« Home | Iran's pseudoscience to the rescue! » | I don't get Protestants. » | The Godless Splinter » | Sound the amoral Xtian alarm! » | Hasidic Homeboy dot dot dot WTF » | It's conspiracy time! » | Plainly speaking » | Required reading » | The Blame Game » | Atheism means » 

Thursday, January 26, 2006 

We used to burn witches too

L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein is in the unfortunate position of having two very powerful things in this day and age: a brain and a soap box. Joel wrote an op-ed piece in which he stated that he does not support the troops because he does not the support the war. On this issue, I happen to feel exactly the same way as Joel does, though, perhaps he wouldn't take his disdain of statist concepts as far I do. Supporting the troops while being against the war is a chicken-shit, contradictory position which should be ridiculed at any chance. This is the same sort of rationale, and I use that term loosely here, that allows moderate Christianity to exist(hedonistic, pick and choose types). Don't get me wrong, fundies and moderates are both equally devoid of morality.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

Which segement of the population do all of the people who are against the war, but support the troops, think is pulling the triggers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty soon Iran or Syria? Politians aren't. You and I aren't. Granted, politians send the soldiers on their way, but those same soldiers volunteered to be in the state sponsored murder business. Their morals are just as corrupt as those politians. Support is the last thing they would receive from me.

And what sort of treatment do those who dissent receive? Well, Joel is presently being bombarded with hate mail, threatened with physical violence by e-thugs, and having his name sullied by statist pigs; all because he shared a coherent opinion.

These days truths are no longer backed by free speech and not supporting the troops is the new witchcraft.

The opposite seems to be the case to me. A much larger portion of the media seems to be biased against the war than the public at large. I have a brother in the military, and while I would be grieved were something to happen to him, at the same time I would be proud of his service to his country.

If you walk up to someone bigger than you are and punch them in the nose, it might bleed a little, but after that one of two things will happen. They will either run off somewhere and cry, or they will proceed to give you a thorough thrashing.

On 9/11 America got it's nose bloodied, and shortly thereafter we followed the only sensable course open to us. After all, it's hard to "negotiate" with someone wearing a suicide belt and a towel wrapped to tightly around their heads.

You've completely missed the point.

Here's what you should've taken away from my post: Any part of the political spectrum that says they are against the war but support the troops is morally bankrupt. One can't decry the horrors of an unjust war, yet, support those whom constitute the fuel that makes the war-engine go. It is moral hypocrisy; one of the more, if not the most, destructive human mechanism(s).

Now, i'd like to know why you repeat baseless rhetoric?

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

<a href="http://www.bloginspace.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bloginspace.com/_assets/img/badges/bloginspace_145x100.gif" width="145" height="100" border="0" alt="BlogInSpace.com"></a>
Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!
Powered by Blogger
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Listed on BlogShares