NationStates Jolt Archive

Have your political views undergone any changes, major or minor, over the past year? Have you shifted any further to the left or right, or closer to the center? Economically I haven't changed at all (still 10.00), but socially, I've become far more libertarian (not a libertarian per se, but far more libertarian than before). I was once a 7 point something socially, now I'm a -0.92 (in other words, a tiny bit libertarian).

Yes. I have shifted leftwards, as has been the recent trend. The horrors of the Bush Administration and the incompetence of the Democratic "opposition" continue to radicalize me, a development that does not seem isolated.

I have lost alot of respect for Republicans, and I also lost the tiny bit of respect I had for anyone on the left, thanks to the radical lefty nutbags in here.

My Social views have stayed the same, but my Economic views have shifted ever so slightly to the left.

No, my views and basic beliefs are the same, however, I would now never support any candidate with a (D) trailing their name. They could be the best candidate in the world and it would not matter. That party simply cannot be trusted with national security under any circumstance. Hopefully, there will be an acceptable independent come 2008.

i've become slightly more accepting of some people who identify with the democrats as the rage builds up within them and they watch as their party essentially lets the republicans lay all the groundwork for neo-fascism (when they aren't actively helping them).

Swung from far-lefty to radical-personal rights moderate righty.

There's really no name for the position I inhabit now...

Libertarians are too far right and too socialy conservative (in comparison to myself), leftys too far left and socialy conservative, rightys too far right and far too conservative, and commies too far left and far too socially conservative.

I think I have moved more to the left. Can't really support a republican anymore.....

I've moved from being a neo-commie of sorts to an absolute fascist. I'm glad to be able to say that I still hate the normal conservative parties though. Bush and Harper have the innate talent to be able to piss me off simply by speaking. Also, religion has no room in politics.

Have your political views undergone any changes, major or minor, over the past year? Have you shifted any further to the left or right, or closer to the center? Economically I haven't changed at all (still 10.00), but socially, I've become far more libertarian (not a libertarian per se, but far more libertarian than before). I was once a 7 point something socially, now I'm a -0.92 (in other words, a tiny bit libertarian).
I refuse to take that damned "Political Compass" test again. Four times is enough! :p

My views have shifted slightly to the left on social issues, and shifted slightly right on international issues ( largely because I see so many leftists on here raising such an inordinate amount of hell about the US military ). Although many on here, mostly leftists, take violent issue with this, I still consider myself CENTRIST! Yayyy! :D

I still consider myself CENTRIST! Yayyy! :D

"Centrist" by US standards, perhaps. But you are aware that the US "centre" is a long way to the right by world standards?

Oh, and have you ever considered that criticism of US military interventions abroad may sometimes be... *gasp*... justified? ;)

"Centrist" by US standards, perhaps. But you are aware that the US "centre" is a long way to the right by what we consider to be Western European standards?
Corrected for accuracy.

Me, well, according to Western European standards, I'm a right-wing loonie.

over the last year i've become more moderate. my idealist politics are still there, but my every-day political leanings have taken over more and more.

thats not to say i'm not left now - far from it - but i'm less commie and more... just lefty, compared to the almost pure-idealist i was a year ago

The only difference is that I hate Bush, and the immoral swine who work for him even more.
Also, Ive become a tad more jaded towards humanity in general, particularly half of my own nation.

Corrected for accuracy.

Me, well, according to Western European standards, I'm a right-wing loonie.

Point well taken, I suppose. Eastern Europe tends to be skewed to the right by West European standards. Asia's a mixed bag, as is Africa, but by South American standards, you have to concede that the US "centre" is a long way to the right too. Likewise by Oceanian (South Pacific) standards. My point holds on the whole.

Point well taken, I suppose. Eastern Europe tends to be skewed to the right by West European standards. Asia's a mixed bag, as is Africa, but by South American standards, you have to concede that the US "centre" is a long way to the right too. Likewise by Oceanian (South Pacific) standards. My point holds on the whole.
China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Cuba? The list goes on and on....

We're left of that. I'm sure you included that in the mixed bag. However, your point doesn't hold on the whole. Then again, I'm including civil rights, personal freedoms and whatnot. I'm not just grading by ideals and the "left/right" polictical spectrum. What are you looking at?

As explained quickly in another thread (the one about what gave us our political opinions) the major shift I had was the transition from a mostly emotional rejection of capitalism (revolted by poverty, inequalities, needless sufferings, exploitation, ecological damages, wars, ...) to a more rational view of things.

During the latest few years (since 2002, but mostly since 2004) I'm reading political/economical books, taking much more attention to the news (and trying to double-check them, which often leads me to some surprise...). And I became even more aware of the sheer insanity of capitalism.

On the political compass, I've no idea, because I only took the test during 2005, in which I already had most of my current knowledge of politics and economics. But I think I'm a bit more radically to the left than I used to be, because the more I study politics the more I undesrtand what reckless and insane system capitalism is.

