To OP: NEVER, EVER THREATEN /r/DRAMA AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Well for starters, I don't even think that guy was an atheist. He might not have been deeply religious, but he was interested in Christian culture:
"Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man," he says in his 1,500-page manifesto. "I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."
1
Breivik’s video, in which he blames “cultural Marxists” for supporting a multicultural Europe, is replete with imagery of various sword-wielding and carnage-provoking crusaders and defenders, many of whom sport crosses.
Either way, "atheism" isn't "anything" on the political spectrum. You can be a far-right atheist or a far-left atheist. I wasn't calling atheism far-right but I think I worded it poorly so I can see the confusion. I meant Breivik was far-right.
This is a good time to realize that left-right labels are only meaningful in context and labeling all of the world's ideologies using western conventions just over simplifies and misrepresents them
Normally I'd agree with you because the political spectrum can shift and change depending on region and even time period - but extreme religious conservatism tends to be the same across regions.
Also the "left/right" spectrum from the western world isn't exactly confined to the western world and hasn't been for ages.
If by that you mean it’s an heuristic invented in the French Revolution and applied poorly to every political context since, then sure. It’s still a shit way of explaining the world.
How do I explain these things to a guy that likely has no formal education beyond HS and views the world through the lens of logical fallacies and perpetual rage.
So why do leftists then try to defend Muslim radicals and whitewash the leader of ISIS as a "theological scholar"
Nobody defended him. The guy in question was quite literally an Islamic scholar, that held a PHD in Islamic studies. The new york times called him an "extreme" Islamic scholar (which is the correct terminology in the civilized world, but not in a country where right-wing extremists assume anything but absolute outright and disdain is evidence of support) and that was that.
But nobody ever tried to "defend him" you simply made that part up.
Why do leftists defend Iran whenever the saber rattling starts?
Nobody asked you to "respectfully" refer to anyone you ape. But claiming "the left supports ISIS" because a NY times article called him an extremist islamic scholar is evidence of severe cognitive problems.
I don't have the years of cognitive dissonance required to mistake the fat muslim cock in your mouth as anything but being a defender of Allah's faithful
Alhamdulillah, that article was written by Humpty Dumpty who imbued the word with exactly the second meaning, no more no less. Unfortunately WaPo is run by illiterate rightoids who changed the title and profusely apologized for the wording.
But you can also use "austere" to describe someone who isn't an extremist, the same way you can have a tall extremist or a retarded extremist. Conversely, "austere" can't be a synonym for "extreme" because you can't go around calling Herman Goering an "austere right-winger".
I think their point there was that Wapo was using omission to kind of muddy the waters. Interestingly, they changed the headline of Al-Baghdadi's obituary three times - first it was "Islamic State’s terrorist-in-chief", then "austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State", and finally "extremist leader of Islamic State".
So this whole argument chain was completely pointless to begin with. Dramatic though, so there's that.
Oh wow, Im rarely here during neet hours to catch ps in the wild. The cope novel trying say ‘acksually austere means extreme’ is better than a cup of Folgers 🤤
I mean, I generally view the US as worse for the world than Iran, but that's not the same thing as defending Iran.
The US has been genociding and murdering people for years, carrying out drone terror campaigns and murdering children in the process for years.
My views are "yeah, Iran is a shithole, but the US is a bigger shithole when we look at what they've done over the years." The US, in general, has no credibility to go after Iran.
You're missing the point. The larger point doesn't matter, that's a matter of opinion. I prefer American hegemony's long peace highly imperfect (Bush and Cheney will rot for ever) it may be. You I gather don't. That's fine.
I'm talking about objective facts. Or atleast facts as per experts.
You can prefer whatever you'd like, but this is not an opinion. The US, objectively, has killed far more innocent people and caused far more problems than Iran could ever dream of.
There's no evidence the world wouldn't have been fairly stable after ww2 without the US. The US wasn't contributing to world peace when they decided to burn a bunch of children alive in Vietnam.
We aren't comparing that. Objectively the US is a far better democracy than Iran which isn't. Flawed yes, yet miles ahead of Iran and north Korea. Comparing the three is retardation or plain shilling.
That's the most recent thread I was talking about.
You can prefer whatever you'd like, but this is not an opinion.
It literally is. I prefer this way of things. I don't dispute the death tolls.
The US, objectively, has killed far more innocent people and caused far more problems than Iran could ever dream of.
The US objectively has prevented major large scale conflicts, defeated the USSR and upheld the reign of capital.
