RE: Steven Den Beste

Rykehaven, I try to keep the conspiracy theories to a minimum around here. I don't believe Obama is "using Black terrorists" etc.

"Why are you a conspiracy theorist?"  

That's the line you want to use?

Fine, you don't think Obama is in cahoots with BLM.  You should have left it at that.  

I wasn't going to accuse you of "absolving" Obama, but don't try to insult my intelligence by calling me a "conspiracy theorist".  Framing the discussion in this way by using political correctness to try and shut down inspection is inherently lazy, if not dishonest.

I do not believe BLM is anything but exclusively supportive of Obama, who invites BLM ringleaders to the White House regularly, even tells them in not-so-veiled press releases when they have political space to attack their common enemy with impunity, or tells them when to tamp it down.

Nor  do I believe anyone is dumb enough to believe that Obama doesn't support his own constituency by deflecting and running political cover for their terrorist tactics from rioting, looting, burning, beating, and outright murder, the same way Arafat and any other two-bit despot like Mosby operates.  

When they claim they are "plausibly" unaware of what they're doing [as you do], I think they [and you]  are full of it.

And yes, their mutual use of each other is as brazen as it is arrogant.  And anyone who claims not to see it is purposefully looking the other way because nobody could be that dumb.

How many people working in the job, dealing with mutts, really think Obama is being an "honest broker" when he invites BLM leaders to lecture police nationwide at the latest White House meeting?  Find an off-duty PD or sheriff in their civies if you want, but even you should know better than to ask those kinds of dumb questions* because chances are they won't  humor you, and we both know it (same as in the military combat arms community).    Those  brass who attended that WH meeting are regarded as little more than filth by your average LEO - not because they're politically active, but because they know Obama is painting a target on their backs, and has been doing so since the day he entered office.  

You think this is the first time Obama has done this?  You think this is the first time we've dealt with an Obama-like terrorist leader?

You think we're "conspiracy theorists"?

I think our appraisal is well-grounded - in fact, it's been borne out in blood for decades.

As to your appraisal, I think you're full of it.

"Arafat didn't 'order' the second intifada?  Al Baghdadi didn't 'order' Mateen to conduct terrorist attacks.  Obama didn't 'order' Black Lives Matter to gun down police."

No, to take one of these interhcangeable examples, Arafat did not 'order' the PLA to attack Israelis, because he didn't need to.  

Arafat gave the PLA something far more substantial: political cover and "legitimacy" for their terrorism.  

Obama, Mosby, Erdogan, et al all work the same way against their religious/racial enemies, the enemies of their constituency, giving themselves a wide political berth to attack with impunity.  The MO is so old, it is mind-numbingly unimaginative.  The will for terrorism does not exist without - at minimum - the myth of moral authority provided by people like Obama.   And when this myth is imposed on their enemies, it psychologically emasculates any "legitimate" retaliation the victims might use against the terrorists.

And thats the cancer at work in the United States today (and not just in the US);

"Political correctness"; a wilffull blindness that artificially separates the Arafats, the Obamas, the Mosbys, Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, etc from their mainstream terrorist.  Denial - in fact, criminalization - of even noticing these realities is why America has been eviscerated; obfuscation of the fact that these two groups use each other, that the terrorist wing is mainstream - not "isolated" or "lone wolf" but representative of their demographic with wide and deep support, the degree of mutual benefit that they are objectively two sides of the same coin, etc.

As for what I suspect will be your second mode of deflection given past experience?

"I don't want to discuss politics on an anime blog.  It's just cheesecake"?

Fine, you can stop making politically-charged posts, or close comments like you used to, or re-instate USS Clueless, etc, but aside from the ad hominem ... I feel like I'm debating a Jon Stewart who likes to make political statements when it suits his fancy, but then retreats into clownish innocence whenever he gets challenged.

Ack, longer than I wanted...

*Questions the questioner pretends doesn't have an answer, because the answer is psychologically unacceptable.

Posted by: Rykehaven at 08:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 5 kb.