July 24, 2006

He's not a Terrorist, Just a Lib


Well, It has happened. Boston has fallen victim to the recent outbreak of pro-terrorist organization rallies that have been taking place across America.

As usual, click the above title to link to the related story.

Watch the videos where the protesters attempt to intimidate and eventually attack the “Zionist” taking the footage. Also, it is not illegal to take pictures of people assembling in public.

15 comments:

young_activist said...

We liberals could easily publicize radical conservatives such as the KKK and lump it together with all conservatives. Find a better arguement then trying to lump the extreme left wing with moderate liberals.

young_activist said...

Jaz, what is your position on stem cell research?

Jaz said...

Who’s lumping? Nowhere do I say that this joker is representative of all liberals. He is however a liberal, there’s no getting around that. If you took a poll of American terrorist sympathizer or apologists you would find that the vast majority would be liberals. That’s just the way it is. Conservatives typically take a hard line against terrorism while many (not all) left leaning individuals would choose to negotiate with organizations that seek to kill us. Or worse, like the gentleman above, show outright support for organizations that exist solely to wipe a race of people of the face of the earth.

I believe that Stem Cell research should and will go forward with or without the Government getting involved.

young_activist said...

Actaully, most liberals wish that the conservatives in the middle eat and the conservatives here could fight each other and leave the rest out of it. Almost all terrorists are conservatives. The liberal, ow what are called the moderate muslims in the U.S, detest both terrorism and Bush, much like the liberals in the U.S

Jaz said...

Your attempt to twist the debate by pointing out that radical Islamists advocate a more conservative approach to their own religion proves nothing other than your own apparent desire to obfuscate the fact that it is predominantly liberals who are the terrorist sympathizers and apologists.

There is now a laundry list of news items that outline a pattern of liberal behavior that makes it harder, not easier to prosecute the war on terror. Do you deny that it is those on the left who seek to expand the rights of terrorists? For example, do actually believe that terrorists should be afforded Geneva conventions protections? As a devout Lib you probably are on board with expanding the rights of terrorists. These are the philosophical questions of policy that Western civilization has to internally debate before it even begins fighting back adequately against the scourge of Islamic terrorism.

young_activist said...

There are Christian terrorists as well , ang guess what? They are all conservatives. The LRA, abortion clinic bombers, shall I continue? As for terrorists rights as prisoners: the right wong has argued that they should not recieve trials because POWs do not recieve trial howerver, they also argue that they should not be treated as POWs because they are "illegal combatants" but, if they are illegal combatants than they are entitled to a fair trial to determine their status. The arguements made by the right wing as to the treatment of prisoners debase each other by contradicting themselves. Did you know that there are innocent people being held in Cuba who even the administration acknowleges are innocent that have not been released. In fact, according to most estimated between 20% and 50% of all Geneva prisoners are innocent, and that over 80% of prisoners held in Iraq are innocent? I believe that some of the prisoners who where tortured where innocent. Torturing anyone but, espically innocent people is the pro-terrorsist stand. It aids terrorists by offering them propoganda.
You say that liberals would negotiate with terrorists but, if the goal of our war is to stop the bloodshed then what would the harm of a cease fire be? I do not support a cease fire with al-quedia and the Taliban but, perhaps in Iraq converting terrorist organazations into political parties would hold great promise for both the U.S and the Iraqi people.
You mention a long laundry list but you fail to give any examples, can you please add some?

BTW: Do you still stan by Isreal's recent actions even after they delibaretly bombed the United Nations? Do you support Isreal after they have killed hundreds of civillians? Do you oppose a cease fire that prevents the shedding of innocent blood? Do you support Isreal after they have destabilized a new democracy? In this case you either support a ccease fire or support the killing of innocent people.

Kent said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kent said...

Activist makes a good point -- a true rarity.

Terrorists around the world are conservative in that they have a narrow view of everything, and are immovable in their thinking.

That sounds very like American Democrats, doesn't it?

