Do Liberals Really Think That Vigilance Against Terrorism is Cowardly?

[Wilbur Right]

Now tell us - what effect has the death of bin Laden had on the American and the global issue of terrorism?

Obama giving the order to kill bin Laden has made assholes like you bat shit crazy. And that's a good thing.

Other than that, it's a great thing a pinko commie Muslim terrorist sympathizer who was born in Borneo took out the world's most wanted terrorist.

Something the asshole president Bush couldn't do. Or wouldn't do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is a repeated meme around here, that proposing any tightening of security or common sense measures taken to stop the terrorists from killing people all amounts to a cowardly fear of terrorism and nothing more.

But do these idiots think that the people fleeing from terrorist atrocities are also cowards?

Why are libtards too stupid to place any value in defending our lives, our children or our nation?

Could it be that they really just hate this country and all its citizens, young, old and in between and so they just sympathize with the terrorists too much to overcome their apathy and fight to defend our nation?

Could it be that the hate-America-Firsters are just secretly cheering the terrorists and so they dont want to bother doing anything to protect us all?

Please establish what you mean by vigilance and common sense measures. Your thread premise is very vague. What three measures are you wanting to establish which liberals are opposed to?

I will respond to your question once you do that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Now tell us - what effect has the death of bin Laden had on the American and the global issue of terrorism?

Obama giving the order to kill bin Laden has made assholes like you bat shit crazy. And that's a good thing.

Other than that, it's a great thing a pinko commie Muslim terrorist sympathizer who was born in Borneo took out the world's most wanted terrorist.

Something the asshole president Bush couldn't do. Or wouldn't do.

Who cares? It made no difference whatsoever. It's merely a hunting trophy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When you turn away refugees who are FLEEING terrorism, you are a pants shitting coward, period.

You are right down there with the Americans who are burning in hell for turning away the Jews trying to flee Hitler.

ISIS has killed more Muslims than all our Presidents and Putin combined. To conflate the refugees with the terrorists for the sole reason of their religion is about as cowardly and bigoted and stupid as it gets.

It's also self-defeating. The refugees are excellent sources of intelligence, and some of them might even help us infiltrate domestic cells of terrorists.

So yeah. You are pants shitters.

Why are you defending terrorists? Why are you protecting Islam?

 

[LoneLaugher]

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Thank you for admitting that right wing conservatism is akin to salafism, but more importantly, who exactly are the liberals who support salafist jihadism? You people have created in your mind realities that just don't exist in the real world, fascinating.

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Gawd, that meme nails it.

The Regressive Left has to know, at some level, that there will be a point at which they'll have to make a fateful decision. The terror attacks will continue, they will get worse, Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular will continue to spread and grow in influence, we'll see European countries become more and more diluted and essentially lose their uniqueness and sovereignty as Muslims continue to refuse to assimilate. Those aren't wild, paranoid predictions, they're happening right now.

At what point does the Regressive Left change its rhetoric and tactics?

At what point does the Regressive Left try to detach itself from the religion of peace?

I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Nawaz and ask him what he thinks of that; no doubt he considers those questions.

The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?
.

What proof do you have that fundamentalist Islam is growing and spreading in influence?

Why are you unaware that there is strong refusal to allow assimilation in parts of Europe and that this plays a role in radicalization? Is that willful ignorance on your part?

Are you aware that the American Mulsim experience is vastly different than that of the European Muslm experience....and that assimilation has taken place here?

Are you aware that when you sarcastically aye the term "religion of peace" as you do....you join the ranks of ignorant bigots who cannot differentiate between radical Islamic asshole terrorists, which represents a small portion of adherents and the overwhelming number of peaceful Mulsims?

And...finally.....you repeating the lie that anyone on the left is "attached" to Islam is boring. Try something new.

 

[Mac1958]

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Thank you for admitting that right wing conservatism is akin to salafism, but more importantly, who exactly are the liberals who support salafist jihadism? You people have created in your mind realities that just don't exist in the real world, fascinating.

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Gawd, that meme nails it.

The Regressive Left has to know, at some level, that there will be a point at which they'll have to make a fateful decision. The terror attacks will continue, they will get worse, Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular will continue to spread and grow in influence, we'll see European countries become more and more diluted and essentially lose their uniqueness and sovereignty as Muslims continue to refuse to assimilate. Those aren't wild, paranoid predictions, they're happening right now.

