What are You Leftists Trying to Do?

I don't think you ever will.

Yeah, Paul. I don't think so, either. Life isn't black and white, man. You're missing the colours in-between.

suspect it's not the only thing he doesn't get

"This is a self-proclaimed leftist site on the web." No, it isn't. What the fuck is a 'leftist'? Is every site that isn't swarming with hysterical, Arab-hating Christians a 'leftist' site? Each and every person here can only speak for themselves, because we disagree about *plenty* of things here. Your example of 'intellectual dishonesty' is a moronic one. "It is unclear how the aerial bombardment of infrastructure and the killing of Lebanese civilians can lead to the achievement of any of these goals..." The 'goals' referred to are not, as you seem to think, killing terrorists. The article is not saying 'it's unclear how the aerial bombardment is in any way an attack on terrorists'. It's quite obvious, as you say, that part of the reason they're doing it is in the hope of knocking out a few of them. The 'goal' in question is, as stated in the article, 'to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559', which is, if you look it up, a rather different set of aims to 'blow up the houses that they might be hiding behind'. It is manifestly not intellectual dishonesty. The author is not lying or skewing the article in any way, and that, really, is your problem with it. You'd rather he *was* skewing it. You'd rather he was saying, "Killing civilians and bombing entire cities is entirely justified as long as you're taking out a few of the insurgents at the same time."

Calm down, Jack. I think Red Pepper could probably swallow the tag 'leftist'. They've been called much worse. The example of intellectual dishonesty is nothing of the sort, though. The article says that Israel was attacking Lebanese civilians. This was true. Even the Israeli government didn't deny that they bombed Lebanon and that civilians were killed in the process. Paul is saying that Hezbollah were also attacking Israeli civilians. This is true, too but one doesn't disprove the other. Two sides - Israel and Hezbollah - fought a war and people were killed on both sides. Hezbollah are a deeply unpleasant fascist-inspired organisation, partly inspired by racially-motivated hatred of Jewish people but a series of bombing attacks on Lebanon was a pretty stupid way for Israel to deal with them and it ultimately achieved nothing positive. In answer to this question, Paul: "Why do you leftists persist in this intellectual dishonesty? What is it that you are trying to bring about in the world?" What these particular leftists are doing is offering a poorly informed Manichean view of a complex situation, in which Israel is always the bad guy under all circumstances. You are performing exactly the same function from the other side.

"Calm down, Jack. I think Red Pepper could probably swallow the tag 'leftist'. They've been called much worse." Yeah, I misread. Thought he was talking about ABC.

Paul. This really IS a leftist site. And. They'll get you. Like earwigs. They'll crawl into your ear and sap your obviously huge intellect. My I.Q was nearly 4 million gigawatts when I joined. It's about 8.5volts now. It's all I can do to brush my teeth without decapitating myself with the chainsaw. Run! RUN LIKE THE WIND WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you Rightists Trying to Do?

Refusing to occupy an absolutist position is not the same as 'not knowing'. Stating that something is multi-causal rather than mono-causal is not the same as 'not knowing'. Knowing that it is possible for more than one thing to be true at the same time is not the same as 'not knowing'. Hitch your skirt down a bit Paul, your rhetorical tricks are showing. Cheers, Mark

Your question is a nonsensical one, Paul. What are you leftist trying to do? Which leftists would that be? If you ask an unsolvable question, it is not evidence of a lack of knowledge that someone points out the impossibility of offering a solution. The people you're accusing of not knowing anything know a lot of things. They're just things that are incompatible with your rigid framework, so they don't really fit. That proves nothing about your argument or theirs. I can still see them tricks Paul. You should be ashamed, waving them tricks of yours about in public. Cheers, Mark

I think you should do us the courtesy of answering these questions first. Your assumption of the moral highground is impolite.

Well, as a "leftist" and a christian (a stance which paul_k might not be familiar with) I would try to promote justice and equality worldwide - that's not too unbiblical, is it, Paul? Highlighting the fact that Israel appears not too have these too highly on its own agenda in its responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians might well be compatible with that aim, it's certainly better than the stuff which comes out of the "Christian-Zionist" camp which is blatantly racist.

