>Man, every time I read some stilted bullshit about martyrs
Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. "Tear it down," they cried, "tear it down to its foundations!" O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us -- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. -Psalm 137:7
>that doesn't mean I wouldn't still make fun of them, because most fundamentalist narratives are stupid.
i should troll some GOP websites and checking which ones are made on JOOMLA. hilarity might ensue :D
>Yeah, and they haven't killed thousands of innocents, nor brutalized women for going to school, nor provided a rhetorical opportunity for blithe understatement, like saying that the Taliban have "provided stability to Afghanistan."
>But since you started out with imagining that China had taken over the US and our only recourse was batshit fundamentalism, I assumed we were in the Imaginarium.
>Look, if you'd like to have an argument with me, I'm afraid you're going to have to learn to argue.
>In conclusion: The "fundamentalist narrative" rhetoric from the Taliban is still stupid and they would have been better served by hosting it on Geocities, and you'd be better served not trying to play apologist for a bunch of murdering goat-fuckers.
>This doesn't mean that the "fundamentalist narratives" aren't profoundly stupid (nor does it mean they're not a perversion of Islam).
>In response to my pointing out that fundamentalist narratives are stupid, you shift the goalposts, by redefining "fundamentalist narrative" to include mainstream Christian rhetoric (which is pretty far away from the linked site's rhetoric). I do not object at this point; I consider a lot of mainstream Christian rhetoric stupid as well.
>3: You object to my linking to a Christian militia with explicitly militaristic interpretations of the Bible as well as objectively stupid stances by pointing out that the Huttaree have been less effective militarily, while ignoring the whole made-up scenario problem. In comparing rhetoric in a hypothetical, the military effectiveness doesn't really matter.
>In addition, characterizing the Taliban as having stabilized Afghanistan is so fundamentally stupid as to beggar the imagination.
>You then seek to drive the argument off some blah blah imperialism bullshit cliff, because, well, fuck, your points are stupid and fallacious, so why not pander to the crowd?
>Yeah, except that there wasn't stability there even during the Taliban's rule (civil war continued) and the economy in Afghanistan's been growing faster than the US economy since we invaded.
>Yes, and? Did you think you were proving a point there?
>And this is an insane assertion that rests on a mountain of hypothetical conjuring. We have been invaded before, and the mainstream didn't embrace extreme religious views — views far outside the mainstream — in order to cope. And even when American military religiosity was at its height, during the Civil War, we still had plenty of people willing to mock it. Your point is inane and your desire to tubthump over imperialism is obnoxious.
>Well, no. And your claim here has nothing to do with facts and only with ideology. The puppet government set up by the Soviets lasted past the fall of the Soviet Union, and controlled more of the country and provided more services and a better life than the Taliban did, even under direct attack from the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Even a brief trip to Wikipedia could have mitigated your aggressive ignorance.
>What a bullshit straw man. No, they weren't just filled with fundamentalist extremists. Those fundamentalist extremists were explicitly targeted by the Soviet-backed atheist government, and so were explicitly funded by theocracies and the Soviet's Cold War enemy. Pretending that this is an indigenous reaction to imperialism that represents mainstream Afghan thought is bullshit, and shows an extreme ignorance of similar developing nations and the rhetoric of fundamentalism. The EZLN aren't suicide Catholics; the Shining Path didn't blow up women's schools.
>The Taliban aren't even that popular in Afghanistan, but rather exert outsized political power due to their well-funded militias — similar to the way that the Tea Party simply isn't that large or popular a movement (despite their claims to the contrary) but is well-funded and organized.
« Older 3VVVVVV (SLYT)... | A third year law student at Bo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt