Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
When I see members of the left in strong support of governments and groups who have horrible human rights records in both how they govern their own people and how they treat others, be it Saddam's Iraq, or Hezbollah, I have to wonder, where is the strategic advantage to the left? Do they support terrorists because there is some advantage to global socialism?
|
I do not support Hizbullah. I strongly condemn Hizbullah. I don't subscribe to political Islam. I do believe that Hizbullah has done more harm than good for Lebanese and that it was and remains imperative that the Lebanese extend sovereignty over the entire country in order to bring attacks on Israel to a halt.
That does not automatically lead me to believe that a sustained air campaign that 'turns back the clock' in Lebanon is a good, reasonable, or moral way to address those problems.
It doesn't lead me to dismiss any and all casualties on the Lebanese side as some sort of stage show, even though it is clear that Hizbullah is distorting much of the information in its favor.
If you would like to argue that I am wrong about those things, feel free to do so. Do not sling labels at me in the stead of an actual argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I really do with I had an answer to this question, because if I did, I think I'd understand the motivation of a socialist better.
|
What does this have to do with socialism? I am not any kind of socialist. Thinking that the conflict in Lebanon is a mistake is not a 'socialist' position.
Ustwo, I would appreciate it if you acknowledge this post, because I am tired of being called a leftist, a socialist, and some sort of 8th century Islamic radical.