This is one of the most peaceful eras we live in.
I'm not playing morality I don't care what Iran does, it can't do anything although that hasn't stopped the mullahs from trying. They lack the resources and are literally retarded if present events are anything to go by.
I will never deny that millions of innocents have died. Yet the US in my view was a better alternative to the USSR and now China.
Not that's saying much. From Afghanistan to south america the USSR was everywhere. Hell they were in your govt.
Do you deny the long peace? Just the existence mind you not the morality of it.
There's no evidence the world wouldn't have been fairly stable after ww2 without the US.
At the time Burger land was the only nation who could stand up to the USSR after the UK fell and you people cucked it further via Suez.
The only way your theory would work is if operation unthinkable was put into operation.
If there's another nation willing to take up the burden so be it.
We aren't comparing that. Objectively the US is a far better democracy than Iran which isn't. Flawed yes, yet miles ahead of Iran and north Korea. Comparing the three is retardation or plain shilling.
I don't think the US can be compared to Iran or NK, but the US is also not a democracy anymore. One political party is increasingly hostile towards democracy and openly engaging in racial gerrymandering, voter suppression, and illegality to cling to power.
We might not be where Iran is now - but we're heading there.
It literally is. I prefer this way of things. I don't dispute the death tolls.
It's not an opinion that the US is worse for the world than Iran though, it's simply a fact.
The US objectively has prevented major large scale conflicts, defeated communism and upheld the reign of capital.
This is one of the most peaceful eras we live in.
Which major conflict has the US prevented that any other country with nuclear weapons couldn't have also prevented?
At the time Burger land was the only nation who could stand up to the USSR after the UK fell and you people cucked it further via Suez.
The only way your theory would work is if operation unthinkable was put into operation.
You're assuming the dynamic wouldn't have been different without the US. There's no reason to suspect the EU wouldn't have simply formed a unified defense structure and used nuclear weapons early on to prevent the soviets from doing anything. Americans in general have a false sense of importance.
I don't think the US can be compared to Iran or NK, but the US is also not a democracy anymore.
It is more democratic than Belgium according to experts.
However you people need reform.
We might not be where Iran is now - but we're heading there.
If that's your opinion so be it. The US would have to drop more than a 100 spots.
However yes, unironically fix your healthcare and social net.
t's not an opinion that the US is worse for the world than Iran though, it's simply a fact.
Has the US a global hegemon killed more than Iran a nation only in existence since 1979?
Yes and I dont deny it. However if that's how far you wished to go so be it.
I OTOh believe Iran would be a worse hegemon than America.
The world BTW likes america although trump is working hard.
Which major conflict has the US prevented that any other country with nuclear weapons couldn't have also prevented?
How many nations had nukes? Who told you people to dismantle the empire and cuck the UK during Suez ? After Suez the world was only USA vs USSR.
After Suez the free world had only you and the power went to your head.
Nixon said Eisenhower regretted it.
You're assuming the dynamic wouldn't have been different without the US. There's no reason to suspect the EU wouldn't have simply formed a unified defense structure and used nuclear weapons early on to prevent the soviets from doing anything.
They couldn't form a fucking coal and steel union you think they'd form a defence pact 😂😂
Do you know who rejected the offer to join the EU's predecessor? Also don't bring up Churchill.
Americans in general have a false sense of importance.
IRL yes. Anyone who's watched your politics will agree.
On this site? You lot hate yourselves. Too much Zinn.
These movements are theoretically far-right, yes, but implying these movements are basically the same is beyond retarded.
Also, far-righters from different cultures traditionally hate each-other. Good look finding an american rightoid working with an islamist or african rightoid
I mean they are pretty different in terms of substance. The far-right is more explicitly based on race, and everything else is linked to race in their worldview.
The Islamic fundies haven't really linked religion to race (that I know of.)
The far-right are also religious extremists most of the time, and they've linked Christianity to "white culture."
And many islamists link islam to "arab culture", see kurds and isis as example, although it is not as strongly pronounced as in certain western far right groups.
The flaw is just saying when islamists kill some people to say to right wingers "look what YOUR guys did here" or in this case vice versa. Doing that is moronic as these groups absolutely hate eachother.
Does hating each other really change which side of the spectrum they fall on, though?
Most fascist movements hate each other, it's why there's never been any "fascist international" really. You'd expect 2 different far-right groups to hate each other if they came from different regions.
Robert Paxton in the anatomy of fascism:
This book takes the position that they are, because they reject any universal value other than the success of chosen peoples in a Darwinian struggle for primacy. The community comes before humankind in fascist values, and respecting individual rights or due process gave way to serving the destiny of the Volk or razza. Therefore each individual national fascist movement gives full expression to its own cultural particularism. Fascism, unlike the other “isms,” is not for export: each movement jealously guards its own recipe for national revival, and fascist leaders seem to feel little or no kinship with their foreign cousins. It has proved impossible to make any fascist “international” work.
Of course - it isn't correctly to simply declare Islamists fascists, but in terms of traits they're fairly close.
As I said, Islamists are theoretically far-right, arguing against that would be moronic on my part.
However, lumping different far-right movements together is bad as it completely ignores the specific motives of each movement. Islamists have a fundamentally different goal than "normal" far-righters as do christian fundamentalists. Applying the generic "far-right" term is ignorant at best, especially if you want to understand and combat specific groups.
And in this specific case here, the claim, "Islam is just far-right", is done to shift blame of every terror attack to the right-wing in general aswell as to say, "well Islam has no or only a minimal part in terrorism, because it's "just" another far-right attack".
I agree that's why every self-respecting western leftie is a rabid islamaphobe. So any Left party that doesn't have anti-immigrant rhetoric to contain the spread of right wing Islamist religious fascism is just a disguised far-right party.
In America, Muslims tend to be pretty moderate, more moderate than white evangelicals. There's also the fact these muslims tend to be a fairly valuable voter bloc in a few areas.
There's also the fact that American conservative anti-muslim views tend to be primarily based on race, not religion. The religion just provides a veil.
They also hate, hate, hate commies. Arguably more than even conservative Christians do, because Muslims have theological objections to communism. The Prophet Muhammad basically declared that it was a sin to disrespect property rights, and Khomeini purged Iran’s marxists the minute he got power.
I know that Nasser was devout, but I have trouble believing that about Saddam. True totalitarians hate the idea of an entity more powerful than themselves, unless they’re Khomeini-like figures who explicitly claim to be God’s instrument on Earth.
It's something we as mere mortals cannot comprehend. The motivation of progressives are far beyond our understanding.
(And really just progressives, you can't be called a socialist or a communist if you have that person's post history. Literally just progressivism in redface).
It makes sense if you look at it from the point of view from their political spectrum. The whole tienanmen square thing happened because a bunch of annoying students agitated the deep divide between the ring and left wings of the ccp. But if you look at it as an outsider like how can anyone be on the right in the ccp? Well the right in this case were the maoist elders who still believed in maoist socialist ideals and saw the liberalization of the chinese economy as a threat to them, the party and to the stability of the state. Mao himself had fucked things up so hard that these elders had to keep their mouths shut when mao's successor took a good look at singapore and lee kuan yew's monumental efforts to turn singapore, a backwater with no resources, into the richest city in asia and proudly proclaimed to get rich is glorious (something he probably didn't literally say) but the sentiment was felt and for a while china seemed to be slowly embracing western capitalist democracy, even introducing the idea of separation of powers so something like mao could never happen again. But in capitalism there are inevitable winners and losers, unlike in socialism where everybody's a loser, and people, especially students, began getting pissed that some of them might end up having to find jobs which lead to unrest that allowed the right wing of the ccp to oust the main liberal reformer posed to succeed deng as paramout leader of china, and his death of a heart attack some time later fanned the flames for mass student protests, first in beijing, then all around china with the right wing of the ccp seeing them as evidence of a full blown revolution. Cue the tanks guns deaths the restriction of all previously given civil liberties the re concentration of power into the core of the ccp purges drama drama drama and you basically arrive at china today, a national socialist shithole (legitimacy is incredibly important to the continuation of states, and the ccp has pivoted heavily towards nationalism as opposed to socialism as one is much more appealing to the masses in the face of capitalistic wealth) that briefly toyed with the idea of democracy and liberty.
There are some people who believe that. These people assign authorianism to the right wing of the political spectrum. Therefore, any dictatorship, whether it's socialistic, islamistic or nationalistic, is by definition right-wing.
Yeah there was this one kraut I knew that unironically tried to argue people like Stalin were right wing. Claimed it was a common view over there until everyone started making fun of him.
Sure he was. But there are enough stupid rightoids trying (and sometimes succeeding) to kill people in Germany alone, no need to paint Mao and Muslims as far-right as well.
It's Germany...the government tightly controls the media and only when it's aligned with government directives are stories involving violence is allowed to be covered.