At what point does the Regressive Left change its rhetoric and tactics?

At what point does the Regressive Left try to detach itself from the religion of peace?

I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Nawaz and ask him what he thinks of that; no doubt he considers those questions.

The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?
.

What proof do you have that fundamentalist Islam is growing and spreading in influence?

Why are you unaware that there is strong refusal to allow assimilation in parts of Europe and that this plays a role in radicalization? Is that willful ignorance on your part?

Are you aware that the American Mulsim experience is vastly different than that of the European Muslm experience....and that assimilation has taken place here?

Are you aware that when you sarcastically aye the term "religion of peace" as you do....you join the ranks of ignorant bigots who cannot differentiate between radical Islamic asshole terrorists, which represents a small portion of adherents and the overwhelming number of peaceful Mulsims?

And...finally.....you repeating the lie that anyone on the left is "attached" to Islam is boring. Try something new.

And the Regressive Left pops in, yet again, to self-identify for me.

Oh, to have a beer with Mr. Nawaz.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Thank you for admitting that right wing conservatism is akin to salafism, but more importantly, who exactly are the liberals who support salafist jihadism? You people have created in your mind realities that just don't exist in the real world, fascinating.

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Gawd, that meme nails it.

The Regressive Left has to know, at some level, that there will be a point at which they'll have to make a fateful decision. The terror attacks will continue, they will get worse, Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular will continue to spread and grow in influence, we'll see European countries become more and more diluted and essentially lose their uniqueness and sovereignty as Muslims continue to refuse to assimilate. Those aren't wild, paranoid predictions, they're happening right now.

At what point does the Regressive Left change its rhetoric and tactics?

At what point does the Regressive Left try to detach itself from the religion of peace?

I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Nawaz and ask him what he thinks of that; no doubt he considers those questions.

The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?
.

What proof do you have that fundamentalist Islam is growing and spreading in influence?

Why are you unaware that there is strong refusal to allow assimilation in parts of Europe and that this plays a role in radicalization? Is that willful ignorance on your part?

Are you aware that the American Mulsim experience is vastly different than that of the European Muslm experience....and that assimilation has taken place here?

Are you aware that when you sarcastically aye the term "religion of peace" as you do....you join the ranks of ignorant bigots who cannot differentiate between radical Islamic asshole terrorists, which represents a small portion of adherents and the overwhelming number of peaceful Mulsims?

And...finally.....you repeating the lie that anyone on the left is "attached" to Islam is boring. Try something new.

And the Regressive Left pops in, yet again, to self-identify for me.

Oh, to have a beer with Mr. Nawaz.
.

You didn't answer a single question. How unusual.

 

[LoneLaugher]

By the way, Mac, I've not seen you weigh in on the issue of banning Muslims or having a religious test for entry to this country.

What do you think of those ideas? Are they acts which inspire feelings of bravery?

There will be more lone wolf attacks, "inspired by" ISIS in the US. Maybe even a successful large scale attack actually perpetrated by ISIS. Yo can count on it.

This is the price of freedom. We will pay it.

 

[Mac1958]

I wouldn't use the term liberal, because actual liberals don't do this, but countless useful idiot leftists live in a world of cowboys and Indians where they will simply take the opposing stance to anything described to them as "conservative". Since they see conservatives reacting against Islamism, they act as apologists for it.

If somebody told these numb nuts that liking dogs was a conservative trait, hey would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure.

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism.

There are exceptions. Maajid Nawaz, the British liberal activist I quote in post 26, is under regular attack for coining the phrase "Regressive Left". This is an interesting piece by another honest liberal who defends Mr. Nawaz: Free Speech and Islam — The Left Betrays the Most Vulnerable

The larger issue is not only that reform-minded Muslims and ex-Muslims face danger from repressive Islamic regimes (in, for instance, Saudi Arabia, where atheism is legally equated with terrorism, or in Bangladesh, where secular bloggers are routinely hacked to death by Islamists), they suffer slings and arrows of disdain from those witless progressives who decry “Islamophobes,” “porch monkeys,” “House Arabs,” and so on. Their much-suppressed voices of reason are, though, beginning to find an audience. Check out this fine essay by Zubin Madon, which contains the following quote from the Pakistani-Canadian blogger Eiynah about the plight of former Muslims:

We are cast out of conversations about our own communities and lives, we are refused platforms in mainstream media to avoid offending Muslim sentiments, and more recently we are viciously targeted on social media.

