those who want to quash free speech, use suicide bombing, behead people, oppress women, homosexuals and apostates and those who don't.

You all seem to be saying that it is totally unacceptable to make this distinction.

This makes sense because most of you seem to be living with a world view where a ruthless military regime is stalking the planet with the murder billions in mind. In that light my world view is very dangerous indeed. I inadvertantly give support to the American BEAST

Please tell me if I have misjudged the prevailing view on this forum.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Are you actually reading anything that anyone writes, or are you just hitting the quote button?

*taps screen*

 

[brucepig]

Don't forget also that the West supports Islamist movements, even those linked to al-Qaeda, when it is in their interests to do so.

And they have never stopped doing so.

There was an interivew published in the Times ages ago about some Sunni insurgents in Iran who called themselves al-Qaeda, who America were alleged to be helping in their attempts to destablise and weaken Iran as a regional power. They actually said "we don't care about America because they're helping us against the Iranian government".

The Iranian state is a terrible regime, and Sunnis do get oppressed there - but it's an outright lie to suggest that the West is somehow defending us all against terrorism. What about the innocent Iranians that get killed in their bombs, or does terrorism somehow not matter when it is against Muslims?

wake the fuck up

How many times have I said it I do not support American foreign policy.

Never mind wake the fuck up, open your fucking eyes and read.

I criticise American foregn policy and I criticise Islamic tyranny. You just want me to shut up when it comes to the Islamic zealots why is this?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh, and you've still not answered my question of how your "opposition to the war" is not anti-American, whereas everyone else's is. That was actually a serious question.