I’m just gonna squat on the top comment to say: I fucking told you guys, “don’t jump to conclusions about the attacker’s identity or motives, you’re running the risk of embarrassing yourselves.
I've dealt with this before. To them, everything bad, immoral, violent, or authoritative is right wing. These people literally believe that Right = Bad and Left = Good.
defends and panders to the extremely conservative muslim community against the evil right wing racists
Also the Left
throws people who follow the teachings and laws of said community under the bus and now calls them 'right wing' despite them apparently needing protection from the 'right wing'
Keep blowing muslims though, leftoids. Imagine blaming them for every single terrorist attack, yet still getting on your knees to worship ragheaded cock.
I guess the left proved they're even more retarded than I thought.
"Yes, yes," shouts the kangaroo loudly in between. "There is a difference. Some set fire to foreigners, others set fire to cars. And lighting cars is worse. Because it could have been my car. I don't own foreigners."
124 comments
2 Monkeysszz 2020-02-20
God fugees really fucked this sub. I don’t get how this guy is wrong unless you literally want to argue that Islamic fundamentalism isn’t right wing.
1 AutoModerator 2020-02-20
do not comment or vote in linked threads
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 SnapshillBot 2020-02-20
To OP: NEVER, EVER THREATEN /r/DRAMA AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
I'd classify all of those things as "far-right" so I don't see this as a case of "everything I don't like."
Islamic extremists are super socially conservative and religiously fascist.
2 gunowner63 2020-02-20
Atheism is far right now?
Fucking retard
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Well for starters, I don't even think that guy was an atheist. He might not have been deeply religious, but he was interested in Christian culture:
1
Either way, "atheism" isn't "anything" on the political spectrum. You can be a far-right atheist or a far-left atheist. I wasn't calling atheism far-right but I think I worded it poorly so I can see the confusion. I meant Breivik was far-right.
1 ragnathorn 2020-02-20
This is a good time to realize that left-right labels are only meaningful in context and labeling all of the world's ideologies using western conventions just over simplifies and misrepresents them
I mean uh bussy lmao
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Normally I'd agree with you because the political spectrum can shift and change depending on region and even time period - but extreme religious conservatism tends to be the same across regions.
1 Chapose 2020-02-20
Stfu pizza
1 morroia 2020-02-20
Pizza being reasonable is a rare sight.
1 muck4doo 2020-02-20
Don't worry. He is due to leave this sub again for good 2 to 3 days.
1 Chapose 2020-02-20
More like 80 days lmao 😂😂😂😂👌👌👌👌
1 DaeshMeOutside 2020-02-20
If by that you mean it’s an heuristic invented in the French Revolution and applied poorly to every political context since, then sure. It’s still a shit way of explaining the world.
1 TheFallenHero 2020-02-20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
I'm not really sure what your point is here? You're confusing economic systems for social systems or something.
1 TheFallenHero 2020-02-20
What? I linked a wikipedia page to a book you fucking retard
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
What point does linking the book hold? I'm actually just curious what it is you're trying to say with that link.
1 TheFallenHero 2020-02-20
I'm not saying anything it's a fucking link mate
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
So you just randomly linked me a book about muslims and socialists?
1 CountChadvonCisberg 2020-02-20
Obviously that’s exactly what he did Mr Shill
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
That's Dr Shill to the likes of you young man 😤
1 CountChadvonCisberg 2020-02-20
No
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
He doesn't realise how complex all this is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_the_Snooker_Club
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_in_the_Snooker_Club
2 le_swegmeister 2020-02-20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickle_Rick
2 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hamptons_(Seinfeld)
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
So why do leftists then try to defend Muslim radicals and whitewash the leader of ISIS as a "theological scholar" rather than a terrorist leader?
Why do leftists defend Iran whenever the saber rattling starts?
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
How do I explain these things to a guy that likely has no formal education beyond HS and views the world through the lens of logical fallacies and perpetual rage.
Nobody defended him. The guy in question was quite literally an Islamic scholar, that held a PHD in Islamic studies. The new york times called him an "extreme" Islamic scholar (which is the correct terminology in the civilized world, but not in a country where right-wing extremists assume anything but absolute outright and disdain is evidence of support) and that was that.
But nobody ever tried to "defend him" you simply made that part up.
Defending Iran how exactly, be specific.
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
You shouldn't swear with Muhammed's cock, peace be upon him, in your mouth
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
I'm sorry, I didn't realise Muhammed was your lover
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
In case you guys missed it, let me translate this in rightoid.
"I have no argument."