This is disgraceful treatment from progressives, who should be standing shoulder to shoulder with these courageous souls endeavoring, often at great risk, to live free and dignified lives without religion. They, and all Muslims working to end Islamist violence (including, of course, Maajid Nawaz), deserve our full-throated support.

Again, people deserve respect, but ideologies, however cherished, must be examined, discussed, and assessed rationally. Those ideologies found wanting must be discarded. This is already happening, at least in more enlightened parts of the world. Religion is already on track to go extinct in nine of the most developed, peaceable countries. Nonbelievers are rapidly increasing in number in the United States.

We need to dump the concept of “Islamophobia” in the waste bin of history (and drop our reluctance to criticize other religions, too), return to Enlightenment principles (which include unfettered speech about religion), and start working for the common good, free from superstition and metaphysical dogma.

The best way to begin would be to cease disparaging and defaming former Muslims and Muslim reformers and extend them a wholehearted welcome to the progressive community.

Now that would be progress.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wouldn't use the term liberal, because actual liberals don't do this, but countless useful idiot leftists live in a world of cowboys and Indians where they will simply take the opposing stance to anything described to them as "conservative". Since they see conservatives reacting against Islamism, they act as apologists for it.

If somebody told these numb nuts that liking dogs was a conservative trait, hey would kick a few puppies to the curb just to make sure.

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism.

There are exceptions. Maajid Nawaz, the British liberal activist I quote in post 26, is under regular attack for coining the phrase "Regressive Left". This is an interesting piece by another honest liberal who defends Mr. Nawaz: Free Speech and Islam — The Left Betrays the Most Vulnerable

The larger issue is not only that reform-minded Muslims and ex-Muslims face danger from repressive Islamic regimes (in, for instance, Saudi Arabia, where atheism is legally equated with terrorism, or in Bangladesh, where secular bloggers are routinely hacked to death by Islamists), they suffer slings and arrows of disdain from those witless progressives who decry “Islamophobes,” “porch monkeys,” “House Arabs,” and so on. Their much-suppressed voices of reason are, though, beginning to find an audience. Check out this fine essay by Zubin Madon, which contains the following quote from the Pakistani-Canadian blogger Eiynah about the plight of former Muslims:

We are cast out of conversations about our own communities and lives, we are refused platforms in mainstream media to avoid offending Muslim sentiments, and more recently we are viciously targeted on social media.

This is disgraceful treatment from progressives, who should be standing shoulder to shoulder with these courageous souls endeavoring, often at great risk, to live free and dignified lives without religion. They, and all Muslims working to end Islamist violence (including, of course, Maajid Nawaz), deserve our full-throated support.

Again, people deserve respect, but ideologies, however cherished, must be examined, discussed, and assessed rationally. Those ideologies found wanting must be discarded. This is already happening, at least in more enlightened parts of the world. Religion is already on track to go extinct in nine of the most developed, peaceable countries. Nonbelievers are rapidly increasing in number in the United States.

We need to dump the concept of “Islamophobia” in the waste bin of history (and drop our reluctance to criticize other religions, too), return to Enlightenment principles (which include unfettered speech about religion), and start working for the common good, free from superstition and metaphysical dogma.

The best way to begin would be to cease disparaging and defaming former Muslims and Muslim reformers and extend them a wholehearted welcome to the progressive community.

Now that would be progress.
.

I support Eiynah's efforts.

Yiu have yet to respond to my mature questions. What gives?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Religion is already on track to go extinct in nine of the most developed, peaceable countries. Nonbelievers are rapidly increasing in number in the United States.
.

So may flaws to these types of pronouncements of the death off religion.

1. The Nones are mostly people between faiths, believers in God and future converts to other denominations, and most of what is left are believers who have rejected only organized religion, not God. The collapse of the main stream Protestant denominations is the real story here while the rest of Christianity explodes in growth in the Third World.

2. The atheists have suffered a huge loss when the Soviet Union collapsed and tens of millions of atheists converted back to the traditional Orthodox Christianity, and so these secular Uber Alles types only want to starrt counting the demographic growth of atheism post fall of the USSR, which is stacked deck nonsense.

3. Abrahamic faiths are growing faster than the number crunchers can keep up. Over half of the worlds population is now either Christian or Muslim and is still growing proportionately to the rest of the world. Meanwhile more people believe that the moon landings were faked than that there is no God.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you for admitting that right wing conservatism is akin to salafism, but more importantly, who exactly are the liberals who support salafist jihadism? You people have created in your mind realities that just don't exist in the real world, fascinating.