But on the other hand, while I'm probably more radical to the left, I'm also more aware that you can't change everything in one big swift, that the "Great Evening" and the "Singing Tomorrows" are just fairy tale. I'm more able to accept some compromise (but NOT everything !), at least for a while, than I used to be.

So maybe I could say that my nowadays more rational view of politics leaded me to a more radical long-term goal, but a less radical short-term goal.

China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Cuba? The list goes on and on....

We're left of that. I'm sure you included that in the mixed bag. However, your point doesn't hold on the whole. Then again, I'm including civil rights, personal freedoms and whatnot. I'm not just grading by ideals and the "left/right" polictical spectrum. What are you looking at?

I was thinking more in socio-economic terms, since we were talking about "centrism". It's difficult to factor in civil rights into a left/right divide. If you take into account conservatism, then China, Saudi Arabia and Iran are definitely to the right of the US, yes, and the US is definitely to the right of Western Europe and various other parts of the world.

How do you define centrism in relation to "personal freedoms"? Your saying that the US is to the left of Cuba would strike most people as rather odd.

My views have skyrocketed rightwards. The more people pretend that we're living in September 10, 2001, the more I shift right.

Mine haven't changed much, I still got my own concept of very left, idealistic, pacifist to no end which is hardly applicable in the modern world, but I still like to try every now and then :D

Form an offical Centrist party. Let's rock the American political boat.

How do you define centrism in relation to "personal freedoms"? Your saying that the US is to the left of Cuba would strike most people as rather odd.
Centrism is mid-level finger sticking of the government into the economic pie.

I view the US to the left of Cuba mainly because I'm from the States. I really don't got a whole lot here. As you know, we've comically tried to kill Castro, the de facto ruler of the country (thus the only real reason why they're right of US), a number of times and failed miserably due to sheer luck on his part. My favorite would be the explosive cigar of doom, which failed. I also know that the state of Cuba has started up a sort of communal neighborhood farming everywhere in the country, but that is mainly due to the fall of the Soviet Union and trade embargoes.

From my knowledge, which is very minimal (what my goverment wants me to have), Cuba is to the right of the US. Cubans also enjoy slipping away from Castro via boat or inner tube, upon which it can become a race where if the Cubans make landfall on US soil before the Coast Guard catches them, they're US citizens. So, if Cuba was more left (Which is the preferred circumstances, right?) than the US, why do they (not all, speaking in generalities) flee to the US? That's rhetorical.

Centrism is mid-level finger sticking of the government into the economic pie.

Well, centrism doesn't exist as an ideology IMHO, the "center" is defined by the belief of others... the "center" is not the same at all in USA, China, France or Bolivia. And defining yourself as being at the center of what others think seem weird for me.

From my knowledge, which is very minimal (what my goverment wants me to have), Cuba is to the right of the US.

Well, usually (especially in this thread which speak about the political compass), the left/right axis is more about economical system than about personal/political freedom. On the economical level, Cuba is definitely one of the most leftish country of the planet (totally free health care and education, housing and food for everyone, ...), while USA is one of the most far-right country of the planet (and definitely the most far-right of "rich" countries).

If you speak of personal/political freedom, then it's a bit more complex. On a first glance, Cuba is more to the right (more autoritarian) than USA on that. But if you look deeper, that's not that sure. USA political freedom is good, but not that great (even if the days of McCarthy are over, owning communist propaganda is still outlawed in some states, for example), on paper. In reality, it's much worse. The electoral system is really unfair to all "small" party, resulting in a system which is completly locked between two parties, which share very similar views on many issues, both of which being completly bound to corporate money. So in reality, it's not very different from a one-party system where you can chose within the party (what Cuba is).

The same goes for freedom of informaion. Castro's control over information is more direct, but the control of corporations over information inside USA is not less efficient. Stories like those journalists who did a documentary about the consequences of Monsato's beef hormon on the milk quality who were fired because of that are very common. You can't speak bad of the most powerful corporations on US TV, or you risk to be fired. The story of the Michael Moore's TV Nation show about health system is also enlighting (you can have whatever opinion about Moore, that's not the question, we are speaking about freedom of information, not about Moore right now): one episod of TV Nation was comparing the health systems of USA, Canada and Cuba, by following closely three similar injuries in the three countries. The show conclusion was the Cuba's health system was the best, followed by Canada, and that USA was the worse. Moore was forced to change his show, and to put Canada first, USA second and Cuba third, because it was not acceptable to praise Cuba on US tv.

The same goes if you look about human rights... yes, Castro is holding prisonners with faked trials. But USA is holding hundred of priosnners without any trial at all ! USA is using forms of torture, food deprivation and such on the prisonners of Guantanamo Bay, something Cuba never does.

Overall, it's hard to say which of the country is more authoritarian and which is more "free".

So, if Cuba was more left (Which is the preferred circumstances, right?) than the US, why do they (not all, speaking in generalities) flee to the US? That's rhetorical.

People tend to flee from any third-world country, and Cuba is (partly thank to the embargo). More people tend to flee from Mexico than from Cuba. Also remember that tens of thousands of Cuban are working in foreign countries as "social workers" (for many cuban, that's a way to see foreign countries easily and without having to pay, and to do a "good action" at the same time) and that only very few of them do not come back to Cuba afterwards.

One year ago, I was a pacifist centre-right libertarian type of person. Now I'm a centre-left, utilitarian, pragmatic democratic socialist with greater willingness to accept that intervention and war are sometimes necessary.

The most significant development has probably been my arrival at the conclusion that it was right for America to change the regime in Iraq.

I have also become more concerned about the Islamic fundamentalist movement worldwide and I have realised its global nature. This has led to be becoming an even more determined secularist than before.

I have become rather disgusted with the portions of the left (though I don't think that they're a majority) who choose to be apologists for Muslim fundamentalists in general. This is mainly due to the fact that this form of the religion has no respect for women's rights, a central tenet of all left-wing ideologies. Also, in almost all cases this is a double standard not applied to Christian fundamentalists. I prefer a consistent form of secularism.

No, my views and basic beliefs are the same, however, I would now never support any candidate with a (D) trailing their name. They could be the best candidate in the world and it would not matter. That party simply cannot be trusted with national security under any circumstance. Hopefully, there will be an acceptable independent come 2008.
Wow, bragging about being a partisan hack? That's new. (I would say the same if that was an R in the brackets.)

The two parties are almost the same. Why is that so hard to see that the differences between them are mostly exaggerated or imagined?

I think I have moved more to the left. Can't really support a republican anymore.....
Read above.

Although many on here, mostly leftists, take violent issue with this, I still consider myself CENTRIST! Yayyy! :D
How is it possible to be violent on the internet?

China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Cuba? The list goes on and on....

We're left of that.
Western Europe is to the left of Cuba???

Form an offical Centrist party. Let's rock the American political boat.
In between the Dems and the Reps? How is this possible? They're already so similar as to squeeze out any possibilty of a centre between them.

How is it possible to be violent on the internet?
Ever hear of "verbal fisticuffs?" Same thing. :p

The only difference is that I hate Bush, and the immoral swine who work for him even more.
Also, Ive become a tad more jaded towards humanity in general, particularly half of my own nation.
Poor baby. Here ... have a beer! :)

My views have remained the same, politically.
I'm still sensible left on all issues (and yes, I mean Western European left). What has changes is my attitude towards the right. It changed from "How can any sensible person not see the errors" to "If your happiness depends on believing that, none of my business"

Well, centrism doesn't exist as an ideology IMHO, the "center" is defined by the belief of others... the "center" is not the same at all in USA, China, France or Bolivia. And defining yourself as being at the center of what others think seem weird for me.


Actually, isn't that what any prospective successful government should aim for? Try to make as many people as happy as possible?

Too much "centrism" can be a road to nowhere, fence-sitting through any issue that heads your way. Centrism can only really be defined within a pre-prescribed group of people

It would still be near impossible to attain and maintain in practice, perfect centrism for a government. To many internal and international influences

Well, centrism doesn't exist as an ideology IMHO, the "center" is defined by the belief of others... the "center" is not the same at all in USA, China, France or Bolivia. And defining yourself as being at the center of what others think seem weird for me.
I was just defining my own term for "centrism" as personal freedoms would most be of the economic sort, and is of a different kind of freedoms than civil rights in my opinion.
Well, usually (especially in this thread which speak about the political compass), the left/right axis is more about economical system than about personal/political freedom.
I have two things to say:
1. I should read the OP much better.
2. I don't believe the political compass is a good way to grade a government, as governments don't just deal with economic issues.
On the economical level, Cuba is definitely one of the most leftish country of the planet (totally free health care and education, housing and food for everyone, ...), while USA is one of the most far-right country of the planet (and definitely the most far-right of "rich" countries).
Which is what he said:
Western Europe is to the left of Cuba???
If you speak of personal/political freedom, then it's a bit more complex. On a first glance, Cuba is more to the right (more autoritarian) than USA on that. But if you look deeper, that's not that sure...In reality, it's much worse. The electoral system is really unfair to all "small" party, resulting in a system which is completly locked between two parties, which share very similar views on many issues, both of which being completly bound to corporate money. So in reality, it's not very different from a one-party system where you can chose within the party (what Cuba is).
First off, every politican in the US doesn't buy into the party line. Again, I'll bring the "grand coalition" refrences used in European poltics to win elections. The Democratic party and the GOP are permenant "grand coalitions".
The show conclusion was the Cuba's health system was the best, followed by Canada, and that USA was the worse. Moore was forced to change his show, and to put Canada first, USA second and Cuba third, because it was not acceptable to praise Cuba on US tv.
I cannot comment on this, as I don't know how Moore rated the health care systems.
The same goes if you look about human rights... yes, Castro is holding prisonners with faked trials. But USA is holding hundred of priosnners without any trial at all ! USA is using forms of torture, food deprivation and such on the prisonners of Guantanamo Bay, something Cuba never does.
While I don't agree with it, they're not prisoners. They're "enemy combatants", which is a new legal term that Bush & Co. threw together to avoid certain international laws.
Overall, it's hard to say which of the country is more authoritarian and which is more "free".
Not in my book.
People tend to flee from any third-world country, and Cuba is (partly thank to the embargo). More people tend to flee from Mexico than from Cuba. Also remember that tens of thousands of Cuban are working in foreign countries as "social workers" (for many cuban, that's a way to see foreign countries easily and without having to pay, and to do a "good action" at the same time) and that only very few of them do not come back to Cuba afterwards.
Matematically speaking, that's entirely correct.
11,346,670 (July 2005 est.)
106,202,903 (July 2005 est.)
Considering how there are more Mexicans that can "flee" to the US, and considering how there isn't an ocean between the US and Mexico that makes sense, doesn't it? It really doesn't prove a point.

Over the last year? Not really, I have become more militant though

My views have remained the same, politically.
I'm still sensible left on all issues (and yes, I mean Western European left). What has changes is my attitude towards the right. It changed from "How can any sensible person not see the errors" to "If your happiness depends on believing that, none of my business"
Seriously? The problem with right-wingers, broadly speaking, is that they can't just be left alone because they won't leave you alone.

From liberals to Christian/Muslims theocrats, all of them not only stand for everything we're against, they are dead set on ruining our lives with their twisted agendas.

It sounds like you're just content to be pushed around and walked all over like a doormat.

Ever hear of "verbal fisticuffs?" Same thing. :p
I don't consider ranting, raving and trolling to be violent. Especially when the only device of communication is a keyboard.

Seriously? The problem with right-wingers, broadly speaking, is that they can't just be left alone because they won't leave you alone.

From liberals to Christian/Muslims theocrats, all of them not only stand for everything we're against, they are dead set on ruining our lives with their twisted agendas.

It sounds like you're just content to be pushed around and walked all over like a doormat.



I don't see anybody walking over what I stand for....

2. I don't believe the political compass is a good way to grade a government, as governments don't just deal with economic issues.

Well, I don't think you can grade a governement with a few numeric scales. It's too complex, there are too many parameters and you also need to know the context, the history, ... Political compass can be a tool to help reasoning, but it'll never give you the conclusion.

I cannot comment on this, as I don't know how Moore rated the health care systems.

The question is not about how Moore rated them, if he was right or wrong, or even about the health systems. My point was just that, inside the US mediatic system, you can't praise Cuba. That the praising was right or wrong was not the issue.

While I don't agree with it, they're not prisoners. They're "enemy combatants", which is a new legal term that Bush & Co. threw together to avoid certain international laws.

You could say the same for Castro's prisonners... don't forget that Cuba is constantly under attack. The political prisonners of Castro are accused of threatening Cuba's security, the same way the people of Guatanamo Bay are. They are suspected to be " ennemy combattants". The problem in both cases is that they didn't get a fair trial.

Considering how there are more Mexicans that can "flee" to the US, and considering how there isn't an ocean between the US and Mexico that makes sense, doesn't it? It really doesn't prove a point.

Well, true. But my point was mostly to say that if people flee from Cuba, it's not necesserly because of Castro, but maybe because of Cuba being a thrid-world country and USA representing the wealthiest country in people's mind. It's not easy to know which is the most important reason, but all the ones speaking about the "boat people" seem to always forget that there are two possible reasons...

Well, I don't think you can grade a governement with a few numeric scales. It's too complex, there are too many parameters and you also need to know the context, the history, ... Political compass can be a tool to help reasoning, but it'll never give you the conclusion.
Actually, I've always wondered myself as to why we must assign numbers and levels to governments and then chart them. Why can't we just say, "America is pretty good, but its not the best for [reasons]," or even say, "Cuba's really turned around from when it first started out!" Because Cuba has really turned around. Despite that Castro may not be the best, he's doing some good.
The question is not about how Moore rated them, if he was right or wrong, or even about the health systems. My point was just that, inside the US mediatic system, you can't praise Cuba. That the praising was right or wrong was not the issue.
"Mediatic" ... I'll just not question if that's a word or not in English. I get proved wrong every time. :p