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
I'm sorry this isn't highschool debate class like you wanted
I kinda lost interest once you began rambling about how I should respectfully refer to the leader os ISIS as a scholar
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Nobody asked you to "respectfully" refer to anyone you ape. But claiming "the left supports ISIS" because a NY times article called him an extremist islamic scholar is evidence of severe cognitive problems.
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
I don't have the years of cognitive dissonance required to mistake the fat muslim cock in your mouth as anything but being a defender of Allah's faithful
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Again, translated:
"I have no argument."
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
How many times must I dump on you before you realise this isn't an argument?
It's not like it isn't commonly accepted fact that leftists know they are subservient to their muhadjeen overlords
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Ok billy bob, have fun at the junkyard today.
1 Ubertroon 2020-02-20
You got to do better than that pedoshill, at least call me fat and inbred if you think I'm a burger
1 QuadNarca 2020-02-20
Hey pizza I'm glad you're back :)
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-02-20
This isn’t an argument. This is pizza raping another retarded child. I’m actually wincing for your bussy right now, that shit will never be the same.
1 PappyPutin 2020-02-20
Bro he's getting obliterated.
He's a lolcow precisely because he's almost always wrong
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-02-20
No you dumbass, pizza is nearly always right - and he’s right here too.
He’s a lolcow because he’s an insufferably smug pedophile who you can’t help but loathe - despite him being correct.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2020-02-20
You're being awfully obtuse arguing that leftist media does not downplay Islamic extremism
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Downplay it how?
1 fbcc1233 2020-02-20
Mohammed is all our lovers here in r/drama
1 CountChadvonCisberg 2020-02-20
Inshabussy
1 zergling_Lester 2020-02-20
Not NYT but WaPo, and not "extreme" but "austere". You're literally a joke.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Yeah it probably was the wapo, but here, let me give you a lesson on the english language.
You can use "austere" to describe an extremists. If you want a few words that can be synonyms with the word "austere.:
unrelenting
inexorable
unfeeling
rigorous
hard
harsh
The idea calling someone "austere" in this context is somehow downplaying what he is? That's absurd.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-02-20
Extremism.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Are you actually this fucking retarded dude?
You understand that the word "austere" means something different than the word "austerity" as an economic policy used by a government.
I actually can't fucking believe you just pulled this. I screenshotted this because if you have any self respect you'll delete it.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-02-20
Alhamdulillah, that article was written by Humpty Dumpty who imbued the word with exactly the second meaning, no more no less. Unfortunately WaPo is run by illiterate rightoids who changed the title and profusely apologized for the wording.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
They changed the wording becausue retarded rightoids were sperging out due to being low IQ.
1 wohSdooGAstI 2020-02-20
Pizza why do all your comments come in between the hours of 5 and 6 AM? Please respond.
1 y________tho 2020-02-20
But you can also use "austere" to describe someone who isn't an extremist, the same way you can have a tall extremist or a retarded extremist. Conversely, "austere" can't be a synonym for "extreme" because you can't go around calling Herman Goering an "austere right-winger".
Also where's longpostbot?
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
"austere" tends to be the correct term when describing Wahhabi Islam.
Either way, there's no way to claim Wapo was defending him by calling him austere.
1 y________tho 2020-02-20
I think their point there was that Wapo was using omission to kind of muddy the waters. Interestingly, they changed the headline of Al-Baghdadi's obituary three times - first it was "Islamic State’s terrorist-in-chief", then "austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State", and finally "extremist leader of Islamic State".
So this whole argument chain was completely pointless to begin with. Dramatic though, so there's that.
1 Kat_B0T 2020-02-20
Oh wow, Im rarely here during neet hours to catch ps in the wild. The cope novel trying say ‘acksually austere means extreme’ is better than a cup of Folgers 🤤
1 Seagebs 2020-02-20
1 zergling_Lester 2020-02-20
No, that's actually what the silly fool was talking about, read his response longposts 🤗
1 wohSdooGAstI 2020-02-20
How did I know just by looking at the upvote to comment ratio on this thread that it would be filled with your retardation?
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
"Muh 1453 coup mosquedagah is BAE" every time the mullahs gun down 500 or so of their own or hang a fag.
Commondreams recently, plebittors literally thought Burgerland was no different than Iran and NK when it comes to democracy.
When Iran yeeted their plane, they spread fake news about America's behaviour. We had threads about this, one was pinned.
I'll admit that Iran has awesome propaganda but still.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
I mean, I generally view the US as worse for the world than Iran, but that's not the same thing as defending Iran.
