I posted the following on my Facebook Wall:
Oh, there's no doubt the US and its allies are going to arm the Libyan revolutionaries because stupidly the Qaddaffis have failed to heed.
Two of my "Facebook friends," who have taken to tag-teaming me, decided to once again attempt to build up right-wing socialism against left-wing socialism but more so against the Christian Commons.
Heed what? Gadafi has every right to crush an armed rebellion funded by the CIA and Soros and helped by undercover British and American special forces. Viva Gadafi!
I didn't say the US and the others should pound him.
I've said Qaddaffi shouldn't pound people wanting multi-party democracy as opposed to a one-party dictatorship.
You're being extremely anti-democratic, not that violently coercive democracy is the solution.
Viva Qaddaffi? Heaven forbid! He's a very corrupt and selfish man who has raised up a pack of ravening wolves for sons.
If you like him, you have serious problems with knowing the difference between good and evil.
You have an obsession with dividing complicated, mixed individuals and phenomena into "good" and "evil" camps. Is raiding a military base and stealing the weapons and then attacking cities as well as military installations good? If not, then is fighting against that evil? Did you really believe the propaganda that Qadhaafi was "attacking the civilian population"? That is to say, he has been in power 41 years and does business with most of the world but one day he just decided he didn't like some groups of civilians and ordered the army to massacre them. Do you believe that? Undoubtedly, civilians died due to the Libyan army airstrikes against the rebellion. If there were a mutiny at US military bases in, say, Colorado, something similar would happen. The Libyans are also dying now under NATO airstrikes. Where do you get off seeing this as good vs. evil?
Oh, Thomas, you can't stand the teachings of Jesus who did exactly what you constantly rail against in me.
"Where did he get off calling them serpents. They were so complicated." You're full of it, Thomas. The more you come at me this way, the farther you fall away from the one you claim to worship if you were ever close. I have my doubts now after all this Qaddaffi supporting.
"Is raiding a military base and stealing the weapons and then attacking cities as well as military installations good?" No.
"If not, then is fighting against that evil?" Yes.
"Did you really believe the propaganda that Qadhaafi was "attacking the civilian population"?" What exactly did he mean when he said he would create rivers of blood and have his security forces go door to door to round up the traitors? Are you unfamiliar with his track record in dealing with political prisoners?
"That is to say, he has been in power 41 years and does business with most of the world but one day he just decided he didn't like some groups of civilians and ordered the army to massacre them."
That's stupid. The people started protesting, and he had his killers start shooting them dead in the streets. Where were you, under a rock?
"If there were a mutiny at US military bases in, say, Colorado, something similar would happen." As if I would condone either side in that.
"The Libyans are also dying now under NATO airstrikes."
No kidding. Tell me something I don't already know.
"Where do you get off seeing this as good vs. evil?" Where do you get off calling yourself "Christian" since you can't tell the difference between good and evil regarding Qaddaffi killing people who don't want to live under his corrupt regime?
Why don't you two Stalinists go find some people to throw into a Gulag to torture and leave to die since it can't possibly be evil to you since it's, well, Stalinism or may I say Satanism without you freaking out, unable to comprehend.
I called upon the US not to use violence. I rip the US over its wars — all of them. Where were you?
"Oh, there's no doubt the US and its allies are going to arm the Libyan revolutionaries because stupidly the Qaddaffis have failed to heed." That was what I wrote. It says nothing about agreeing with the Obama administrations attacking, does it? Well, does it? No.
Just remember your stance here when you face your maker as to why you were backing Qaddaffi.
I'm not backing Qaddaffi or the violent revolutionaries or the worldly Empire. You can't say the same. That's your problem for not being very bright about it all even though you think you are.
I don't like this new Shift-Control paragraphing system. It's too easy to hit the Enter key posting the comment before it's done.
Hey, I think you act and speak foolishly sometimes, but I definitely don't mix faith in Christ and His religion with how you read the political situation in the world. Your words, and their motivations, are repugnant.
You don't even know that Qaddaffi is being evil. Jesus called people serpents for doing less unrighteousness than Qaddaffi, but you can't see Qaddaffi as an anti-Christ force in this world.
What do you know about faith in Christ and His religion? You think Qaddaffi might be on the narrow way to God and Jesus, do you? Well, if you think that's even possible what with what Qaddaffi has been doing for decades and is doing right now, you sure won't make it regardless of whether or not I do.
You are rebuked here but don't get it. Your ego is in your way.
your positions and accusations: (1) armed rebellion is bad but so is supressing it —*contradictory, but stemming essentially from your de facto Puritan-anarchist position that all force, and thus the State, is an unnecessary evil. (2) "rivers of blood"—*clearly aimed at the armed rebellion; (3) track record handling protestors —*we agree on this, but not on the fact that it is not relatively remarkable...if you can attack Libya for this, you can attack at least 50 other countries in the world. (4) "That's stupid. The people started protesting, and he had his killers start shooting them dead in the streets. Where were you, under a rock?" —*There was no grand massacre of protestors. Violent repression? Yes, but not on an exceptional level either. Massacre? No. I think the good vs. evil story and imperialist propaganda have taken a life of their own with you. (5) Neutrality in the case of rebellion —*You condemn as evil those who act with the instinct of self-preservation. Either the rebellion is correct or one must tacitly support the State. Stop pretending everyone but you is evil. (6) "Stalinists" —*A Stalinist supports the policies of Stalin. Most Russians have a favourable view of Stalin's role in history, but this has little to do with a desire to re-adopt Marxism-Leninism. (7) "I called upon the US not to use violence." —*You supported the unattractive/hardly tenable position that the Western media were 100% right (or not right enough) about Qadhaafi, but that nobody can really do anything about it. If your propaganda were as effective as you think it is, it would have the effect of spreading support for the bombings. The bombings, and consequence of a prolonged civil war, have caused the deaths and sufferings of far more people than would have otherwise been the case. The real point should not be pacifism, but rather that the war, like 99% of wars, is based on a lie or (unsubstantially) partial truth. It is your "logic" getting people killed.
(8) "Just remember your stance here when you face your maker as to why you were backing Qaddaffi."—*Firstly, I am not backing Qadhaafi in the sense that he is my ideal Libyan leader; I am backing him vs. a group of armed bandits armed by the West and army base raids and I am backing Libyan independence. As for my soul, it may be in trouble, but not due to politics. Empires, dictators, revolutions, "democratic" politicians come and go; but the Church is still there and has dealt with all of them. (9) "I'm not backing Qaddaffi or the violent revolutionaries or the worldly Empire." —*You don't back anyone but yourself in all cases. You say everyone is evil then if someone calls you out on being ridiculous you quote something vague and irrelevant to the situaiton from Jesus to say they have turned against Christianity (meaning, presumably, your hetereodox one-man "church").
Committing an evil act does not make you evil. What do I think about Qadhaafi? I don't know what were the proportions of good and evil in the motives of his 1969 coup. I do know if he were evil, he could have set up the political and economic system of the 70s-80s to be a lot richer and more powerful by selling out his people and creating a private, oligarchic system of control over natural resources. I think in the 90s-2000s, his righteousness, whatever its level had been, declined. He made a lot of compromises with the West (who sold him out anyway) which made his family very wealthy. I also sense and have read/heard that he smokes a lot of cannabis. I don't find him to be very responsible; and a coup carried out from WITHIN the Libyan Arab Islamic Socialist system, would be most agreeable (as I have said before). His overthrow by a mystery armed gang with shiny new kalshnikovs and foreign volunteers, with help from several Western navies and the CIA, under the flag of the old monarchy, is **NOT** progressive. You cannot seem to understand the difference between doing something evil and being evil. I heard from your own fingertips you used to make your income in some dirty way you would not own up to. So are you evil?
And what type of ego does it take to make impossible judgments like "State = force = EVIL = anti-Christian; so governments deserve to be overthrown, but the rebels kill people so = force = EVIL = anti-Christian; so my position is the government should be overthrown but nothing should replace it, but something probably will and it will be EVIL and an enemy of God"...or..."associating with dictators and govts with blood on their hands (=all of them), who are EVIL, is EVIL, so 99% of Christian Church history is EVIL; the Patriarchs, bishops, and Popes were political figures so all of them were tainted with EVIL and did not understand Christinaity like *I* do"..."at least I am GOOD, because I do as Jesus would do, I am an internet troll who confronts the EVIL Pharisees with my keyboard...I attack all sides of all conflicts as EVIL (though I have favourites so apparently some are more absolutely evil and corrupted than others)...I find those who do not believe everything they hear in the Western media and berate them for associating what I have heard is EVIL (not knowing anything about the countries in question, but that is the media's job)...I can evil tell people they are probably going to Hell because they are EVIL and I am GOOD, besides, Jesus did it, and I must emulate Him, so I am supposed to speak as He does!" ???
That's verging on the psychotic.
What's the matter? Did you have another fight with your wife?
Talking with you has turned into an exercise in beating all around the bush. Jesus was a pacifist. He lived it. He taught it. He taught that human violence is sin, always. You reject it and necessarily Jesus with it. Never once did he teach to be violent under any circumstances.
If I'm wrong, cite his words that prove it. If I'm right, admit it.
I beg your pardon? If someone says he engaged in wrong-doing, that IS owning up to it.
Thomas, every time I mention Jesus's direct teaching on anything, you call it vague.
Your problem is that you are not interested in living Christianity. You just want to go through the liturgical motions and then leave the building thinking you're now out in the real world of politics.
We've been around and around and around on these semantical points, but you've never caught on for a moment.
Christianity is politics, always.
"Committing an evil act does not make you evil." Wow, are you ever way off. That's your "Catholicism." That's your violent-crusade-condoning spirit.
As for heresy, I'll worry about what God thinks about that, not your Popes.
If you judge a person's Christianity by a head count, then you better look around.
"You have an obsession with dividing complicated, mixed individuals and phenomena into "good" and "evil" camps."
"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matthew 25:33). You rebuke Jesus when you rebuke me for dividing camps. Don't tell me I'm taking this out of context or being vague. Just admit you've been stupid.
"Did you really believe the propaganda that Qadhaafi was "attacking the civilian population"?" He definitely shelled and shot unarmed civilians in civilian centers that had gone over to the popular uprising. Des seems to think the Qaddaffis have every right to do that. I wonder how much understanding Des and you have about the difference between left- versus right-socialism. Des has said he's of the left, but the two of you support the right-wing of socialism, which is elitist-authoritarian/totalitarian rather than grassroots and consensus. That's a fact regardless of what some Russians think about it. They need to do some deep soul searching right along with you.
"Undoubtedly, civilians died due to the Libyan army airstrikes against the rebellion. .... The Libyans are also dying now under NATO airstrikes. Where do you get off seeing this as good vs. evil?" Those who had non-violently assembled were not engaged in evil. The evil began when the shooting, etc., began. That shooting began on Qaddaffi's side. There's no point in discussing it with you if you don't see that as a starting place for assigning responsibility as to who were the instigators. Qaddaffi was the instigator unless you are going to blame every thrust of the regional uprisings. Just saying that George Soros is for something therefore it's bad is mighty weak argumentation.
"I definitely don't mix faith in Christ and His religion with how you read the political situation in the world." You mean that you believe that I have faith in Jesus despite my worldview. You mean that I shouldn't question your faith in light of your worldview. Well, that's wrong. The perfect Christian worldview is Jesus's worldview. He did, and does, have one. He did, and still does, read the political situation in the world. He has his views. The question is, which one of us is closest to his views? If you are, then I should adopt whatever it is to which you hold that is closer. If I am closer, then you should adopt whatever it is to which I hold that is closer.
"Puritan-anarchist"? "Puritan" is a loaded term. If you mean the English Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries, I don't subscribe. If you mean that we should be pure: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8), then of course I'm a puritan. Why aren't you? What's wrong with you?
"Anarchist" is also a loaded term. I am certainly not opposed to good government. What is "good"? "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked." (Matthew 13:38). You don't believe that the distinction can be made by looking at the actions and results of those people. If they can be identified though, why not kill them now? "But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." (Matthew 13:29). You don't get that though. It's lost on you. You fault me for getting it. You think Qaddaffi is right to burn his enemies and if the innocent get burned too, that's just the price of your right-wing socialism.