America does have this thing against anything remotely "communist" or "socialized". Its our history. I must add, the bomb shelters that we onced saved for the fallout are now American football locker rooms. We are slowly forgetting our past.
You could say the same for Castro's prisonners... don't forget that Cuba is constantly under attack. The political prisonners of Castro are accused of threatening Cuba's security, the same way the people of Guatanamo Bay are. They are suspected to be " ennemy combattants". The problem in both cases is that they didn't get a fair trial.
With that view point, the US is worse, because a fair trial is expected. I wouldn't expect the same if I was apprehended by the Cuban government, instead, they remain predicatable. That's somewhat admirable, as long as it isn't a "foolish consistency" as Emerson put it.
Well, true. But my point was mostly to say that if people flee from Cuba, it's not necesserly because of Castro, but maybe because of Cuba being a thrid-world country and USA representing the wealthiest country in people's mind. It's not easy to know which is the most important reason, but all the ones speaking about the "boat people" seem to always forget that there are two possible reasons...
That's interesting. Here in the North, I see quite a bit of news reports on South Americans going to Sweden instead of the US. Now, its not a lot, but its a noteable ammount, and they made it on the news.

I don't see anybody walking over what I stand for....
Gama construction and Irish Ferries attempting to bring ruin to the idea of a minimum wage? The continued criminalisation of abortion in this country? Michael McDowell's idiotic ASBOs?

Do you read the news at all?

The only reason that the above parties are not more successful is that there are people who share your beliefs on the issues, but are willing to do what you are not, and actually stand up for those beliefs.

On a more international scale, how about the continutation of female genital mutilation and honour killings throughout North Africa? The execution of people for being gay, or being raped in Iran? Do you really have no problem with these things?

Gama construction and Irish Ferries attempting to bring ruin to the idea of a minimum wage? The continued criminalisation of abortion in this country? Michael McDowell's idiotic ASBOs?

Do you read the news at all?

The only reason that the above parties are not more successful is that there are people who share your beliefs on the issues, but are willing to do what you are not, and actually stand up for those beliefs.

On a more international scale, how about the continutation of female genital mutilation and honour killings throughout North Africa? The execution of people for being gay, or being raped in Iran? Do you really have no problem with these things?

Ok, so I'm a bad person.
Sorry, you're asking that at the wrong moment.

over the last year i've become more moderate. my idealist politics are still there, but my every-day political leanings have taken over more and more.

thats not to say i'm not left now - far from it - but i'm less commie and more... just lefty, compared to the almost pure-idealist i was a year ago

Next stage, LIBERALISM

I wouldn't know if I've changed on the political compass, I don't care, that thing is a crock of shit.

All I do know is that I've dropped all my left-liberal beliefs and instead become a fully-blown Trot. So you can say goodbye to the promise of pacifism, the giddiness for greens, the respect of religious politics and the rolling-over before reformists

I think i've become more right wing in the past year....since 7/7 i have "disliked" some people from a "certain religion" even more so since some people from this "certain religion" started riots over a set of cartoons. Cartoons which i by the way found "some what humourous."

Notice i didn't name anyone....so anyone who was thinking of using the word racist there no longer has an excuse.:mp5: :headbang:

I think i've become more right wing in the past year....since 7/7 i have "disliked" some people from a "certain religion" even more so since some people from this "certain religion" started riots over a set of cartoons. Cartoons which i by the way found "some what humourous."

Notice i didn't name anyone....so anyone who was thinking of using the word racist there no longer has an excuse.:mp5: :headbang:

Except for the fact that you just said you hate all muslims for the actions of a tiny minority. Way to go, racist.

Oh, and nice use of emoticons- makes you look like a pro

Ok, so I'm a bad person.
Sorry, you're asking that at the wrong moment.
What? Why not answer my post.

You're not a bad person. You just seem to be politically apathetic while mistaking yourself as being a leftist.

What? Why not answer my post.

You're not a bad person. You just seem to be politically apathetic while mistaking yourself as being a leftist.

Ok, so I turned apathetic.

Yes. Whilst I may, a year ago, have been a reasonably moderate conservative, mhy opinions have hardened considerably, and my tolerance for Islam, subsequent to 7/7 and the cartoon protests, has turned to open contempt and antipathy.

They haven't. I'm still a far left radical in practical terms, and an all out anarchist, ideologically speaking.

Increasingly though, I find myself thinking I should just go along with every senseless, violently exploitative & racist policy my government comes up with. Not because I like them, but because it's probably the only way to break down our society completely.

OK, I'm not that evil, but.. The thought is oddly compelling at times.

Yes. Whilst I may, a year ago, have been a reasonably moderate conservative, mhy opinions have hardened considerably, and my tolerance for Islam, subsequent to 7/7 and the cartoon protests, has turned to open contempt and antipathy.

Do not judge a whole population on the acts of a tiny few of them... dunno what you are calling 7/7, but for the cartoon protests, it's only a very small minority which reacts violently. Judging all Islam or all muslim upon that is very, very unfair.