The US has been genociding and murdering people for years, carrying out drone terror campaigns and murdering children in the process for years.
My views are "yeah, Iran is a shithole, but the US is a bigger shithole when we look at what they've done over the years." The US, in general, has no credibility to go after Iran.
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
You're missing the point. The larger point doesn't matter, that's a matter of opinion. I prefer American hegemony's long peace highly imperfect (Bush and Cheney will rot for ever) it may be. You I gather don't. That's fine.
I'm talking about objective facts. Or atleast facts as per experts.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
You can prefer whatever you'd like, but this is not an opinion. The US, objectively, has killed far more innocent people and caused far more problems than Iran could ever dream of.
There's no evidence the world wouldn't have been fairly stable after ww2 without the US. The US wasn't contributing to world peace when they decided to burn a bunch of children alive in Vietnam.
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
We aren't comparing that. Objectively the US is a far better democracy than Iran which isn't. Flawed yes, yet miles ahead of Iran and north Korea. Comparing the three is retardation or plain shilling.
That's the most recent thread I was talking about.
It literally is. I prefer this way of things. I don't dispute the death tolls.
The US objectively has prevented major large scale conflicts, defeated the USSR and upheld the reign of capital.
This is one of the most peaceful eras we live in.
I'm not playing morality I don't care what Iran does, it can't do anything although that hasn't stopped the mullahs from trying. They lack the resources and are literally retarded if present events are anything to go by.
I will never deny that millions of innocents have died. Yet the US in my view was a better alternative to the USSR and now China.
Not that's saying much. From Afghanistan to south america the USSR was everywhere. Hell they were in your govt.
Do you deny the long peace? Just the existence mind you not the morality of it.
At the time Burger land was the only nation who could stand up to the USSR after the UK fell and you people cucked it further via Suez.
The only way your theory would work is if operation unthinkable was put into operation.
If there's another nation willing to take up the burden so be it.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
I don't think the US can be compared to Iran or NK, but the US is also not a democracy anymore. One political party is increasingly hostile towards democracy and openly engaging in racial gerrymandering, voter suppression, and illegality to cling to power.
We might not be where Iran is now - but we're heading there.
It's not an opinion that the US is worse for the world than Iran though, it's simply a fact.
Which major conflict has the US prevented that any other country with nuclear weapons couldn't have also prevented?
You're assuming the dynamic wouldn't have been different without the US. There's no reason to suspect the EU wouldn't have simply formed a unified defense structure and used nuclear weapons early on to prevent the soviets from doing anything. Americans in general have a false sense of importance.
1 LongPostBot 2020-02-20
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
I'm not a burger so spare me.
It is more democratic than Belgium according to experts.
However you people need reform.
If that's your opinion so be it. The US would have to drop more than a 100 spots.
However yes, unironically fix your healthcare and social net.
Has the US a global hegemon killed more than Iran a nation only in existence since 1979?
Yes and I dont deny it. However if that's how far you wished to go so be it.
I OTOh believe Iran would be a worse hegemon than America.
The world BTW likes america although trump is working hard.
How many nations had nukes? Who told you people to dismantle the empire and cuck the UK during Suez ? After Suez the world was only USA vs USSR.
After Suez the free world had only you and the power went to your head.
Nixon said Eisenhower regretted it.
They couldn't form a fucking coal and steel union you think they'd form a defence pact 😂😂
Do you know who rejected the offer to join the EU's predecessor? Also don't bring up Churchill.
IRL yes. Anyone who's watched your politics will agree.
On this site? You lot hate yourselves. Too much Zinn.
1 LongPostBot 2020-02-20
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 newcomer_ts 2020-02-20
Skewed perception of hierarchy within political paradigm.
They call it intersectionality.
/r/drama calls it autism bc we insist on absolutes to make life easier to comprehend.
1 Ultrashitposter 2020-02-20
Muslims = brown people
Brown people = good
1 fbcc1233 2020-02-20
Mental illness.
1 TheRootinTootinPutin 2020-02-20
Because they're retarded, and the fact that conservatives lost the Muslim vote when 9/11 was a thing.
1 Acto12 2020-02-20
These movements are theoretically far-right, yes, but implying these movements are basically the same is beyond retarded.
Also, far-righters from different cultures traditionally hate each-other. Good look finding an american rightoid working with an islamist or african rightoid
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
I mean they are pretty different in terms of substance. The far-right is more explicitly based on race, and everything else is linked to race in their worldview.
