Posted by Wymark on 7/3/2009, 9:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Crazy nationalists."
82.23.179.222
There are a lot of dumbasses who engage in political debates because of the propaganda of "everybody's voice matters" in "democracy". Its very unfortunate. I mean, the only people who engage in debates about...for example...archeology are people who studied archaelogy. But with politics, everybody is an "expert" (or so the propaganda wants you to believe).
I'd say the exact opposite is true. In U.S./U.K. style liberal democaries, decision making is supposed to be left to a narrow elite, with the public - or 'the bewildered herd', as Walter Lippman described us - largely kept out of the process because were're apparently too stupiud to know what's good for us. This has been a constant of elite liberal intellectual thinking since the early 20th century, as has been well documented by Chomsky in books like The Spectacular Achievments Of Propaganda (where he attacks liberal elitist concepts of democracy from the left, rather the right).
These are extremely poor people who are so desperate for work that they joined the military. And during a war no less. Theyre there because they have very limited options.
Yeah, that's a complete myth. Research by the right wing Heritage Foundation found that 'Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile', and that 'American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18–24 years old'.
They generally join because they want to 'serve their country' and 'kill terrorists/bad guys', not because they have no other opportunities. But don't get me wrong, of course they've been subject to all sorts of social forces which have shaped them into that kind of invidual. Jingoism, patriotism, the glorification of war and violence, U.S./U.K. as the benevolent, eternal good guys, etc.
And on a grander scale, you continually paint the Mohammadans as oppressed victims.
I've recently painted the Palestinians as 'oppressed victims', yeah. But that's because they simply are*. That isn't controversial, and it isn't up for debate as far as i'm concerned. Go and read all the reports I linked to.
*Among plenty of other things, obviously. I'm sure they wouldn't want to be defined just by their oppressed victim status.
Islam is a degenerate, destructive, backwards religion. Even by religion standards its ultra conservative.
Nice Islamophobic generalisation there. Based on nothing but pure prejudice and stereotype, of course, but I don't expect much more.
Plus...you know...these people are blowing up trains, running planes into building, shooting up hotels, and so on. Theyre savages who want to impose their oppressive religion on the whole of the globe.
A tiny minority are, but even in those cases, their goals tend to be secular/political more than religious, as shown by various studies, including one by MI5, which found:
'Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation'.
Such acts are usually undertaken as part of a struggle for national liberation/against foreign occupation and domination.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread