Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Why argue with you? You have already concluded that dissent from Bush's opinion is treason.

Re: treason, sedition and subversive elements
SDAI-Tech1 — (archived)

My comments were limited to those who supported Saddam's regime, even if just by preferring Iraq remain under his leadership.

I pointed out the fact that the UN was incapable of monitoring Saddam when they were corrupt up to their eyeballs in bed with him, the UN and Europe, naturally, in the submissive position.

That has nothing to do with being a traitor or being seditious. My comment was limited in scope and was not intended to imply support of Saddam equals treason.

The left here is fixated on treason. The only individual here whose remarks consistently approach that mark and tone is Bowser, with his claims of US paid for ethnic cleansing and butchery around the world - not because of his policy disagreements or dislike of President Bush.

Multiply Bowser times 25,000 and you would have a clone of A.N.S.W.E.R., but fixated almost solely on a pro-Muslim, anti-US agenda. And with the fanatical segment in that group you would surely have more than a few suicide bombers in the bunch.

Does he preach treason?

No.

He carefully follows the line of calling the US a monster, an ethnic cleanser and a murderer of innocents, while specifically avoiding calling for the US' destruction.

He's the sort, much like the Al Qaeda and Hamas leadership, who rant endlessly with vituperation about Israel and the US and let the others make up their minds to blow themselves up after listening to him.

So technically he avoids the role of traitor and inherits the title of subversive element.

That was the precise phrase, that had Gary the presence of mind to employ, would fit Bowser to a T.

And to make it perfectly clear also, just because you may agree with Bowser about Bush, the Iraq war, or even Israel's policies doesn't put one in the same boat.

For a subversive element its all about tone, delivery and encitement and invoked fury. Rhetoric is always one-sided and Bowser consistently avoids posting or commenting about anything good.

Balance and equilibrium, or even the appearance of such are to be avoided at all cost. Nothing good about Israel ever passes the lips of a Hamas rebel rouser. Any good words would be like poison, and may undo their subversive rhetoric. Khomeni called the US is "the Great Satan" and as a subversive element he picked the worst he could find to invoke and stoke the most hatred, fear and resentment.

That's the difference. Putting it into words makes it clearer. A subversive is easily spotted once one knows what to look for. They blend easily in political movements, but their fanaticism and absolute one-sidedness eventually reveals their destructive intent, even among seasoned political activists.

Gary called it "preaching treason". It's very close, but technically can be defended, by those who wish to, as political commentary since it carefully avoids calling for the US' destruction or killing of Americans.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (118 posts)