The Islamic fundies haven't really linked religion to race (that I know of.)
The far-right are also religious extremists most of the time, and they've linked Christianity to "white culture."
1 Acto12 2020-02-20
And many islamists link islam to "arab culture", see kurds and isis as example, although it is not as strongly pronounced as in certain western far right groups.
The flaw is just saying when islamists kill some people to say to right wingers "look what YOUR guys did here" or in this case vice versa. Doing that is moronic as these groups absolutely hate eachother.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
Does hating each other really change which side of the spectrum they fall on, though?
Most fascist movements hate each other, it's why there's never been any "fascist international" really. You'd expect 2 different far-right groups to hate each other if they came from different regions.
Robert Paxton in the anatomy of fascism:
Of course - it isn't correctly to simply declare Islamists fascists, but in terms of traits they're fairly close.
1 Acto12 2020-02-20
As I said, Islamists are theoretically far-right, arguing against that would be moronic on my part.
However, lumping different far-right movements together is bad as it completely ignores the specific motives of each movement. Islamists have a fundamentally different goal than "normal" far-righters as do christian fundamentalists. Applying the generic "far-right" term is ignorant at best, especially if you want to understand and combat specific groups.
And in this specific case here, the claim, "Islam is just far-right", is done to shift blame of every terror attack to the right-wing in general aswell as to say, "well Islam has no or only a minimal part in terrorism, because it's "just" another far-right attack".
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-02-20
It so happens that leftoids of different stripes also hate each other. This is normal among all sorts of fringe movements.
1 Acto12 2020-02-20
Yes, but the difference is that more often than not leftists infighting consists of different groups of self-identifying communists hating eachother.
The comparison fits if it's fascists hating eachother, which happens, but not islamists hating fascists and vice versa.
1 throwaway130971 2020-02-20
I agree that's why every self-respecting western leftie is a rabid islamaphobe. So any Left party that doesn't have anti-immigrant rhetoric to contain the spread of right wing Islamist religious fascism is just a disguised far-right party.
1 professorshillphd 2020-02-20
That's not how that works, first of all.
In America, Muslims tend to be pretty moderate, more moderate than white evangelicals. There's also the fact these muslims tend to be a fairly valuable voter bloc in a few areas.
There's also the fact that American conservative anti-muslim views tend to be primarily based on race, not religion. The religion just provides a veil.
1 Can_The_SRDine 2020-02-20
They also hate, hate, hate commies. Arguably more than even conservative Christians do, because Muslims have theological objections to communism. The Prophet Muhammad basically declared that it was a sin to disrespect property rights, and Khomeini purged Iran’s marxists the minute he got power.
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
Plus the whole "religion is the opiate" thingy.
Saddam and Nasser (both devout Muslims) did the same. Afghans too.
1 Can_The_SRDine 2020-02-20
I know that Nasser was devout, but I have trouble believing that about Saddam. True totalitarians hate the idea of an entity more powerful than themselves, unless they’re Khomeini-like figures who explicitly claim to be God’s instrument on Earth.
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
Saddam was religious and his Baa'th purged commies.
1 too_much_choice 2020-02-20
I'm so glad you're back. /r/drama is in desperate need of someone to purge the infestation.
1 PacificSpices 2020-02-20
Either that's the joke or the poster who said this is the real joke. Either way lmao.
1 heeehaaw 2020-02-20
ITS IN THE NAME
If maoists are far right then who the fuck is communist or even a centrist
1 PacificSpices 2020-02-20
It's something we as mere mortals cannot comprehend. The motivation of progressives are far beyond our understanding.
(And really just progressives, you can't be called a socialist or a communist if you have that person's post history. Literally just progressivism in redface).
1 fbcc1233 2020-02-20
Jeb! is the ultimate centrist. Imagine being a Republican with a Mexican wife.
