Re: left leaning idiots

by Idéfix Wed May 07, 2014 12:23 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:and let the pretzeling begin.

PS: are the islamic radicals (ahem jihadists) in 1970s supported by left wing nuts all over the world? in that case were they left leaning then but turned right leaning in 2000s? I suppose further distinctions will be made between those fighting zionists and imperialist hegemonies and the current ones

The jihadists of the '80s were supported by His Holiness, Saint-King Ronald Reagan, peace be upon him. In fact, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen (literally, "those waging jihad") Reagan and his conservatives sympathized with and financed.

left leaning idiots - Page 2 Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983

left leaning idiots - Page 2 Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983

"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers."

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 07, 2014 12:54 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:and let the pretzeling begin.

PS: are the islamic radicals (ahem jihadists) in 1970s supported by left wing nuts all over the world? in that case were they left leaning then but turned right leaning in 2000s? I suppose further distinctions will be made between those fighting zionists and imperialist hegemonies and the current ones
The jihadists of the '80s were supported by His Holiness, Saint-King Ronald Reagan, peace be upon him. In fact, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen (literally, "those waging jihad") Reagan and his conservatives sympathized with and financed.

"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers."

As I say Carter and Reagan ruined this country - each in his own way - and sowed the seeds for the continuing decline.

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 07, 2014 1:06 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:and let the pretzeling begin.

PS: are the islamic radicals (ahem jihadists) in 1970s supported by left wing nuts all over the world? in that case were they left leaning then but turned right leaning in 2000s? I suppose further distinctions will be made between those fighting zionists and imperialist hegemonies and the current ones
The jihadists of the '80s were supported by His Holiness, Saint-King Ronald Reagan, peace be upon him. In fact, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen (literally, "those waging jihad") Reagan and his conservatives sympathized with and financed.

"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers."

what is that supposed to prove? that yesterday's friends may become tomorrow's enemies? great revelation indeed. so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:

what is that supposed to prove? that yesterday's friends may become tomorrow's enemies? great revelation indeed. so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?

Don't you know they "wing" it both ways?

by Idéfix Wed May 07, 2014 3:28 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?

Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed May 07, 2014 3:43 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?
Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

It seems America (basically the Western countries) collaborating with Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan etc.) under the umbrella of freedom fighters (including Mujahideen etc.) against Soviet Union in Afghanistan during Reagan years and later was basically to defeat the communism (in USSR and elsewhere then), because communism is viewed as opposing the practices of evangelism and proselytizing. Perhaps even the use of the phrase "evil empire" for USSR by Reagan was due to this consideration.

by smArtha Wed May 07, 2014 3:44 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:But didn't you just reject those classifications as bookish, and that is how jihadists became leftists in your er...book?

By association, that is who they support and whose support they actually get for their causes. In India, the Communist/Marxist/Congress/SP/TMC/MIM/ML all these support each other and they also are more 'sympathetic' to the Islamic Terror, SIMI, Naxal/Maoist movements. And those parties and their supporting intellectual class are the ones that took upon themselves the Left of Center classification, again not mine. The common enemy for all these are the Right Wing (again classification by the above Left parties/intellectuals) BJP/Shiv Sena/RSS/VHP. This is why the Jehadists in India are Left leaning purely by their association. This is exactly what I claimed at the beginning of this thread too.

by Hellsangel Wed May 07, 2014 3:45 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?
Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

The realpolitik of involving the Soviets in a long drawn out and expensive war had nothing to do with it, of course and that is why the US backed off Afghanistan once the Soviets left.