You need too take a reading comprehension class, dude.

I do not believe that "right wing conservatism" (what other kind is there, dude?) is akin to Salafism. In the former Christian West, conservatism is an outgrowth of Christian values, not Muslim. And to compare a cultural-political movement to a religion is like comparing the leftwing is similar tot he Thugee murder cults when the left far surpassed the Thugees decades ago.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Thank you for admitting that right wing conservatism is akin to salafism, but more importantly, who exactly are the liberals who support salafist jihadism? You people have created in your mind realities that just don't exist in the real world, fascinating.

This honest British liberal activist explains.

Mr. Nawaz finds himself stuck between the Left and the Right on this issue, and I can relate;

Great meme, I am stealing it.

I think that Mr Nawaz is right on the money, but there is a nuance remaining or two.

The 'liberals' who support Salafist Jihadism (i.e. Islamofascism) over 'neoconservatism' are making an ideological choice, true, but they are doing it because liberalism is only a posture for convenience to them. They are not betraying anything by going against liberal principles in supporting Islamofascism (that would behead them), because they are actually Marxists and expect to execute the Islamofascists first whenever they get the chance, and the Islamofascists know this too.

So the two 'allies' have their shivs at the ready to kill the other at the first sound of gun fire. This is why the Islamofascists prioritize targeting the left instead of the rightwing. They actually sympathize with the rightwing, but they despise the left even as they make alliances of convenience with them and will betray them ASAP.

Look at France; Bastille Day is mostly a leftist celebration, with idiot populists building on it for economic reasons, but who other than an idiot or a leftist would celebrate the overthrow of a benign monarch that was replaced by a murderous 'democracy' that then fumbled everything so badly that they started slaughtering people almost indiscriminately, even their own members and allies, and finally handed power over to a true tyrant, Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most evil sonsabitches to ever rule in Europe? The truck driver knew that most of the people celebrating that catastrophic event were lefties and morons, and so he had his target well selected (in his view). The Orlando murderer targeted a fag night club, and others have targeted the Boston Marathon and New York city repeatedly, both major hubs of leftwing political machines.

So the leftist acts like he finds value in Islamofascism even while these Islamofascists attack everything the left stands for, but the left has to pretend to respect that and still politically support them.

It is comical and doomed as it exposes the lefts hypocrisy so plainly even the sub-90-IQ segment that drives the Democrat vote is seeing it for what it is; idiocy and national self-destruction.

Gawd, that meme nails it.

The Regressive Left has to know, at some level, that there will be a point at which they'll have to make a fateful decision. The terror attacks will continue, they will get worse, Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular will continue to spread and grow in influence, we'll see European countries become more and more diluted and essentially lose their uniqueness and sovereignty as Muslims continue to refuse to assimilate. Those aren't wild, paranoid predictions, they're happening right now.

At what point does the Regressive Left change its rhetoric and tactics?

At what point does the Regressive Left try to detach itself from the religion of peace?

I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Nawaz and ask him what he thinks of that; no doubt he considers those questions.

The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?
.

What proof do you have that fundamentalist Islam is growing and spreading in influence?

Why are you unaware that there is strong refusal to allow assimilation in parts of Europe and that this plays a role in radicalization? Is that willful ignorance on your part?

Are you aware that the American Mulsim experience is vastly different than that of the European Muslm experience....and that assimilation has taken place here?

Are you aware that when you sarcastically aye the term "religion of peace" as you do....you join the ranks of ignorant bigots who cannot differentiate between radical Islamic asshole terrorists, which represents a small portion of adherents and the overwhelming number of peaceful Mulsims?

And...finally.....you repeating the lie that anyone on the left is "attached" to Islam is boring. Try something new.

And the Regressive Left pops in, yet again, to self-identify for me.

Oh, to have a beer with Mr. Nawaz.
.

Lone Laugher is the only one who isnt laughing at his posts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Gawd, that meme nails it.

The Regressive Left has to know, at some level, that there will be a point at which they'll have to make a fateful decision. The terror attacks will continue, they will get worse, Islam in general and fundamentalist Islam in particular will continue to spread and grow in influence, we'll see European countries become more and more diluted and essentially lose their uniqueness and sovereignty as Muslims continue to refuse to assimilate. Those aren't wild, paranoid predictions, they're happening right now.

