Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey2000
Allow me to make an observation about the liberal/leftwing reaction to the attacks....
The left loves to lecture about the laws of 'unintended consquences', for example, the violent situation in Iraq would, by their way of thinking, be an unintended consequence of the decision to invade. Fair enough.
But for some reason they believe themselves to be above the selfsame laws.
Answer me this question.
What is the unintended consequence of :
Painting your very own government as Nazis ?
Portraying your own Commander In Chief as a primate and a zealot ?
Attacking your own country at every turn.
Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?
Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions.
The intended consequence may be to turn up the level of vigilance on government activity, and quite rightly so.
But what of the unintended consequence ?
Terrorists winning the media war.
Aid and comfort to the enemy.
Fueling the fires of anti-americanism and hatred.
Showing the madmen that we care more about their freedoms than they do about ours.
Providing an intellectual safe-haven for radical-ideas on the basis of 'understanding the threat'
In if perhaps one of these unintended consequences were to allow a massive attack to take place, would they take any responsibility ?
Or are liberals immune to such laws ?
Well, I think we know the answer.
Remember when Abu Ghraib broke ? What did the liberals say ?
That Don Rumsfeld had 'created a climate' where abuse could take place.
Seems like they fail to recognize their own ability to 'create a climate' where terrorists can rely on public support for their viewpoints, if not their actions
(and, quite frankly there's plenty of support for their actions too)
Overall I'd just like liberals to be aware that taking the 'right path' (in thier view) does not mean they have no responsibilty towards their nation and the safety of their society.
Their actions, no matter how noble in ideal, also have consequences.
Something , from what I've seen, that they almost never concern themselves with.
|
Grey, i feel like you made a great argument, unfortunately i feel as though your it is nothing more than a sound refutation of some sort of caricature.
Who here is "Mirroring terrorists opinions in all but their actions."?
Who here is "Attacking your own country at every turn."?
What is wrong with "Trying to 'understand' the terrorists?"?
Surely you know that even conservatives are guilty of trying to understand things too?
Who here is providing "Aid and comfort to the enemy."?
Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone on this board is committing treason?
By all means, give me some examples of liberals in this discussion engaging in these activities you've deemed so harmful.
No one here is attempting to justify terrorism.
As for the rape analogy, i don't think people are blaming the victim as much as trying to determine the motivation of the perpetrators. The rape analogy doesn't necessarily hold because the rape analogy assumes innocence on behalf of the victim. Anyone who believes america is the helpless woman walking down a dark street with a miniskirt on obviously hasn't been paying attention in American Jingoism class. Individual citizens are innocent, but america's hands have been bloody since the first colonists landed. Britain's shit is plenty rancid too. The difference between the british and the americans seems to be that the british don't rush to abandon their civil rights to feel safe when someone blows up some of their citizens, while americans, i think, are generally too shortsighted to care if their rights are slowly eroded.