Lest people become confused, let me explain to them that you come from "conservative," even monarchistic roots and imagine you've moved from right to left by moving from monarchy to dictatorial socialism. You just don't get it that any absolute monarch could have done as well or better than Qaddaffi vis-a-vis the general population. He made himself king but simply without adopting the title.
You hate it that I preach another way where Qaddaffi and his enemies and the innocent, etc., come to see the light of the teachings of Jesus. You hate it with a passion. You say I obsess over bringing forth Jesus's vision for us here and now, but you are obsessed with my obsession because you hate the implications of the truth that reflect poorly upon your own choices.
You claim my "de facto...position that all force, and thus the State, is an unnecessary evil." I don't accept your premises. The state does not have to be coercive if everyone accepts Jesus's teachings and acts accordingly. That's what I advocate. It's necessarily consistent with Jesus. You don't advocate it. What you advocate is inconsistent with Jesus, and you know it. You are a witting apostate, as is everyone who agrees with your views here about this issue of the "State."
""rivers of blood"—*clearly aimed at the armed rebellion" Wrong. He was referring to everyone who disobeys him, even down to the level of his order that there will be no public gatherings (it has been reported that six people couldn't even spontaneously gather in public due to his paranoia about losing his position via democracy). Those who would have continued would have been subjected to whatever it would have taken for Qaddaffi to coerce them into obeying him. His decree is law in his view and apparently in yours also. I reject that. The law is, "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12) and "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 22:37-39). Clearly, Qaddaffi's actions are illegal. You though, as has become obvious, as a Christian in name only, appeal to a different authority.
"if you can attack Libya for this, you can attack at least 50 other countries in the world." I don't advocate violence. If you mean that I can rebuke "50 other countries in the world," you are correct.
"I think...imperialist propaganda have taken a life of their own with you." I don't use the Empire's propaganda in that way. I point out the Empire's false propaganda. Even now, I am routinely calling for the media to pin down Barack Obama about the UN's "Responsibility to Protect."
I speak about exactly what Qaddaffi has done. You write that Qaddaffi is not as bad as massacring whole cities, a la Joshua. You want to think about it in relative terms. I always think in relative and absolute terms at the same time. You should learn to do that. Even while you write in relative terms, you complain about my supposedly favoring sides. What I have said, and stand by, is that Qaddaffi had the greater sin relative to the unarmed, peaceful protesters and then even those who took up arms against his violent suppression of those protesters. That in no way condones the violence on any side. It also obviously then does not give carte blanche to violent revolutionaries. I may agree with aspects of the Spanish Civil War socialists and the French Revolution Jacobins, but that does not mean that I agree with everything about them or their actions. They killed your priests because they saw those priests as reactionaries, as tools of the oppressors. Many priests were reactionaries, but Jesus would not have said to kill them. That's just how it is.
"You condemn as evil those who act with the instinct of self-preservation." I do not. What I say is: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 16:25). I say that to the violent revolutionaries. I tell them the law handed down by Jesus, the Supreme Lawgiver. You don't because the law and the love of the truth are not written on your heart.
"Either the rebellion is correct or one must tacitly support the State." That is false if you mean violent rebellion. I do not support violent rebellion, and I don't tacitly support the Qaddaffi Regime as the state for the reasons I've said above, which you have probably, if you are being true to form, already chosen to ignore (the law according to Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior — you claim or more correctly, feign).
"Stop pretending everyone but you is evil." I don't pretend anything, and I don't say God is evil or Jesus is evil. I do agree with Jesus: "none good but one, God" (Matthew 19:17). You are not that kind of good or that kind and degree of the absence of evil, Thomas. No one but God is God. I am heading to God. As to whether or not I'll be finally standing next to God as one with God in the Highest, finally chosen as such, is for God to decide; and anyone who doesn't like that can lump it.
Now, I've told you numerous times that I think in both relative and absolute terms at the same time, always. It is not my fault or problem that you don't get that and can't do it (yet). There are people who work good in the world and who are good in that sense. When they are being good, they aren't being evil. When they are good, they are not evil. We are what we do, Thomas. If we are evil, if we do evil, we can by God's grace repent of it and should. That's what I say, but you don't like it. You look only for ways to try to tear me down, but it hasn't worked and won't. You aren't convincing God that I'm wrong and you are right.
"You supported the unattractive/hardly tenable position that the Western media were 100% right (or not right enough) about Qadhaafi, but that nobody can really do anything about it." Everyone who can accept it can adopt Christianity. That's the only way for the Christian. A real Christian can't say to others to do what Jesus said not to do and to not do the things Jesus said to do. You disagree with that though because you claim to be a Christian while you tell people to fight and kill. However, Jesus said not to.
"If your propaganda were as effective as you think it is, it would have the effect of spreading support for the bombings" if people are as you are, conveniently selective and often indifferent to (compartmentalizing at best) Jesus's teachings. I don't advocate being selective. I say the world must go for the whole message and live it. The fact that they don't is anticipated in Jesus's teachings. The fact that they will is also. The goats won't. The sheep will. You sort it out.
"The bombings, and consequence of a prolonged civil war, have caused the deaths and sufferings of far more people than would have otherwise been the case." You don't know how many would have died had the UN (the de facto supranational government/State) not acted. You don't know how prolonged the fighting will be. Saying that doesn't mean I called for the UN to bomb anyone. I called on Qaddaffi not to kill anyone and for the US and UN to be humanitarian. I first called also though for the protesters not to take up arms. There's not a speck of inconsistency in my worldview and Christianity, which are one and the same, of course.
"It is your "logic" getting people killed." No, actually, it's your illogic that is getting people killed. You say kill. I say don't. You focus on self-defense. I focus on the evil one to rebuke him. You don't rebuke him because you don't like being rebuked. You want to continue doing whatever it is you should not.
"I am not backing Qadhaafi in the sense that he is my ideal Libyan leader" That's proof of favoritism you deny I may exercise when you say I can't sort good from evil or prioritize. You don't do what you preach at me; but you won't say, "I'm sorry, Tom. You are right, and I am wrong." You never do. Would you choke on it?
"I am backing him vs. a group of armed bandits armed by the West and army base raids and I am backing Libyan independence." You are backing Qaddaffi, who is a thief for giving what belongs to all the people to his sons and daughter. You conflate the Qaddaffi Mafioso family with Libya. The Qaddaffi family isn't Libya. The whole Libyan people is Libya. Had Qaddaffi's rule been put to all the people in a free-and-fair vote, would he have lost? He wouldn't allow anyone to find out. He'd rather murder and torture and falsely imprison thousands than find out. I more than suspect he knows he would lose an election. As I've said though, such democracy that's coercive is not the law. The consensus law of Jesus is the law.
"As for my soul, it may be in trouble, but not due to politics." You put "politics" in a box and set it aside. Your politics, what you support or don't concerning government, is definitely not able to be set aside concerning the disposition of your soul. You don't understand the micro/macro aspects ranging from you to God and Satan and back. I've tried to tell you this before, but you are slow of your own choice. You are not in your early teens anymore, Thomas.
"Empires, dictators, revolutions, "democratic" politicians come and go; but the Church is still there and has dealt with all of them." The real Church has, but the fake church has been them. You don't believe that there was a Great Apostasy. I do. I know there was. I know that Rome co-opted and subverted and suppressed the real message of Christ. I know that the Popes' so-called Apostolic Succession is false.
You ignore that while you are a self-professing Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox adherent that those three excommunicated each other. You have a major problem especially with the Anabaptists, when of all the denominations post the Great Apostasy and short of pure restoration (that I wholly support), the Anabaptists are the closest to Jesus's message of the main groups: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Radical Reformationists.
"You don't back anyone but yourself in all cases." I back the movement to God. Anyone doing that gets my backing in that. Where anyone deviates, I don't back it. You have a problem with that. That's your problem, not mine.
"You say everyone is evil then if someone calls you out on being ridiculous you quote something vague and irrelevant to the situaiton from Jesus." Well, I'm quoting from Jesus in this reply. None of the quotes is vague except to those who can't grasp them, and none is irrelevant. I have shown you how Jesus said that only God is good (not evil — has no evil in him), yet you call me out as ridiculous for saying it. Now, aren't you ashamed? Will you admit it openly, or do you need a cover? My goal has never been to shame you openly. You though never back off and see the light. You just insist upon coming back at me with completely indefensible nonsense where Christianity is concerned, and you are claiming to be a Christian and are trying (but utterly failing) to tear me down in my Christianity.
"one-man "church"" Well, have you taken a poll? Who is informed about what your church and you advocate versus what I advocate? It is your goal that people not come to see it and not freely choose. You can't eat at the trough but lie there barking at anyone wishing to enter in.
""What do I think about Qadhaafi? I don't know what were the proportions of good and evil in the motives of his 1969 coup. I do know if he were evil, he could have set up the political and economic system of the 70s-80s to be a lot richer and more powerful by selling out his people and creating a private, oligarchic system of control over natural resources." You say you "don't know what were the proportions of good and evil in the motives of his 1969 coup." Then you say, "I do know if he were evil...." First you admit to not knowing. Then you go on to attempt to show that he wasn't. You speak in both relative and absolute terms at the same time but don't know what you're doing. He could have been worse is no proof. He has been bad enough. You think that he didn't accomplish a police state where he was the absolute monarch and sole sovereign. You're a dupe. It's your right-socialism error.
"His overthrow by a mystery armed gang with shiny new kalshnikovs and foreign volunteers, with help from several Western navies and the CIA, under the flag of the old monarchy, is **NOT** progressive." These are relative things. A palace coup was not in the offing because he had it all sown up on the inside long ago. Only his family might have been able to overthrow him, but they are mixed up and disjointed. The violent revolutionaries are mostly the young men of the cities of Libya. The weapons they have are on display. They aren't "heavy." The "West" was very late to the trouble and is not making the Mujahideen-error of the Carter administration.
You claim of me that I hold "the government should be overthrown but nothing should replace it." How many times have I said to you that the Kingdom of God is government? "...nothing should replace it." Hardly. You just don't want it. It would spoil your sin. What are you doing or wishing to do, diddle little kids or something?
You call me an "internet troll." Have you been stalking my Internet activity? Have you been visiting around to where I've left comments and come to the false conclusion that I "troll"? Who's on whose FB Wall? Do you even know what Internet trolling is? I don't go out "trolling," as an "Internet troll." I attempt to engage people to bring forth the light of truth. Trolls do the opposite.
Several years ago, I searched on "Jesus" and "communism." I ran into sites where I left comments clarifying that Jesus is a communist but not a Marxist. Some of those comments resulted in fairly extensive back-and-forth comments. It hardly constituted trolling. Exactly where have I trolled in the sense meant by "Internet troll"? If you can't point to it, if you can't show I have a habit or have shown a pattern of seeking out people to troll upon them, you owe me an apology.
Do you ever admit when you're wrong, Thomas? Do you ever apologize? I wonder.
You say I "have favourites so apparently some are more absolutely evil and corrupted than others." One can't be "more absolutely evil." You are showing just how little you understand about relativity.
You claim that "I find those who do not believe everything they hear in the Western media and berate them for associating what I have heard is EVIL (not knowing anything about the countries in question, but that is the media's job)." By "find" there, you mean troll for them, which I do not. I come across people but don't berate people for not believing "everything they hear in the Western media." I regularly dispute what is in the Western mainstream media. I do it more often than not. You make these asinine, sweeping statements about me all in an attempt to tear me down but all the while just falling and falling yourself. This is bearing false witness, Thomas.
"...not knowing anything about the countries in question"? How is it that I don't know anything about the countries in question? You claim to be allowed to have a position about Libya. You have written here what the West should and shouldn't have done/do. You've written in no uncertain terms that you understand the makeup and backing of the revolutionaries. How did you come to "know" all of that? What sources have you that I haven't on all of this? I've heard/read elsewhere and in some detail every one of your positions as put forth by others. Why is it that you are right to have decided for Qaddaffi while I am wrong when I have the same or more information? You spin it a bit to suit your own singularly unique hodge-podge of Christianity/secular ideologies, but nevertheless, your sources are not "insider." You aren't privy to anything I haven't seen or heard on Libya, at least not that you've stated to me.
In addition, it's telling that before these recent Arab uprisings, you, as you've written, agreed with me some 99% of the time. However, before these uprisings, I was writing extensively about Palestine, Israel (Zionism), Iran (nuclear weapons, etc.), and many other nation-states. Why is it that you didn't complain that I was writing about countries I know nothing about (not that I actually know nothing about them)? You will say that Libya was a closed society, yet Qaddaffi has been in the spotlight. He has given his speeches. The dealings of Libya vis-a-vis the rest of the world have been in the public domain for decades. He hadn't been getting as much attention since his "conversion" to more neoliberal economics, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't plenty to read about Libya from non-mainstream sources. Why is it that I could know more about Palestine and Iran than Egypt? You didn't like the people who started the overthrow of Mubarak, yet Mubarak was not nearly as socialistic as Qaddaffi. You just were against his overthrow via "NGO's," etc. Your position makes no sense other than you hold it simply because you disagree with the West's approach towards right-wing socialism so you're against the West even when it's forced by the world to change from supporting the likes of Mubarak.
Well, I was opposed to allowing the Zionists to topple Iran (by supporting the "Green" revolution) based upon a pack of lies about Iran's nuclear program and poor and twisted reporting about Iran's election returns and polling results. If Iran has a nuclear-weapons program, prove it. Don't give me the "we know" crap the way they fed the people about Iraq's supposed nuclear-weapons program. That's what I've always said. Then prove to me that Iran can't have nukes when so many others do, including Israel.
Mubarak was not comparable to the Iranian situation and neither is Qaddaffi. Now, if the US tried to take down Hugo Chavez, unless Chavez were to have turned himself into a Qaddaffi and refused to subject himself to multi-party elections for the sake of the "revolution," I'd be speaking against the US actions whether violent or not.
I do want the Iranian regime changed but not for the sake of the evil that is Zionism, and yes, it's an evil.
What you appear to hate is that I am taking it to the next level. I am evolving the conversation. I am rising above to where things must become more consistent until perfectly non-hypocritical. I have pointed out the hypocrisies and am calling for their elimination. You though are vastly status-quo oriented relative to my movement.
Let me be extremely clear. I am not a "right-wing" socialist, never have been, and never will be. I defend the giving-and-sharing economic model, which is socialism. At the same time, I condemn the forcing of self upon others. Democracy is a problem where the people don't have all the information to make truly informed decisions. So, on the secular level, democratic socialism, non-strongman socialism, non-lord-it-over-them socialism, open-society (sounds like Soros, doesn't it?) socialism is best. When all of that is perfectly understood, it becomes Christianity, per se.
Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10:42-44 KJV).
You see, that completely flies in the face of right-wing-dictator socialism; but rather than stand up for Jesus's teaching, you promote why you think dictator-socialism is proper. When confronted straight on by this, you call such direct applications of Jesus's teaching vague and irrelevant, thereby making yourself demonic, an instrument of that which is anti-Jesus, also called anti-Christ.
You further say I claim of myself that "I am GOOD." I am good when I am. When I'm not, I am rebuked and love it. You don't love being rebuked though. You hate it. I have said over and over and over that I am not perfected, but here you are actually boldfaced lying about me. I am a work in progress.
You also attribute to me the following: "besides, Jesus did it, and I must emulate Him, so I am supposed to speak as He does!" It is amazingly anti-Christ of you to write that. You actually put that out there as if my doing it is wrong. Yes, Jesus did it. Yes, I am to emulate him. You don't think so? Yes, I am supposed to speak as he does. You are amazingly off. I can't fathom just how in the dark you are about Christianity. Of all the things you've written to me, this is likely the closest you've come to self-identifying as a son of Satan.
I don't want to interact with you anymore. I've spent many, many hours on it, and you've only gotten worse — your real stripes are coming out. Get thee behind me, Satan. Yes, you!
Maybe you'll change. If you do, I'm sure you'll find a way to let me know. Until then, I've heard enough of your repetitive attempts to tear me down. You've not said anything truly new to me in months now, and I'm not interested in reading the same crap positions over and over from you.