Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1.  @hometowncook6970  Right. Unlike the angels of the party of slavery.
    1
  2.  @jensenchavez265  That's an exaggeration. The idea is that even if you want to eradicate it's better to control it such that you make life better for all law abiding people. The greater good arguments lead to evil things but not always. Sometimes they're right. But the real problem is that the bureaucrats outlast the elected politicians (most high level bureaucrats are nominated by term-limited POTUS and then they bring along cronies that never leave) that start up these programs and they live on forever because of that. That factor is the number one "threat to democracy" in the USA. Full stop.
    1
  3.  @justojonathan  "If what you mentioned was the solution, it would have been implemented a while ago." Actually, the chaos serves the nihilistic powers that can choose to change the status quo or continue to profit from it. "What about addressing the drug abuse in the U.S.?" Why conflate everything? "Or preventing US military exclusive weapons from crossing the border and falling into the hands of the cartels. Do more reading and less writing." You're reading too much fiction. Communist agitprop, actually. Do less of that.
    1
  4.  @stewart2589  Not really. They are "racketeering-influenced corrupt organizations" and they employ "terrorism" for tactical and strategic gain. It's not one or the other. Maybe there are some "Mostly Peaceful Cartels" but those are not the ones we're talking about here.
    1
  5.  @octopushands6923  Maybe that describes you. Why don't you offer some kind of explanation instead of your dumbass snark? Most criminal gangs use "terrorism" in a small scale way but because these activities are already criminalized in multiple ways under "OC" or "Organized Crime" there is really no need to push the "terrorism" thing. The reason we use "terrorism" as a label is that very often illegal combatants would ask their targets to follow "rules of war" to create "due process rights" arguments. That's all. And if you're a crime org that includes crossing a border with arms and dangerous contraband, the rules of engagement and "due process" should be the same as for "terrorist organizations". There's no need to think, for example, that you must say "halt, police" when a cartel member is rushing the border. The rules of engagement should be exactly the same as raiding a terrorist enclave. And anything involving crossing the border illegally should be regarded as falling under "martial law" for "unlawful combatants" until we process them down to civilian courts, for whatever reason.
    1
  6.  @JR-em3mo  Russia was the main sponsor for a very long time. And some of their satellites also stepped up, especially after WWII and the Cold War started to heat up. China started to up their game as they saw both the US and Russia relax after the "End of the Cold War". But it's also true that certain US officials wanted to have more "influence" by taking "active measures" in the turf wars. How far this really goes, nobody really knows.
    1
  7.  @Iamnobodynow  There is no such thing. Now you're talking like a "whataboutist" Communist.
    1
  8.  @Iamnobodynow  OK, so 3 words and 3 clear definitions. I told you that terrorism is in the legal system a "special condition" that means that certain kind of crimes are treated differently if it's categorized as terrorism versus, say, just ordinary drug running. And by the way, lots of overtly "terrorist" or "nonstate combatant" organizations also raise cash in the transnational drug trade. Terrorist originally referred to the French Jacobin (left wing) regime when they told the public that they would enforce the new regime's power with a "reign of terror" to quell resistance. Now people are labeled as terrorists to separate the from nation-states that go to war and have diplomats ready to resolve the war in accordance with so-called "international law" and so forth which most of the time refers to UN treaties or any other previous document that they want to use to sort of protect the legitimacy of their violence and cast it as "resistance" rather than illegal violence that is also regarded as "warfare" as opposed to civil violence or crime handled with "police" rather than the military. Antisemitism is the conflation of Jewish identity (self identified or as identified by a given antisemite) with some kind of Darwinist genetic/racialist trope. Whataboutism is, from the non Marxist point of view, when Marxists respond to complaints about Communist behaviors and they flip the story by saying "whatabout..." Like, take Trump. People will say, gee, Biden is taking millions for his family and shutting down fossil fuels. Every single policy benefits Communist China and they are the main paymasters. (And therefore) he is a corrupt traitor. The Communists will say, yeah but "whatabout" Trump? He's totally corrupt. And allude to the Marxist view of "Capitalists". So by making this false equivalence they're actually suggesting that a President who takes bribes from a Communist regime is OK and not corrupt but a President that has expensive condominiums and other properties and goes against the Communist Arc of History is "the real criminal" all based on the original socialist dogma of "property is theft". Your whataboutist tropes mentioned false dilemmas as though helping "demand side" addicts to stop looking for Chinese narcotics that also fund terror operations can only happen if taht is the only thing we do. We can do that OR fight the cartels and destroy them along with sealing the border. So, we're "hypocrites" by suggesting that we "get tough" on the border while anyone in the USA is still willing to buy this fraudulent poison that is dressed up like ordinary pain pills. And the whataboutists also call us "the real terrorists" because look how "terrible" this Capitalism and "plutocracy" is and we have no right to preach about "democracy". And it is true that we have too many hypocrites in power in the USA. And they are all Critical Theory Marxists. Some (or even most) Critical Theory Marxists don't recognize that all of their policy preferences come verbatim from the Communist Manifesto.
    1