PS: It was the Liberal from Lubbock who was enamored by the Mujahedeen.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 07, 2014 3:51 pm

got it, anything the republicons do which appears misguided in the rear view mirror is based solidly in realpolitik. anything liberals do that appears misguided is based in weak, lefty ideology.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 07, 2014 3:56 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
As I say Carter and Reagan ruined this country - each in his own way - and sowed the seeds for the continuing decline.

you are the poster boy i had in mind when i wrote my first post in this thread. i notice you have kept studiously away from this thread, but others of your ilk have pretzelled so beautifully.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed May 07, 2014 3:57 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?
Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

The realpolitik of involving the Soviets in a long drawn out and expensive war had nothing to do with it, of course and that is why the US backed off Afghanistan once the Soviets left.

Read my response above.
The American and others' interest in fighting the Soviets and their communist allies in Afghanistan was not to take over Afghanistan later (after winning with Muslim help, including Mujahideens' etc.) but just to defeat the "evil" communism. They had no interest in what happened to Afghanistan afterwards (after the communist Govt. there fell and the Soviets left). Afghanistan came back on the American radar only after 9/11 when America realized that its previous allies in Afghanistan (in its fight against communism) were not friends anymore.

by Hellsangel Wed May 07, 2014 4:00 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?
Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

The realpolitik of involving the Soviets in a long drawn out and expensive war had nothing to do with it, of course and that is why the US backed off Afghanistan once the Soviets left.
Read my response above.
The American and others' interest in fighting the Soviets and their communist allies in Afghanistan was not to take over Afghanistan later (after winning with Muslim help, including Mujahideens' etc.) but just to defeat the "evil" communism. They had no interest in what happened to Afghanistan afterwards (after the communist Govt. there fell and the Soviets left). Afghanistan came back on the American radar only after 9/11 when America realized that its previous allies in Afghanistan (in its fight against communism) were not friends anymore.

Invest in a sarcasm-meter, Sevaji.

by Idéfix Wed May 07, 2014 4:02 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?
Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

The realpolitik of involving the Soviets in a long drawn out and expensive war had nothing to do with it, of course and that is why the US backed off Afghanistan once the Soviets left.
Read my response above.
The American and others' interest in fighting the Soviets and their communist allies in Afghanistan was not to take over Afghanistan later (after winning with Muslim help, including Mujahideens' etc.) but just to defeat the "evil" communism. They had no interest in what happened to Afghanistan afterwards (after the communist Govt. there fell and the Soviets left). Afghanistan came back on the American radar only after 9/11 when America realized that its previous allies in Afghanistan (in its fight against communism) were not friends anymore.

Correct, Sevaji. Soviet Union was a far-left extremist regime. The Mujahideen were right-wing extremists. The right wing in America allied itself with the right-wing jihadists against the far-left Soviets.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 07, 2014 4:09 pm

republicons seem to have a knack of embracing people who in the end have been judged by history to be terrorists and tyrants. reagan's cozying up with the mujahideen, dubya's looking into putin's soul are two solid examples.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed May 07, 2014 4:14 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:so are islamics and their supporters right wing or left wing?
Jihadists fight for politics rooted in religion, and conservative social values. This commonality is what made Reagan think so highly of Mujahideen (i.e. jihadists) and support them so strongly with taxpayer money.

The realpolitik of involving the Soviets in a long drawn out and expensive war had nothing to do with it, of course and that is why the US backed off Afghanistan once the Soviets left.
Read my response above.
The American and others' interest in fighting the Soviets and their communist allies in Afghanistan was not to take over Afghanistan later (after winning with Muslim help, including Mujahideens' etc.) but just to defeat the "evil" communism. They had no interest in what happened to Afghanistan afterwards (after the communist Govt. there fell and the Soviets left). Afghanistan came back on the American radar only after 9/11 when America realized that its previous allies in Afghanistan (in its fight against communism) were not friends anymore.
Correct, Sevaji. Soviet Union was a far-left extremist regime. The Mujahideen were right-wing extremists. The right wing in America allied itself with the right-wing jihadists against the far-left Soviets.

It had nothing to do with the fight between the left versus the right. It was a fight between the religionists (Christian-Islamic collaboration) trying to defeat and kick out the "evil" non-religious Commies (the USSR and its backed Govt.) from Afghanistan.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 07, 2014 4:18 pm

at this point in the discussion, i am reminded of the square root wars.

by Idéfix Wed May 07, 2014 4:28 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at this point in the discussion, i am reminded of the square root wars.

Haha... I am reminded of the "discussion" about the Monty Hall problem.

Interesting bit of trivia relevant to the thread... the terms Right and Left in the political context were coined during the French Revolution, based on where delegates to parliament sat relative to the speaker's chair. Those to the right supported the church and the old order (l'ancien regime), while those on the left supported social change and the new creed of liberty, equality, and fraternity. This broad meaning -- the right for conservation of the status quo in society and the left for progressive change -- applies to this day.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu May 08, 2014 12:23 am

Kinnera wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:TLDR; white leftists = enlightened, liberal; Desi leftists = idiots. EOD.
Obama and Oprah that i mentioned are white? So according to you, only whites are the enlightened and liberal ones? Black americans are not? That deems of racism. Others here who were looking for a chance to jump at me are too happy to join your bandwagon. Hello? I was talking abt the American scenario Vs Indian, not black, white or brown.

Edit: Forgot to add: EOD (no point in going on and on and on...)

My bad. American leftists = enlightened liberals; Desi leftists = commie idiots. EOD.

by Seva Lamberdar Fri May 09, 2014 10:16 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:at this point in the discussion, i am reminded of the square root wars.

That is because you have no clue about the differences in religion based alliances [like in the Afghanistan war: "believers" (Christians and Muslims) on one side and the "non-believers" (Communists) on the other] and the issues involving the Left versus the Right (which reflect the socio-economic considerations).

Idéfix wrote:Haha... I am reminded of the "discussion" about the Monty Hall problem.

Perhaps one of these days someone will show you the mathematical proof, indicating the basic flaws in the current Monty Hall concept, and put you out of your delusion.

by Propagandhi711 Fri May 09, 2014 10:24 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:republicons seem to have a knack of embracing people who in the end have been judged by history to be terrorists and tyrants. reagan's cozying up with the mujahideen, dubya's looking into putin's soul are two solid examples.

as the world's preeminent super power, america would have dealt with everyone in one way or other. that's the cost of doing business as a superpower, which ofcourse gives ammo to bicoastal intellectuals to say look america supported this guy or that. it maybe a coincidence that most of these intellectuals are far removed from real world and live in a utopia where people have infinite rear view mirrors in their office and america's political environment and needs are immutable.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri May 09, 2014 1:16 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:republicons seem to have a knack of embracing people who in the end have been judged by history to be terrorists and tyrants. reagan's cozying up with the mujahideen, dubya's looking into putin's soul are two solid examples.

as the world's preeminent super power, america would have dealt with everyone in one way or other. that's the cost of doing business as a superpower, which ofcourse gives ammo to bicoastal intellectuals to say look america supported this guy or that. it maybe a coincidence that most of these intellectuals are far removed from real world and live in a utopia where people have infinite rear view mirrors in their office and america's political environment and needs are immutable.

no problem with dealing with people and having to make difficult choices all the time sir. but what one wants to know of the plains and southern states intellectuals is why there are different rules of judgment for the decisions american administrations of political stripes different from yours have made. why does the realpolitik justification suddenly get thrown out of the window?

by Guest Fri May 09, 2014 3:32 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:TLDR; white leftists = enlightened, liberal; Desi leftists = idiots. EOD.
Obama and Oprah that i mentioned are white? So according to you, only whites are the enlightened and liberal ones? Black americans are not? That deems of racism. Others here who were looking for a chance to jump at me are too happy to join your bandwagon. Hello? I was talking abt the American scenario Vs Indian, not black, white or brown.

Edit: Forgot to add: EOD (no point in going on and on and on...)

My bad. American leftists = enlightened liberals; Desi leftists = commie idiots. EOD.

Yup! you are right this time around Wink

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com