Jaz, as we've discussed previously, the monikers 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' are ascribed incorrectly. Republicans are actually 'Liberal' because we welcome all points of view to the discussion and view personal responsibility as the key to society. Democrats are 'Conservative' in that they attack anyone and everyone with whom they disagree while continuing to advocate failed policies.

Re: Stem cell research...the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Any and all research should be funded exclusively through the private sector.

Chris said...

Jaz, good to see you still posting. I thought you had abandoned this place. I'll chime in here one of these days and contribute to the comment section better than what I'm doing right now.

Jaz said...

Nice to hear from you Chris. How’s the new vocation going? Also, you have to be one of the most agreeable and most reasonable non-conservatives I have encountered, I wonder what you make of some these other left of center commentators.

Chris said...

Thanks Jaz. If I recall, we didn't quite reasonate too well at first. But that's the nature of it all sometimes. I'm glad that we haven't completely given up on each other. I think you write very well, I might add.

As far as what I think-- or maybe, how I deal-- about other left of center commentators, it's hard to say really. From what I've read on here, I probably wouldn't have much in common with some who have left comments. I think you argue your points well. With that said, however, I tend to fluctuate on the issues. Meaning on some issues I stand a little to the left, on some issues more towards the center. And on issues like the current turmoil in the Mideast I am probably at my farthest right wing. I'm not sure if that answers your thoughts, however.

Do keep writing. I'm trying to get back in the groove of reading blogs. The job is great. I can't complain one bit.

Jaz said...

Wow that’s high praise coming from you, thanks man. I learned much in our past conversations. As an independent thinker you have taught me to embrace various points of view in a discussion and be amenable to possibly changing or at least modifying a stance on whatever issue is at hand. Also, I find that having a moderate stance on certain issues is anything but boring. In fact, it’s exciting because a centrist perspective is infinitely more defensible than those stances held by the zealots and ideologues on both sides. I’d be interested to learn of your results of the “political spectrum” quiz that I feature in a previous post. I imagine that you would probably find your results coming in somewhere near the center as mine did.

Jaz said...

And as for activist, here we go.

First of all, Kent is right about the typos. It is sometimes difficult to even determine what you are saying because of your lack of attention to any editing process. Just run a quick spell check by cutting and pasting into a Microsoft Word or something. Everyone makes a flub every now and then, but when the reader spends more time trying to decipher the writing than contemplating its content, there is a problem.



Now to the substance:

“…if they [suspected terrorist detainees] are illegal combatants than they are entitled to a fair trial to determine their status.”

According to what, the United States Constitution? The Constitution pertains to citizens of the US. A terrorist captured in Afghanistan who was shooting at our forces has no rights under US law. At least until the leftist terrorist apologist get a hold of the situation. If many on the left had their way, all detainees would have a full blown US trial complete with high paid lawyers and multiple appeals, at a ridiculous and unnecessary cost to the tax payer I might add. This is example number one as to how those on the left seek to make it more difficult to fight the war on terror in an expedient and effective manner.

When you point to these numbers about prisoners in Iraq and claim that torture is taking place you seem to be attempting to confuse the issue. Are you supposing that the US is involved in torture or that the new Iraqi government is? It is not US policy to torture detainees and there is a difference between coerced interrogation and torture. Sleep deprivation is not torture but cutting off limbs, like Saddam gleefully did, is. Conflating these issues is an example of classic lefty obfuscation. If you muddy the waters enough around an issue it becomes difficult, if not impossible to clearly make progress in a discussion.

“…What would the harm of a cease fire be?”

A cease-fire in the current Israeli Hezbollah struggle would only benefit the terrorists. This is what the much praised Clinton managed to effect for years in Israel and it has been proven to be an ineffective, if not disastrous policy. The terrorists strike, then run and hide and before they can be routed out or done away with a “cease fire” is affected only to perpetuate and not fully address the problem. A few weeks later the terrorists, at full strength, strike again and the process is repeated leaving the parties involved with nothing approaching a lasting peace. A cease-fire looks hunky dory in the short term but in reality it is merely a band-aid solution.