Do not judge a whole population on the acts of a tiny few of them... dunno what you are calling 7/7, but for the cartoon protests, it's only a very small minority which reacts violently. Judging all Islam or all muslim upon that is very, very unfair.

7/7 were the utterly unprovoked, treasonous suicide bombings in London. Incidentally, what do the professed intentions of Hamas, the French riots, the continued suicide bombings in Israel, beheading of western peace activists, burning of western effigies, derision of the dead from Islamic terror attacks, and pro-fundamentalist propaganda imply as to Islam as a whole?

Do not judge a whole population on the acts of a tiny few of them... dunno what you are calling 7/7, but for the cartoon protests, it's only a very small minority which reacts violently. Judging all Islam or all muslim upon that is very, very unfair.For example, the group of Muslim protesters in Denmark only numbers some 800 people.

Most of the rest of them either won't interfere in the public debate, or are busy apologising & distancing themselves from this very vocal, but incredibly tiny minority.

7/7 were the utterly unprovoked, treasonous suicide bombings in London.

What is invasion of a sovereign country, breaking all international laws, if not a provocation ? Sure, it's no excuse for the bombing of civilians, but you can't say it was unprovoked.

And once again, you are judging a whole population on the acts of a few members of it. As if I were judging the US on the acts of a serial killer or gang leader... that's totally unfair, and insane.

Incidentally, what do the professed intentions of Hamas, the French riots, the continued suicide bombings in Israel, beheading of western peace activists, burning of western effigies, derision of the dead from Islamic terror attacks, and pro-fundamentalist propaganda imply as to Islam as a whole?

The French riots had absolutely _nothing_ to do with Islam. Islam leaders when even strongly opposing the riotings. The French riots have all to do with endless provocation, misery, social suffering and hopelessness, but nothing at all with Islam.

For the rest, once again, you speak of the acts of a tiny minority. Even for the Hamas, if Palestinian voted for the Hamas, it's not because they approve the Hamas on bombings, but only because they were fed up (of Israelian occupation and daily exactions, of misery, of Fatah's corruption, of the dead peace agrements - because Israel never respected them), and mostly because of the social program of the Hamas. The Hamas is the only one really helping them to survive in uttermost poverty, and that's why they voted for the Hamas. Not because they support terror.

Your view on Islam is really, really biased. You are judging a whole population over the acts of a few, and making broad overgeneralisation. That's exactly the same than what the terrorists are doing: judging a whole population (the western world) over the acts of a few of them. You're thinking the same way than the ones you oppose... so you really should think again.

What is invasion of a sovereign country, breaking all international laws, if not a provocation ? Sure, it's no excuse for the bombing of civilians, but you can't say it was unprovoked.

And once again, you are judging a whole population on the acts of a few members of it. As if I were judging the US on the acts of a serial killer or gang leader... that's totally unfair, and insane.



The French riots had absolutely _nothing_ to do with Islam. Islam leaders when even strongly opposing the riotings. The French riots have all to do with endless provocation, misery, social suffering and hopelessness, but nothing at all with Islam.

For the rest, once again, you speak of the acts of a tiny minority. Even for the Hamas, if Palestinian voted for the Hamas, it's not because they approve the Hamas on bombings, but only because they were fed up (of Israelian occupation and daily exactions, of misery, of Fatah's corruption, of the dead peace agrements - because Israel never respected them), and mostly because of the social program of the Hamas. The Hamas is the only one really helping them to survive in uttermost poverty, and that's why they voted for the Hamas. Not because they support terror.

Your view on Islam is really, really biased. You are judging a whole population over the acts of a few, and making broad overgeneralisation. That's exactly the same than what the terrorists are doing: judging a whole population (the western world) over the acts of a few of them. You're thinking the same way than the ones you oppose... so you really should think again.

Actually, the French riots were advocated and inherently Islamic in idiosyncrasies.

In relation to Hamas, I would contend otherwise. One could, from the above, infer an assertion that Palestine is benevolent towards Israel, entirely untrue. The Palestinian populce, concurrent to the remainder of the Aabic states, do advocate the use of terror in relation to Israel, they laud it, and, the administrations they elect fund it.

The 7/7 bombings were entirely unprovoked. Much to my chagrin, Labour have accepted Islamic immigrants with open arms, they are treated as citizens superior to those who fund their existence, and yet they respond through suicide bombings and advocating the destruction of the west.

