Lefties: Want to get rid of my Reagan avatar?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Explain that to the chattering classes.

Incidently, I don't ***** about Stalin avatars (usually). I never told Imran to not take up the avatar, or to change it once he did.

What I was after was if he thought terrorism was justified in the case of the PLO and Israel. It seems he thinks so. Hense I reserve the right to remind him of the 'rightness of the cause' when a nuke goes off in Kansas City. After all, someone will be pissed off enough to plant the nuke. That must mean they are right to do so, right?

What it comes down to is this.

Imran supported Arafart's atrocities because he said he agreed with Arafart's political goal.

You supported Reagan's atrocities becuase you agreed with Reagan's political goal.

[chequita guevara]

Arafart? Is that supposed to be clever?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Arafart? Is that supposed to be clever?

Well yes, that was a deliberate typo because I thought it was clever.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If we lay every Israeli civilian killed by terrorism (3600) at the feet of Arafat (which would be unfair), it amounts to not a drop in the bucket of what Reagan did. In fact, Reagan is the far more horrible. He murdered many times the number of people in 1/5th the time. Reagan killed ten times that in Nicaragua, a country with 3/5s the population of Israel.

Reagan did not "**** up" with Nicaragua. He intentionally destroyed a country. Just like he intentionally destroyed Angola and Mozambique. Just like he intentionally destroyed El Salvador and Guatemala. He had more blood on his hands than even Pol Pot.

You're cute when you get worked up. Worse than Pol Pot? Haha!

Arafat doesn't compare to Reagan, you're right. He doesn't even come close to the monster that Reagan was. But since you don't consider the crimes of Reagan to be significant, or you mitigate them because you support Reagan's other goals, and you demonize Arafat because his targets were Jews, regardless of what they had done to his people, you won't care.

As for the Mufti of Jerusalem, that's Britain's fault. They appointed him.

Didn't say I didn't think them significant. btw, would you be interested to know that the anti-Sandinista policy was started under Carter? I would have thought you'd have known that, but that doesn't serve your arguement very well, does it?

Oh, and I'm not blaming the Mufti on anyone. I'm illustrating why Mein Kampf might be a best seller among Palestinians.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun



What it comes down to is this.

Imran supported Arafart's atrocities because he said he agreed with Arafart's political goal.

You supported Reagan's atrocities becuase you agreed with Reagan's political goal.

Actually, I don't. I think Nicaragua is a blemish on the man's record. However, there is more to the Reagan's record than Nicaragua. There is not much to Arafat's record other than racism and terrorism. Maybe there is a bit more, but my purpose was not to ***** at Imran for supporting Palestinians, it is to poke at supporters of terrorism that is killing people now.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're cute when you get worked up. Worse than Pol Pot? Haha!

Pol Pot shares responsibility for the deaths of two million Cambodians. Reagan shares responsibility for the deaths of more than two million Africans, over two hundred thousand Central Americans, etc. In total numbers of murders, Reagan was worse than Pol Pot.

btw, would you be interested to know that the anti-Sandinista policy was started under Carter?

Not really, since all Carter managed to do was gather together a small amount of money to keep Somoza's Naitional Guard alive. It was Reagan who armed and supplied them and turned them from a small group of bandits into a ten thousands strong army of paid terrorists.

Oh, and I'm not blaming the Mufti on anyone. I'm illustrating why Mein Kampf might be a best seller among Palestinians.

It surely has nothing to do with having their country stolen by a group of Jews. I'm not saying the Palestinians are perfect, but I don't act like they don't have a valid reason to wage war either.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Actually, I don't. I think Nicaragua is a blemish on the man' record. However, there is more to the Reagan's record than Nicaragua. There is not much to Arafat's record other than racism and terrorism. Maybe there is a bit more, but my purpose was not to ***** at Imran for supporting Palestinians, it is to poke at supporters of terrorism that is killing people now.

Sometimes, when a leader does something horrible to other peoples, it overshadows any good -- if any -- that person did.

Just to bring up another blemish of Reagan. Need I go on a tangent again, about Reagan's cruel apathy towards AIDS victims in the 1980s?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're cute when you get worked up. Worse than Pol Pot? Haha!

Pol Pot shares responsibility for the deaths of two million Cambodians. Reagan shares responsibility for the deaths of more than two million Africans, over two hundred thousand Central Americans, etc. In total numbers of murders, Reagan was worse than Pol Pot.

Is this the part where I call bull****?

btw, would you be interested to know that the anti-Sandinista policy was started under Carter?

Not really, since all Carter managed to do was gather together a small amount of money to keep Somoza's Naitional Guard alive. It was Reagan who armed and supplied them and turned them from a small group of bandits into a ten thousands strong army of paid terrorists.

Oh, and I'm not blaming the Mufti on anyone. I'm illustrating why Mein Kampf might be a best seller among Palestinians.

It surely has nothing to do with having their country stolen by a group of Jews. I'm not saying the Palestinians are perfect, but I don't act like they don't have a valid reason to wage war either.

Ah yes, Nazism is understandable and valid now,under certain circumstances. I see. carry on.

Oh, should I point out that the vein of thought predates the Nazis, the Partition, and the 6 Day War where the West Bank fell under Israeli control?

Do you really think Arafat and his ilk want to coexist? Are you interested in some prime swampland?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun


Sometimes, when a leader does something horrible to other peoples, it overshadows any good -- if any -- that person did.

Just to bring up another blemish of Reagan. Need I go on a tangent again, about Reagan's cruel apathy towards AIDS victims in the 1980s?

I understand your point of view that Reagan was less than a complete success. I agree, to a point. However, what this seems to be about is if resonable people should support terrorists skulking around in civies targetting other civies. That is the issue, to me.

I suppose my reasoning is naive. I suppose that if fewer people supported them, terrorists would be less successful. And yes, that applies to Irish Americans sending funds to the IRA. It also applies to Muslim Americans who might be tempted to send support to the PLO.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is this the part where I call bull****?

I don't care what you do.
2 million Cambodeans
vs
1 million Angolans
1 million Mozambiquans
40 thousand Nicaraguans
70 thousand Salvadorans
100 thousand Guatemalans

and there's plenty more.

On a pure numbers game, Regan is the bigger butcher. But you support Reagan, so his numbers are either suspect or okay anyway because the world's better for him having been president.

Ah yes, Nazism is understandable and valid now,under certain circumstances. I see. carry on.

Did I say it was okay? Reagan supported people who were Nazis in both El Salvador and Guatemala, and even helped put a real Nazi (Klaus Barbi) in power in Bolivia, IIRC.

Oh, should I point out that the vein of thought predates the Nazis, the Partition, and the 6 Day War where the West Bank fell under Israeli control?

And you conveniently ignore that both of the Arab rulers (Faisal, before the French and Brits invaded and threw him out, and his bother Abdullah later) of Palestine courted the Jews. The fact is, the UK deliberately selected an anti-Semite to be Mufti of Jerusalem to try and buy off the al-Husseini family and get them to accept the British Mandate. Had they instead selected someone from the Nashashibi family, the al-Husseini's anti-Semitism would be an unfortunate fotenote in history.

Do you really think Arafat and his ilk want to coexist?

He proposed a two state solution in 1974, so yes, I do think so. I think he also had some pride and refused to legitimize Israel stealing even more from the Palestinian people.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I understand your point of view that Reagan was less than a complete success. I agree, to a point. However, what this seems to be about is if resonable people should support terrorists skulking around in civies targetting other civies. That is the issue, to me.

I suppose my reasoning is naive. I suppose that if fewer people supported them, terrorists would be less successful. And yes, that applies to Irish Americans sending funds to the IRA. It also applies to Muslim Americans who might be tempted to send support to the PLO.

Well, at least you and I can take heart in the fact that you and I agree about Arafart's legacy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is this the part where I call bull****?

I don't care what you do.
2 million Cambodeans
vs
1 million Angolans
1 million Mozambiquans
40 thousand Nicaraguans
70 thousand Salvadorans
100 thousand Guatemalans

and there's plenty more.

Then get them, because you are full of pooh if you want to blame Reagan for conflicts that started before him and ran long after his time on stage, like Angola and Mozambique.

On a pure numbers game, Regan is the bigger butcher. But you support Reagan, so his numbers are either suspect or okay anyway because the world's better for him having been president.

Che, what happened to the 10 times Palestinians killed claim?

Why do you want to blame South African policy on Reagan?

Grab some perspective and maybe an once of credibility, dude.

Ah yes, Nazism is understandable and valid now,under certain circumstances. I see. carry on.

Did I say it was okay? Reagan supported people who were Nazis in both El Salvador and Guatemala, and even helped put a real Nazi (Klaus Barbi) in power in Bolivia, IIRC.

Oh, should I point out that the vein of thought predates the Nazis, the Partition, and the 6 Day War where the West Bank fell under Israeli control?

And you conveniently ignore that both of the Arab rulers (Faisal, before the French and Brits invaded and threw him out, and his bother Abdullah later) of Palestine courted the Jews. The fact is, the UK deliberately selected an anti-Semite to be Mufti of Jerusalem to try and buy off the al-Husseini family and get them to accept the British Mandate. Had they instead selected someone from the Nashashibi family, the al-Husseini's anti-Semitism would be an unfortunate fotenote in history.

Do you really think Arafat and his ilk want to coexist?

He proposed a two state solution in 1974, so yes, I do think so. I think he also had some pride and refused to legitimize Israel stealing even more from the Palestinian people.

I think you are deluded.I am sure you think the same of me. So where does that leave us?

I'll tell you where it leaves me. I do not feel that civies carrying bombs to kill other civies is ever justified, whether it's Reagan backed, Soviet backed, or Arafat backed. Can you agree with that?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Then get them, because you are full of pooh if you want to blame Reagan for conflicts that started before him and ran long after his time on stage, like Angola and Mozambique.

It's not a question of whether or not Reagan started the conflicts.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither

I do not feel that civies carrying bombs to kill other civies is ever justified, whether it's Reagan backed, Soviet backed, or Arafat backed. Can you agree with that?

I can

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's not a question of whether or not Reagan started the conflicts.

Yep. It's a matter of whether you can stack up South African policy on Reagan's door step. I have to admit, I hadn't heard that brand of crap before.