boyfriday Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Really? How wrong you are... I will happily denounce any form of radical extremism... If it's wrong, it's wrong, personally I won't pick sides like that! Unlike some! That's fine, I wasn't suggesting you wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 That's why I didn't come on then... But your also right, there are right wings fascists who defend both sides... I almost don't want to say it, but has anyone looked at what lead to this moron doing this, not his political claims, but the climate which provided the hot bed for his paranoias, isn't it similar reason as when we were looking for solutions to other similar problems of the same ilk? again you almost completed a whole paragraph before it decended into nothingness, i dont get the last bit too many similiers and sames ive just found this interesting piece in the guardian about him and his beliefs and the right wing anti multicultural conspiracy theories which i think is quite interesting and you do see the right wingers on here with the same theories running round their heads, in fact they couldve posted them word for word years before this article was published Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I don't think he contacted anyone with demands... What you mean aside from scores of people he emailed his 1,500 page manifesto to just before the attacks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 That's why I didn't come on then... But your also right, there are right wings fascists who defend both sides... I almost don't want to say it, but has anyone looked at what lead to this moron doing this, not his political claims, but the climate which provided the hot bed for his paranoias, isn't it similar reason as when we were looking for solutions to other similar problems of the same ilk? Do you think we should adopt the same approach to far left terrorists, animal rights terrorists, Islamist terrorists... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nietzsche Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Do you think we should adopt the same approach to far left terrorists, animal rights terrorists, Islamist terrorists... ? They may have started off with a left ideal, but by their actions they have swung far right. Think of a Nazi Fascists, to themselves they are having normal thoughts, then they take them to the extremes, which makes them far right extremists... Life is always going to require some give and take, but it's that difference which makes us what we are and can be. It'd be a boring stagnant world if we were all the same... Learn something new everyday will make Bobby a happy person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 They may have started off with a left ideal, but by their actions they have swung far right. Think of a Nazi Fascists, to themselves they are having normal thoughts, then they take them to the extremes, which makes them far right extremists... Life is always going to require some give and take, but it's that difference which makes us what we are and can be. It'd be a boring stagnant world if we were all the same... Learn something new everyday will make Bobby a happy person! How is any of that drivel supposed to be an answer to my simple question: Do you think we should adopt the same approach to far left terrorists, animal rights terrorists, Islamist terrorists... ? Because I really don't see how that could work as if we give into right wing terrorists and make concessions to them to address "the climate which provided the hot bed for his paranoias, isn't it similar reason as when we were looking for solutions to other similar problems of the same ilk" then that will only serve to antagonise those on the far left & Islamists. I doubt animal rights or environmentalist extremists would be too happy about that either. There's such a variety of potentially violent extremists out there that it is literally impossible to appease them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nietzsche Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 How is any of that drivel supposed to be an answer to my simple question: Do you think we should adopt the same approach to far left terrorists, animal rights terrorists, Islamist terrorists... ? Because I really don't see how that could work as if we give into right wing terrorists and make concessions to them to address "the climate which provided the hot bed for his paranoias, isn't it similar reason as when we were looking for solutions to other similar problems of the same ilk" then that will only serve to antagonise those on the far left & Islamists. I doubt animal rights or environmentalist extremists would be too happy about that either. There's such a variety of potentially violent extremists out there that it is literally impossible to appease them all. If you didn't get the obvious point, I see what you call far left extremists as really being far right extremists who claim immunity under a differing flag of righteousness. In my book two wrongs don't make a right. To answer your question in really simple terms, yes, understanding is key to a solution to suit all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 If you didn't get the obvious point, I see what you call far left extremists as really being far right extremists who claim immunity under a differing flag of righteousness. What's 'obvious' about redefining things in completely nonsensical ways? In my book two wrongs don't make a right. And who claimed they do? To answer your question in really simple terms, yes, understanding is key to a solution to suit all parties. Except of course there are numerous parties with completely incompatible world views, Islamists and white nationalists for example can't reach an 'understanding' as their core beliefs conflict on a fundamental level. Similarly liberal democrats such as myself can't reach an 'understanding' with either white nationalists or Islamists my core beliefs are utterly incompatible with the core beliefs of those two groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nietzsche Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 What's 'obvious' about redefining things in completely nonsensical ways? And who claimed they do? Except of course there are numerous parties with completely incompatible world views, Islamists and white nationalists for example can't reach an 'understanding' as their core beliefs conflict on a fundamental level. Similarly liberal democrats such as myself can't reach an 'understanding' with either white nationalists or Islamists my core beliefs are utterly incompatible with the core beliefs of those two groups. At least my reasoning would be working towards a solution rather than just dismissing and alienating both those radical (dangerous) groups, which is what your drivel would be doing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 At least my reasoning would be working towards a solution rather than just dismissing and alienating both those radical (dangerous) groups, which is what your drivel would be doing! OK then employ your reasoning and please explain how you can reach an 'understanding' between the far right, liberal democrats and Islamists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.