1 6r15movement 2020-02-20
It makes sense if you look at it from the point of view from their political spectrum. The whole tienanmen square thing happened because a bunch of annoying students agitated the deep divide between the ring and left wings of the ccp. But if you look at it as an outsider like how can anyone be on the right in the ccp? Well the right in this case were the maoist elders who still believed in maoist socialist ideals and saw the liberalization of the chinese economy as a threat to them, the party and to the stability of the state. Mao himself had fucked things up so hard that these elders had to keep their mouths shut when mao's successor took a good look at singapore and lee kuan yew's monumental efforts to turn singapore, a backwater with no resources, into the richest city in asia and proudly proclaimed to get rich is glorious (something he probably didn't literally say) but the sentiment was felt and for a while china seemed to be slowly embracing western capitalist democracy, even introducing the idea of separation of powers so something like mao could never happen again. But in capitalism there are inevitable winners and losers, unlike in socialism where everybody's a loser, and people, especially students, began getting pissed that some of them might end up having to find jobs which lead to unrest that allowed the right wing of the ccp to oust the main liberal reformer posed to succeed deng as paramout leader of china, and his death of a heart attack some time later fanned the flames for mass student protests, first in beijing, then all around china with the right wing of the ccp seeing them as evidence of a full blown revolution. Cue the tanks guns deaths the restriction of all previously given civil liberties the re concentration of power into the core of the ccp purges drama drama drama and you basically arrive at china today, a national socialist shithole (legitimacy is incredibly important to the continuation of states, and the ccp has pivoted heavily towards nationalism as opposed to socialism as one is much more appealing to the masses in the face of capitalistic wealth) that briefly toyed with the idea of democracy and liberty.
Thank you for coming to my tedx talk.
1 TrappyIsBae 2020-02-20
Posts like this is why I do Heroine.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 SexAppropriation 2020-02-20
Maoism is a flavour of right wing communism though
1 FagglePuss 2020-02-20
Oh is made up retardanese like "alt-right adjacent" too?
1 dramasexual 2020-02-20
>right wing communism
1 RedditorsFartToo 2020-02-20
There are some people who believe that. These people assign authorianism to the right wing of the political spectrum. Therefore, any dictatorship, whether it's socialistic, islamistic or nationalistic, is by definition right-wing.
Needless to say these people are stupid.
1 Feanorfanclub 2020-02-20
Yeah there was this one kraut I knew that unironically tried to argue people like Stalin were right wing. Claimed it was a common view over there until everyone started making fun of him.
1 RIPGeorgeHarrison 2020-02-20
Drama else will be first in line to lose their right to vote.
1 MG87 2020-02-20
He was far right tho
1 RedditorsFartToo 2020-02-20
Shooter last night was far-right but Mao?
1 Gysinator 2020-02-20
Sure he was. But there are enough stupid rightoids trying (and sometimes succeeding) to kill people in Germany alone, no need to paint Mao and Muslims as far-right as well.
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2020-02-20
Most Muslim terrorists are right-wing.
1 Sodapopdinski 2020-02-20
Local lefty checking in. please kill me :)
1 ChineseCartoons- 2020-02-20
this doods grandpappy was probably fighting against desegregation
1 DangerNut 2020-02-20
It's Germany...the government tightly controls the media and only when it's aligned with government directives are stories involving violence is allowed to be covered.
1 agent_cody_banks420 2020-02-20
I don't think I will come across such an intelligent person again in my life.
1 Can_The_SRDine 2020-02-20
I’m just gonna squat on the top comment to say: I fucking told you guys, “don’t jump to conclusions about the attacker’s identity or motives, you’re running the risk of embarrassing yourselves.
1 WayOfTheDingo 2020-02-20
I've dealt with this before. To them, everything bad, immoral, violent, or authoritative is right wing. These people literally believe that Right = Bad and Left = Good.
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-02-20
Fuckin fugees.
1 fbcc1233 2020-02-20
They were truly a great band.
1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-02-20
The problem is that ours are mayos.
1 fbcc1233 2020-02-20
Far right Illan Omar is racist towards Jews. Hmm I think I get how this works 🤔
1 Goibhniu_ 2020-02-20
The Left
Also the Left
big iq
1 FagglePuss 2020-02-20
Keep blowing muslims though, leftoids. Imagine blaming them for every single terrorist attack, yet still getting on your knees to worship ragheaded cock.
I guess the left proved they're even more retarded than I thought.
1 _Reason_Bernie_Lost 2020-02-20
Isn't worlnews just shills? I follow some of them. One's a German.
1 wow___justwow 2020-02-20
Based kangaroo.
1 6r15movement 2020-02-20
Wheres the lie
1 Shubard75 2020-02-20
This is completely true, though? I don't get it.
1 zhcyiDnein 2020-02-20
Did I miss something??
1 [deleted] 2020-02-20
[deleted]
1 sobratonix 2020-02-20
What the fuck lol redditors are literally saying that per-capita shouldn't matter.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/f6poy6/germany_mass_shooting_man_who_shot_nine_dead_at/fi6yfks/
1 Fughtmeulilbitch 2020-02-20
Las FARC, ETA, IRA? Just out of the top of my head 🤷♂️