Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "The Week in Trump: Channel 4 News special report" video.

  1. 1
  2. +Nayden Spirdonov Trump is a symptom of the liberal left and its decades of moral relativism. They couldn't back the removal of the Saddam regime in Iraq or the fight against the taliban in Afghan. Because Bush did it. They came up with excuses as to why the west should never intervene anywhere. It was all about oil. Or Bush and Blair would just replace one dictator with another. Or some other bullshit. They could go on million man marches against Israel. But had nothing to say about Assad or Iran. They did their usual thing of playing identity politics. What right have we to impose western values and freedoms onto others? Well, the result of that is that now people are more willing to think in terms of 'them and us'. If its wrong to stand up for western values abroad (because all value systems are equal and we have no right to judge). Then the same applies at home. If we have no rights or responsibility to intervene in the 'Muslim world' because we're not part of the Muslim world, then we have no responsibility to except the Muslim world into our world. If western values are not for them, then why would we want them here?  Trouble with that theory is that it's bollox. What happens just across the Mediterranean has an effect on us. We've all seen that. We now have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing into the west from Syria. We all know what should've happened. Assad should've been removed. But, because that would be intervention in the muslim world by the meddling Imperialist West (and because if we had intervened it would most likely have been only about oil like we're told it always is by the liberal left), we did nothing. And now we have the result. There are consequences to playing identity politics. To creating a 'them and us' society. And Trump is the result. He's not responsible for it. His opponents are. And what you have just said is the logical conclusion to that. I cant argue against your general point about Islam. It needs to reform. But it won't unless we insist upon it. And do we really trust those who make excuses for it, who are willing to censor the news for it, to make that argument for us? Nope.  Nazism isn't banned in the UK. You cannot be arrested for being a Nazi. What destroyed it as an ideology is that it simply became unacceptable. No one would attempt to portray your average skinhead nazi as a victim of history. His nazism wouldn't be excused because he was poor or felt disenfranchised. He would never appear as a sexy front cover to Rolling Stone magazine. He wouldn't be a 'victim' of extremist grooming. He would just be condemned. And rightly so.   Liberal thinkers have fucked up. They have played moral equivalence so hard and fast and are so far up their own asses that they can't stand up for western liberal values.  We can look at it like this: If you had confidence that any of those refugees fleeing into the west would be automatically removed from the country if they were found to be sympathetic to ISIS or some other Islamist group, would you be slightly more willing to except refugees as a whole? But you know that they won't. It took ten years to get rid of that last big name hate preacher. And you know that once they are here, here is where they stay.    We do have an intolerant, violent, and regressive religion living amongst us. Not all Muslims are like that. But a sizable minority that would never be ignored if it were within the 'mainstream' white community are. So the problem is what to do about it. Mass deportation? Nope. Cos I don't want to live in a society that thinks that is the way. So I say we work with the moderate and secularist muslims. We stand by our principles and stop thinking in terms of them and us. Because if islam is part of our society we have a right to demand that it change. And to demand that it change now.
    1
  3. You've clearly bought into Assad's propaganda that the choice in Syria is between his regime. Or the Islamists. But it isn't. There are three sides fighting in Syria. Assad. ISIS. And the Free Syrian Army. And up until recently it was the FSA who were fighting against the spread of ISIS. While Assad concentrated on the FSA. You've also bought into the myth that every dictator has always put out. That their regimes bring stability. But if that was true, then why do dictatorships collapse? They collapse because dictatorships are inherently unstable. They breed corruption and oppression and sooner or later people will take them down. And when that happens, you have to pick a side. Do you back the tyrant? Do nothing? Or intervene to try and make things better? Gaddafi funded terrorism across the globe. Had he stepped aside as the regime in Tunisia did, then there would've been no war in Libya. Luckily the west intervened. Took out a perverted dictator and terrorist. And shortened the war. Otherwise it would still be going on like in Syria. And we would be seeing thousands of Libyans desperate to enter the west just as the Syrians are. As for restarting the cold war, its already started. And Hilary Clinton wasn't responsible for that. That was the ex-KGB thug in the kremlin. Islam is not equal to nazism. Do you know any muslims? Because I do. Their religion may be fucked up, but then so are most religions. And if you're from eastern Europe, then you ought to know that many people in the west felt exactly the same about you. You've always been a mess. You need dictators. You've been pointing your missiles at us since the end of the second world war. Etc. Good job we didn't listen then, yeah?
    1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1