7/7 were the utterly unprovoked, treasonous suicide bombings in London. Incidentally, what do the professed intentions of Hamas, the French riots, the continued suicide bombings in Israel, beheading of western peace activists, burning of western effigies, derision of the dead from Islamic terror attacks, and pro-fundamentalist propaganda imply as to Islam as a whole?
What do they imply to Islam as a whole? Nothing.
Individual people have individual desires. What one Muslim does has absolutely nothing to do with what any other Muslims want.
The 7/7 bombings were entirely unprovoked. Much to my chagrin, Labour have accepted Islamic immigrants with open arms, they are treated as citizens superior to those who fund their existence, and yet they respond through suicide bombings and advocating the destruction of the west.
Oh, this is rich! You say that the immigrants respond through suicide bombings- Tell me, just how many suicide bombings have you had from them?
I count two or three. Two or three, for all of your immigrants.
And then, if you say bombings are your immigrants' response, surely there must be a lot of people bombing?
Oh wait, there aren't.

The claim that Islamic immigrants as a whole are attacking your country is junk.

What do they imply to Islam as a whole? Nothing.
Individual people have individual desires. What one Muslim does has absolutely nothing to do with what any other Muslims want.

Oh, this is rich! You say that the immigrants respond through suicide bombings- Tell me, just how many suicide bombings have you had from them?
I count two or three. Two or three, for all of your immigrants.
And then, if you say bombings are your immigrants' response, surely there must be a lot of people bombing?
Oh wait, there aren't.

The claim that Islamic immigrants as a whole are attacking your country is junk.

Christ, you are raving. They harboured them, failed to denounce them, and failed to vehemently deplore them.

Actually, the French riots were advocated and inherently Islamic in idiosyncrasies.

Absolutely not. I live very close to where the riots started, and I know well the situation. It definetly has nothing to do with Islam, it was the blind revolt of a hopeless youth, comparable to the "jacqueries" of the middle ages, when peasants revolted against their lords burning their own crops.

One could, from the above, infer an assertion that Palestine is benevolent towards Israel, entirely untrue.

How would US react if the "international community" decided to give a country to native american, and to take 78% of US land for that ? They would definitely not be happy with it, and would not feel benevolent towards this new country.

But Palestinians wanted peace, and they massively supported Arafat when he recognised the state of Israel and accepted to only claim 22% of the historical Palestin as his. They were definetly not happy with that, but they accepted it as a compromise.

What was Israel's answer ? The continuation of colonies in the remaining 22%, the building of an illegal wall destroying the palestinian crops and cutting villages in two, the daily humilation at checkpoints, ...

After more than one decennia of this, they got fed up. That's admirable they didn't became fed up sooner. Very few people on earth would have accepted so many humiliations for that long.

The 7/7 bombings were entirely unprovoked.

But how can you say that ?! Hey, Blair STARTED A WAR, INVADED a sovereign country, became a ROGUE NATION (according to the UN charter) ! What would you need to call it a provocation ?! "Oh, they just started a war, bombed a country, invaded it, tortured people in it, and created an utter mess. And they did all this by breaking all international laws. All fine, that's not a provocation, just a friendly act" ?! Open your eyes !

Christ, you are raving. They harboured them, failed to denounce them, and failed to vehemently deplore them.
"They" did nothing.
Show me how all your Muslim immigrants are at fault. Show me how a few Muslims harbouring bombers shows anything about the other Muslims. And show me how it is that they aren't doing enough against terrorism and not denouncing them enough, when one of the highest Shia clerics has issued a fatwa against suicide bombing, and the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain publicly expressed disgust at the events of 7/7, and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee condemned the marches calliung for the murder of the publishers.

There are Muslims out there condemning and being just as against terrorism as everybody, you just aren't listening.

"They" did nothing.
Show me how all your Muslim immigrants are at fault. Show me how a few Muslims harbouring bombers shows anything about the other Muslims. And show me how it is that they aren't doing enough against terrorism and not denouncing them enough, when one of the highest Shia clerics has issued a fatwa against suicide bombing, and the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain publicly expressed disgust at the events of 7/7, and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee condemned the marches calliung for the murder of the publishers.

There are Muslims out there condemning and being just as against terrorism as everybody, you just aren't listening.

MI-5 have proved that the Islamic community were well aware of the ensueing bombings, yet did nothing.

As for the variety of entirely unwelcome institutions and councils deploring the bombings, great. Truly superb. Were no Muslims in Britain originally, they wouldn't have occurred at all.

"They" did nothing.
Show me how all your Muslim immigrants are at fault. Show me how a few Muslims harbouring bombers shows anything about the other Muslims. And show me how it is that they aren't doing enough against terrorism and not denouncing them enough, when one of the highest Shia clerics has issued a fatwa against suicide bombing, and the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain publicly expressed disgust at the events of 7/7, and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee condemned the marches calliung for the murder of the publishers.

There are Muslims out there condemning and being just as against terrorism as everybody, you just aren't listening.Oh yes they did something!

Just like all people called Chris are murderous scum, because they don't take to the streets every day, renouncing the guy called Chris who killed some hapless sod last year.

Actually, the French riots were advocated and inherently Islamic in idiosyncrasies.