I wouldn't describe myself as a leftist but I suspect Paul probably would, and currently what I'm trying to do is decide what to have for breakfast.

If only the Arab countries around them would stop talking about driving them into the sea. Then and only then might we see peace in that area. But I don't see it myself. God when families fall out eh? They are all Semites after all. Or most of them.

"Well, as a "leftist" and a christian (a stance which paul_k might not be familiar with) I would try to promote justice and equality worldwide" I'd agree with that but I'm still unclear about what any direct connection between 'leftists' on this site and the article from Red Pepper that Paul quotes at the beginning of this thread. Red Pepper's journalists are entitled to their views but they're nothing to do with me and I take no responsibility for their opinions. I don't get why Paul thinks they're trying to achieve the same things as me.

"Well, as a "leftist" and a christian (a stance which paul_k might not be familiar with) I would try to promote justice and equality worldwide" I'd agree with that but I'm still unclear about what any direct connection between 'leftists' on this site and the article from Red Pepper that Paul quotes at the beginning of this thread. Red Pepper's journalists are entitled to their views but they're nothing to do with me and I take no responsibility for their opinions. I don't get why Paul thinks they're trying to achieve the same things as me.

I'm beginning to see why you've been silent about the substance of your own beliefs and aims. Your grasp of political thought seems simplistic to say the least. Please explain why you think the right has a monopoly when it comes to the struggle for justice and equality in this world?

Dictionary definitions of political leanings: Rightist : tending towards ... conservative, traditionalist, reactionary Leftist: tending towards ... the political left - which is defined as "the supporters or advocates of varying degrees of social, political or economic change, reform or revolution designed to promote the greater freedom, power, welfare or comfort of the common people." So I'm a leftist, I have no problem with that description apart from perhaps the word "revolution". I'm certainly not a rightist anyway. There are HUGE numbers of leftist christians, you simply don't encounter them in your closed little circle, or else you dismiss them as not christian at all. Try ship-of-fools.com for an alternative christian website.

It's really very simple: The Christians give their money to the poor. The Leftists try to give everybody's money to the poor. The Rightists couldn't give a toss about the poor, they're too busy invading Iraq.

The miss-spellings are one thing Paul, but could you at least match up your parentheses.

Paul, you need to do some serious reading. Your childlike view of the world is really rather frightening. I don't know who has been filling your head with such nonsense, but they've done you a great disservice. Do some research into political history, with your interest in ethics I promise you you'll find it worthwhile and deeply enlightening. The debate here will go nowhere at this level.

"It was all over the TV..." Says everything about where Paul gets his logic and his morals. Paul - TV has made you thick. It wants you to believe that the world can be divided into good guys, bad guys and people like us who are confused somehow because we don't appear to be on either side. All of the people you are talking with have different views on different issues. We can't all be grouped as 'leftists' with exactly the same approach. The only thing we all have in common is that we reject your summary of events, and that's because your summary of events is so mind-bogglingly stupid. It is mind-bogglingly stupid because it's exactly what the TV has told you to believe, and on the TV their aim is to keep things simple and entertaining, rather than true. Your perception of the situation is closer to the plot of an Arnie film than it is to reality. Now, you insist that 'lefists' promote intellectual dishonesty, but you have yet to show us any examples that hold up to scruinty. You say they turn logic on its head but have yet to show us any examples of this. Logic works like this: you start with something you both agree on, then you use a chain of solid reasoning to establish what truths follow from that. So, from your posts above, it looks like we can agree that a good aim is the following: "To promote justice and equality worldwide" Personally, I'm surprised at this. I thought fiercely right-wing people like yourself only wanted justice and equality for themselves and were content to leave most of the world - chiefly, the poor and the sick - to rot. Once they'd sucked them dry of money, of course. If that's not what right wing philosophy is all about, then something has gone awry between theory and practice. But back to logic. You don't have any. You don't have any reason or logic to back up what you say. Where is the chain of logic that says it is 'good' that thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have died violently, along with American and British soldiers, and will continue to die, just so that one dictator can be ousted? Where is the chain of logic that says killing innocent civilians is OK as long as you bag some terrorists along the way. And what happened to 'Thou shalt not kill', Paul? It wasn't 'Thou shalt not kill unless thou feels it's for a good cause, or unless the TV says we're the good guys'. It was 'Thou shalt not kill', full stop, or period. Funny how you pick and choose what parts of Christianity suit you, don't you? "I don’t think that someone who separates God out of their thinking, can have a sure foundation for the way he thinks about politics or moral issues. You become a mass of contradictions." Equality and justice, as Neil said, are the sure foundations. You don't need any other. I don't think someone who brings God into their thinking can have a very sound foundation of political or moral issues, and you demonstrate that aptly. You don't have any basis to believe what you believe except that your TV told you to! If we threw out your TV, Paul, you wouldn't know what to think! The Bible isn't very up-to-date on current affairs. With nothing to brainwash you, you'd have no idea what was going on. It really is, as Tom says, frightening that people like you exist - people who seem completely unable to do any thinking for themselves or recognise that political issues are more complicated than can be solved with bombs and bombast. You're a CNN zombie who repeats everything the establishment wants him to believe. Do us all a favour and *use* the brain that God gave you for a change!

Political left...polititcal right...I'm not sure I think that either really exists. As I see it the body politic is a circle. Move far enough in any direction and you meet those of opposing views coming towards you and eventually you both sit in the same place...still calling yourselves silly names. The tragedy is that in all areas of politics, basic common sense is either subverted or ignored altogether. Does anyone really think that Israel will allow itself to be "Driven into the sea" after all the persecution they have suffered over the years? The very thought is ridiculous! Yet leaders of religious sects all over the Middle East stand up in front of howling mobs and tell them that it will happen!!! Until such maniacs have departed this world, what hope for peace is there?

"Until such maniacs have departed this world, what hope for peace is there?" Hope lies in giving the general populous no reason to support the maniacs. If people's lives are tolerable, they are less likely to side with extremists. "The tragedy is that in all areas of politics, basic common sense is either subverted or ignored altogether." That isn't true. The tragedy is that in all areas of politics, it's easy to get people to rally around a stupid-but-simple cause or ideal than an intelligent-but-complex one. There's plenty of common sense and intelligence in politics - it's just drowned out.

I shouldn't really say this, but basically we're in league with Satan.

Now you've gone and given the game away. Big mouth.

Use the spellcheck, next time. It's *Santa*. We're in league with Santa.

We are? Actually that explains quite a lot.

There is no sanity clause.

Love many. Trust few. Harm none. Harrison O'Hara www.ginotiamain.com

Sorry Jack, to "Give the general populous no reason" is a contradiction in terms. A People must want peace and tranquility more than they want chaos and destruction. If "The populous" didn't react to the loud mouthed lunatics that urge death and destruction everywhere they would be forced to stop. Me:"The tragedy is that in all areas of politics, basic common sense is either subverted or ignored (or it's just drowned out) altogether." You: That isn't true. The tragedy is that in all areas of politics, it's easy to get people to rally around a stupid-but-simple cause or ideal than an intelligent-but-complex one. There's plenty of common sense and intelligence in politics - it's just drowned out. Me: As far as I can see your para simply says the same as mine but in a different way. I suspect there isn't much difference in our views on this. We just spell it out in different words. I can't see an end to the Middle East problem. Religions that won't see each others' points of view are a sad sight and seem to feed on their own hatreds. I am beginning to think that it's time to found a new religion based on no man-made religious interpretations but simply on faith. At the moment the two do not even seem related. God only knows how we do that!

Politics+philosophy+intellectual pissing matches= A topic that is far too difficult to follow because it's nearly impossible to keep track of who said what as a result of a ridiculous amount of quoting and paraphrasing. My personal opinion: Keep a close eye on Santa, and interrogate the elves. Don't bother with the reindeer because they don't know anything useful. Even if they did, they wouldn't talk.

Redrecon, To have a go at Santa is not a good idea! You will certainly upset the Fairy Queen, the Elves will make all your flowers wilt and they'll be another world war. Santa is very well connected!!!!

Jingle: "A People must want peace and tranquility more than they want chaos and destruction." Yeah, I'm sure the Palestinians and the population of Iraq *want* chaos and destruction. Nothing beats living in an environment where you and your family can get blown into a hundred gory pieces at any moment. Oh, the thrill of it. You gonna make a serious argument or what? "If "The populous" didn't react to the loud mouthed lunatics that urge death and destruction everywhere they would be forced to stop." Yes, but changing basic human nature is hardly the most realistic course open to us, is it? Your argument is like, "Oh, if people didn't kill each other, the world would be a better place!" Those people don't react to loud mouthed lunatics in any markedly different way to how most of the British or American population would in a similar situation. In fact, Americans proved they could react just as hysterically, and were just as happy to listen to loud-mouthed lunatics, right after 9/11. Feeling threatened and vulnerable tends to make people go off at the deep end, it seems. So my point remains: the only hope lies in not giving people a reason to support maniacs, and that means giving them a safe and tolerable existence, such that a maniac with promises of violence doesn't seem like the only powerful person on their side. Paul: "How can the left blame Israel for killing the innocent (intelligently) when we all saw the facts before our very eyes?" So killing innocent people is OK as long as you bag a couple of terrorists along the way, is it? If some kidnappers were holding your family hostage and the army blew up the room to kill the kidnappers, taking your family with it, your response is: how can I blame them? Blame falls wherever there was a choice made. The Israelis had the choice *not* to launch attacks that would kill non-combatants. To say they were forced to by the terrorists is pure fallacy. "I find it ironic that you would attempt to pick up the Bible and preach to me." Yes, I thought you'd miss the point. I wouldn't use the Bible to make a serious argument to anyone, seeing as its a crock of inconsistent rubbish. I was merely pointing out the fact that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to follow, and that you are *not* using it as your ultimate authority. If it was the basis for your morals, you would think killing is wrong. But the Bible isn't the basis for your morals, because you're not a Christian. You're just a violence-cheering right-winger with the delusion that some maniac God is on your side. A while ago you were arguing that we should take the Bible literally. Now you're saying 'Thou shalt not kill' doesn't mean 'Now shalt not kill'? Brilliant. PK: "You don't see this as what we are doing in Iraq by working with that country to form a Democracy there?" It manifestly is *not* what we are doing, nor what we have ever done. Thousands of people have died, and are continuing to die, in what was a completely predictable outcome. You're a fool if you believed for one minute it is possible to 'install' democracy in a region with such deep-seated cultural difficulties. It is nowhere near a democracy now, and you wouldn't allow a democracy there, even if it was. Because there's a strong chance the Iraqi population would elect a radical government, and then the Americans'd be back in there to wipe it out soon enough. Believe me, every person you're arguing with would like there to be peace in Iraq, and did not want Saddam Hussein in power there. You've accused people countless times of supporting dictatorships, and hating Christians, but that's because you're avoiding noting the real distinction between our arguments and yours. The real distinction is: you think that bombing the shit out of somewhere is a solution. We *know* it doesn't work like that. I'm sorry, Paul, but you *are* rather like the terrorists themselves. They are people who believe in destroying an enemy to mankind so that people can be free, and think it's OK to kill civilians to get the job done. I've been to terrorist trials. I've heard their propoganda tape recordings. That's what their world view is - they believe the Christians and the Atheists (and sometimes the Freemasons, for some reason) are enemies of mankind who cause death and destruction and must be stopped at all costs. They believe that in attacking and destroying us, they are carrying out God's will and freeing their people. There are two major differences between you and them. Firstly, their 'enemy' is bigger than yours, and so their target is wider. Secondly, they're not content to let an army do the work for them - they *are* their army. But both of you, it seems, are happy to endlessly kill civilians, supposedly in the name of freedom and justice, if it means wiping your 'enemy' out. Both of you will justify murder, if you think it brings you one step closer to winning, so you go on believing the constant killing is worth it. Here's my position: the constant killing is *not* worth it, especially when neither of you will ever win.