You seem to be straying from the lefty reservation when you say, “…perhaps in Iraq converting terrorist organizations into political parties would hold great promise for both the U.S and the Iraqi people.”

The Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki has proposed giving amnesty to certain members of the insurgency in an effort to absorb the enemy and possibly find a way out of the endless and mindless bloodshed. While this is not quite amnesty for terrorist as you say, it is along the lines of what you propose. The problem however comes in the form of classic lefty figures like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer who have denounced Al Maliki for proposing anything of the kind. Chuck Schumer simplistically said something like, “whose side is he on, the insurgency or our side”. If Schumer was being objective, as even you mange to be on this issue, he would admit that an amnesty for insurgents would perhaps be a path towards resolution in Iraq. But, ever the Bush bashing lefty, Schumer would rather hamper any solution in Iraq because of his anti Bush political views. A resolution of conflict in Iraq, however affected, would be helpful in the broader war on terror. But apparently Schumer and other prominent lefties would much rather be able to say I told you so than seriously address the issue and seek solutions. This is a second example of how those on the left strive to make it more difficult to fight the war on terror.

You say that Israel deliberately bombed an UN installation. In your lefty circles you probably are not aware that that Hezbollah has been using UN installations to fire rockets into Israel from. The “Unifil” UN force is essentially complicit with the terrorist by at the very least failing to restore order to the region and prevent Hezbollah form murdering Israeli civilians. So no, I don’t blame Israel for targeting any installation from which missiles are being launched. Remember, the UN is not a group of saints. These are the same hacks that were in bed with Saddam as proven by the oil for food scandal. If the UN were truly helpful, than they would lift a finger to implement their own resolutions, in this case resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah. And when those on the left view the ineffective and corrupt UN as an organization that can do now wrong, it is anything but helpful to America’s realistic efforts to fight worldwide terror. This is a third example for you.

Here are some more examples of how the left makes it more difficult to fight the war on terror:

#4 The anti Bush NYT published dozens of above the fold front-page stories about Abu Garab, which did little else other than inflame anti American sentiment.

#5 The New York Times published details of a secret, but totally legal terrorist finance-tracking program, which would have allowed our government to more effectively track the financial activity of terrorists.

#6 While the majority of American support the wiretapping of suspected terrorists, many on the left are against this practice which would further our efforts to fight terrorism.

#7 Certain lefty news organizations ran stories about how our allies are housing detainees and that this is somehow unethical or a major problem. Now that other countries know that efforts to help us will be gleefully reported to the terrorists by American Leftist media they will be less likely to help us in the future.

#8 By raising some sort of outcry about the Gitmo terrorist holding camp in Cuba it makes it difficult to even capture any terrorists with the hopes of interrogation, which would lead to the prevention of future attacks.

#9 Many on the left are advocates for the affording of Geneva Conventions protections for terrorist who fight without any uniform or in any organized army of a nation state. Terrorists do not afford their captives Geneva Conventions Protections. Rather, they behead captives and then mutilate their bodies. This lopsided situation makes it so that we have to fight terrorists with one arm tied behind our backs, which is anything but helpful to efforts in the war on terror.

These are just a few examples that come to mind at the moment. I really can’t believe that you asked me list examples because there are so many that it proves that one of the main motifs of those on the left is the hampering of our efforts to effectively fight our enemies in Islamic terrorism otherwise known as the war on terror.

Chris said...

Thanks for the kind words Jaz. For some reason, nowadays, being a centrist is attacked by both ends of the spectrum. Though, the safest ground for argument is usually hovering around the center.

I took the political spectrum test, I've taken it in the past but took it again cause it had been a while since the last time. I scored -2 to the left, -2 down. I'm a left-libertarian. Sounds accurate enough for me.

Anonymous said...

Do you realize that Israel commits terrorist acts virtually every day? The U.S defines terrorism as any act that intends: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

In fact by that definition the U.S is also a state-sponsor of terrorism.