Actually they were not. They had more to do with the poverty and abhorrent circumstances in the Parisian sub-urbs. Coincidentally the people living in the sub-urbs were muslims for the greatest part. Yet nobody wonders how it is possible that a lot of muslims in Europe seem to be poverized in comparison to the general standards. This might be partly to blame to their work ethics, but it also has to do with increasing discrimination.


In relation to Hamas, I would contend otherwise. One could, from the above, infer an assertion that Palestine is benevolent towards Israel, entirely untrue. The Palestinian populce, concurrent to the remainder of the Aabic states, do advocate the use of terror in relation to Israel, they laud it, and, the administrations they elect fund it.

Yes, how would you feel when the world decides you have to leave your home and everything you know as such, just because people you've had no previous business with have suffered and need a place to stay. Not only that, after they've moved in they start complaing to the world again since you've built a cardboard house just outside their frontyard. When you complain to the world you get as a response that it is their house now. And to top it all off those people destroy your cardboard box as well.

Can you blame the Palestinians for reacting like they do? I for one know that I would react in much the same way after a certain period. Say...40-50 years?


The 7/7 bombings were entirely unprovoked. Much to my chagrin, Labour have accepted Islamic immigrants with open arms, they are treated as citizens superior to those who fund their existence, and yet they respond through suicide bombings and advocating the destruction of the west.

*sigh* Ignorance is such a despicable feat. Numbers people! How many muslims - those of which their country hasn't been occupied - do you see protesting violently or commiting terrorist acts? And how many muslims are there in the world?

Yes, there you have it, it's just a small part that is radical. Now, could you do me a favour? Yes?

REMEMBER THIS!:headbang: .



And as a reaction to the thread I'd say I've become even more anti-'democracy politics' than I already was.

"I love politics, I hate politicians."

MI-5 have proved that the Islamic community were well aware of the ensueing bombings, yet did nothing.
Well, if you'd like to provide a link to back up your assertion that the enitre Muslim community knew about it, feel free to, but until then the assertion seems a bity unlikely.
As for the variety of entirely unwelcome institutions and councils deploring the bombings, great. Truly superb. Were no Muslims in Britain originally, they wouldn't have occurred at all.
Had there been no non-Muslims in Britain, the bombings wouldn't have happened, but is that any reason to kick out non-Muslims?

Well, if you'd like to provide a link to back up your assertion that the enitre Muslim community knew about it, feel free to, but until then the assertion seems a bity unlikely.

Had there been no non-Muslims in Britain, the bombings wouldn't have happened, but is that any reason to kick out non-Muslims?

I would say not. I simply would love to deport them all and appropriate their property for government distribution.

n.b. I am well I am currently in the realm of unjustified assertions, this more personal instinct, and no, I am not in the mood to retract any sentiment.

Lately my social beliefs have been more and more distanced from the American Right, their party line simply doesn't coincide with mine but my contempt for the Democratic administration still holds strong. I'm not a fence sitter by any means, and the term "centrist" doesn't exactly do my beliefs justice; however my dislike for the ever expanding scope of social meddling on all levels of government and by countless (and often conflicting) interest groups and my distrust of libertarianism in general leaves me pretty much unrepresented.

Economically I'd love to see substantially less money in the Federal government’s hands, I'd love to see both corporate and social welfare gutted, and I'd love to see State & Local governments getting a little backbone and picking up the slack. If people want to pay taxes to support social welfare it should be done locally, not federally. In that respect, I'm still largely a conservative despite, again, neither party really supporting what I do.

On foreign policy, it could be said that I have drifted right-wards. I don't buy into the "kill all the browns" bullshit anymore then I do "kill all the blacks, reds, yellows, whites, or the motherfucking off shades of beige." I expect our government to do exactly what it's supposed to do, see to it that our enemies are killed in times of war by whatever means necessary. I feel that we desperately need to shut the hell up and look at things without the ideological blinders. Every time I see a racist asshole talk about Arabs and the obligatory apologist telling him the same "not all Muslims are terrorists" line or "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" I grimace a little. People at large need to stop pissing over the semantics and realize that not all Muslims are terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslims, but SOME ARE. I'm not saying that they are inferior, I'm not saying that they are evil because they are a different race or religion then me, I'm not saying that they are animals. I just want society at large to realize that these people have sold themselves to the darkest and most brutal demons of our nature. These are people who see ignorance, oppression, and brutality not only as a way of life, but as a moral responsibility that must be inflicted on others. I understand perfectly that they are a pitifully small minority and I'm pretty damn sure they understand that as well. Unfortunately, this only makes them all the more dangerous because it forces them into acts of subversion, social manipulation and overt planned acts intended to instill paranoia and terror. We need to identify these people in certain terms, we need to find them, we need to eliminate them with extreme prejudice, and we need to leave those that desire to live in peace and prosperity to do so unmolested.

Heh, I think I killed this thread.... o.0