At what point does the Regressive Left change its rhetoric and tactics?

Once the shooting starts, the shivs will come out.

At what point does the Regressive Left try to detach itself from the religion of peace?

Again, when the shooting starts and they think that they no longer need the Muslims to balance the Christians.

I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Nawaz and ask him what he thinks of that; no doubt he considers those questions.

The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?
.

Agreed, he seems like the kind of person that our democratic Republic is based on. Too bad he is a UKer.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"Do Liberals Really Think That Vigilance Against Terrorism is Cowardly?"

No. Next?

Wouldn't it be better to have a liberal answer that question instead of a useful idiot such as yourself who obviously despises every liberal principle imaginable?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism.


.

I do, too.

In some recent postings, I brought up John Rawls and John Stuart Mill who just happen to be THE most influential liberal political theorists of the 20th and 19th centuries respectively. In a veritable orgy of stupidity and ignorance, the regressives not only announced that they have never heard of either, but tried to claim they were some sort of obscure reference I had dredged up.

It would be as if the discussion were about pop music and a bunch of cretins claimed the Beatles were unimportant because they had never heard of them. It was almost as if these smug children were actually PROUD of the fact they knew absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism.


.

I do, too.

In some recent postings, I brought up John Rawls and John Stuart Mill who just happen to be THE most influential liberal political theorists of the 20th and 19th centuries respectively. In a veritable orgy of stupidity and ignorance, the regressives not only announced that they have never heard of either, but tried to claim they were some sort of obscure reference I had dredged up.

It would be as if the discussion were about pop music and a bunch of cretins claimed the Beatles were unimportant because they had never heard of them. It was almost as if these smug children were actually PROUD of the fact they knew absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

You are awesome. I just wanted to tell you that since it is obvious that you need to hear it. No need to thank me.

 

[Mac1958]

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism..

I do, too. In some recent postings, I brought up John Rawls and John Stuart Mill who just happen to be THE most influential liberal political theorists of the 20th and 19th centuries respectively. In a veritable orgy of stupidity and ignorance, the regressives not only announced that they have never heard of either, but tried to claim they were some sort of obscure reference I had dredged up.

It would be as if the discussion were about pop music and a bunch of cretins claimed the Beatles were unimportant because they had never heard of them. It was almost as if these smug children were actually PROUD of the fact they knew absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

I would have you consider the possibility that they did, in fact, know but were simply lying.

They're not stupid, they're terribly dishonest, and controlled by their ideology.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism..

I do, too. In some recent postings, I brought up John Rawls and John Stuart Mill who just happen to be THE most influential liberal political theorists of the 20th and 19th centuries respectively. In a veritable orgy of stupidity and ignorance, the regressives not only announced that they have never heard of either, but tried to claim they were some sort of obscure reference I had dredged up.

It would be as if the discussion were about pop music and a bunch of cretins claimed the Beatles were unimportant because they had never heard of them. It was almost as if these smug children were actually PROUD of the fact they knew absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

I would have you consider the possibility that they did, in fact, know but were simply lying.

They're not stupid, they're terribly dishonest, and controlled by their ideology.
.

But who defines what liberalism is today?

Academics or the corporate owned media?

If it is the latter then John Stuart Mill is about as relevant to liberalism as Mitterand is to conservatism.

 

[Mac1958]

It's why I separate liberals from Regressive Leftists, who have betrayed liberalism..

I do, too. In some recent postings, I brought up John Rawls and John Stuart Mill who just happen to be THE most influential liberal political theorists of the 20th and 19th centuries respectively. In a veritable orgy of stupidity and ignorance, the regressives not only announced that they have never heard of either, but tried to claim they were some sort of obscure reference I had dredged up.

It would be as if the discussion were about pop music and a bunch of cretins claimed the Beatles were unimportant because they had never heard of them. It was almost as if these smug children were actually PROUD of the fact they knew absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

I would have you consider the possibility that they did, in fact, know but were simply lying.

They're not stupid, they're terribly dishonest, and controlled by their ideology.
.

But who defines what liberalism is today?

Academics or the corporate owned media?

If it is the latter then John Stuart Mill is about as relevant to liberalism as Mitterand is to conservatism.

Well, pretty much everything in politics is a matter of semantics.

In terms of volume and passion, the Regressive Left pretty much represents contemporary liberalism, sadly.
.