[SolarCross]

Yes, if we ignore all the vast differences between all these people, then they are the same!

While I am certain that our less politically savvy t-shirt wearers might agree with you, I highly doubt most others will.

Apparently you believe that "liberals" will wear bin Laden and Bush t-shirts because they love soldiers so much!

That's your feelings talking POD, you feel the "less politically savvy" will agree with me, and you "doubt most others will" because that is just how you feel it should be, because that is how you want things to be. So emo.

Liberals don't like all soldiers only those that US conservatives signal as their enemies, it's an enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. Hence Bush is bad but Clinton and Che is good. Bin Laden during the insurgency against the USSR is bad but redeems himself after turning against the US. Once the shock of 9/11 was over and it became apparent that conservatives are particularly noisy in their signaling against the perpetrators, the clock is ticking for liberals to react by embracing Bin Laden and everything he stands for, the same way and for the same reason they embraced Che "Firing Squad" Guevara the hater of blacks murderer of gays, casual murderer of civilians and pop poster child of the regime that contributed significantly to chances of a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR.

It is all about whose side you are on.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's your feelings talking POD, you feel the "less politically savvy" will agree with me, and you "doubt most others will" because that is just how you feel it should be, because that is how you want things to be. So emo.

Lol. You can't even explain why you think bin Laden and Che Guevara are similar. You feel they are the same.

Liberals don't like all soldiers only those that US conservatives signal as their enemies, it's an enemy of my enemy is my friend thing.

Please present evidence for this claim,thanks.

Hence Bush is bad but Clinton and Che is good. Bin Laden during the insurgency against the USSR is bad but redeems himself after turning against the US. Once the shock of 9/11 was over and it became apparent that conservatives are particularly noisy in their signaling against the perpetrators, the clock is ticking for liberals to react by embracing Bin Laden and everything he stands for, the same way and for the same reason they embraced Che "Firing Squad" Guevara the hater of blacks murderer of gays, casual murderer of civilians and pop poster child of the regime that contributed significantly to chances of a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR.

Feelings.

Do you consider me a "liberal"?

It is all about whose side you are on.

Che Guevara and Bin Laden were not on the same side.

[Stormsmith]

@SolarCross

3000 people were murdered that day. Americans, Brits, Canadians, Christians, Muslims, Jews. They weren't soldiers, just family members at work. Nobody is going to emblazoned that man's, bin Laden, face on their chest outside of the mid or far East. Full stop.

[SolarCross]

@SolarCross

3000 people were murdered that day. Americans, Brits, Canadians, Christians, Muslims, Jews. They weren't soldiers, just family members at work. Nobody is going to emblazoned that man's, bin Laden, face on their chest outside of the mid or far East. Full stop.

Yeah soldiers kill people, they do that. Bush killed people, Clinton killed people, Che killed people (personally too not just by giving orders), Bin Laden killed people.

If you are a pacifist wear a jesus t-shirt or gandhi.

It might be too soon for the OBL t-shirt though, 9/11 was what sixteen years ago? How long after the cuban missile crisis did it take before the the first liberal dared to don a che t-shirt? I guess no one would dare in the early 60s, it's just a bit too much like treachery given the context but give it a couple of decades and the tension levels recede to the point where an edgy young dude thinks he can signal his daring without quite falling off the edge of edgyness, he gets away with it, it becomes cool and then everyone is doing it. OBL may not have reached that point yet but he will.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah soldiers kill people, they do that. Bush killed people, Clinton killed people, Che killed people (personally too not just by giving orders), Bin Laden killed people.

If you are a pacifist wear a jesus t-shirt or ghandi.

It might be too soon for the OBL t-shirt though, 9/11 was what sixteen years ago? How long after the cuban missile crisis did it take before the the first liberal dared to don a che t-shirt? I guess no one would dare in the early 60s, it's just a bit too much like treachery given the context but give it a couple of decades and the tension levels recede to the point where an edgy young dude thinks he signal his daring without quite falling off the edge of edgyness, he gets away with it and then everyone is doing it. OBL may not have reached that point yet but he will.

This is still about feelings.

But it is about your feelings about the feelings of "liberals".

[SolarCross]

If any liberal are crying because they think I am bullying them, fear not, for I have an equivalent prediction about conservatives too. One day a edgy young dude will don an Anders Breivik T-shirt and get away with it, he will be a "conservative" and he will wear it with pride to annoy liberals the same way liberals wear che to annoy conservatives.

That day be here already...

[Pants-of-dog]

@SolarCross

You have not answered my questions or provided evidence to support your claims.

[Stormsmith]

Yeah soldiers kill people, they do that. Bush killed people, Clinton killed people, Che killed people (personally too not just by giving orders), Bin Laden killed people.

If you are a pacifist wear a jesus t-shirt or gandhi.

It might be too soon for the OBL t-shirt though, 9/11 was what sixteen years ago? How long after the cuban missile crisis did it take before the the first liberal dared to don a che t-shirt? I guess no one would dare in the early 60s, it's just a bit too much like treachery given the context but give it a couple of decades and the tension levels recede to the point where an edgy young dude thinks he can signal his daring without quite falling off the edge of edgyness, he gets away with it, it becomes cool and then everyone is doing it. OBL may not have reached that point yet but he will.

No one's wearing the shirts celebrating Pearl Harbour.

Canada and Mexico never stopped trading with Cuba. When did Cubans start exporting T shirts

[SolarCross]

No one's wearing the shirts celebrating Pearl Harbour.

Canada and Mexico never stopped trading with Cuba. When did Cubans start exporting T shirts

Pearl Harbour happened long before the split into "liberal" and "conservative", I don't see either side using it when there are much more recent memes to use.

I don't understand the relevance of Canada or Mexico's relations with Cuba? Can you elaborate?

Also I would assume the Che T-shirts worn by liberals were not made in Cuba. They are the product of Chinese sweatshops I guess like most US textiles produced in the last few decades.

[Stormsmith]

Not relevant

We trade. Can't dumb this down much further

Cubans have been producing Che stuff for a long time. T shirts, oil paintings,on humidors, stacking boxes, you name it.

[SolarCross]

Not relevant

We trade. Can't dumb this down much further

Cubans have been producing Che stuff for a long time. T shirts, oil paintings,on humidors, stacking boxes, you name it.

I'm still not sure of the point you are making. Are you saying that part of the reason for liberals wearing Che T-shirts is that the Cubans made a particular point of marketing Che merchandise to them?

If so that might make a big difference, I don't see Al Qaeda marketing OBL to them in the same way given the Islamic phobia of "graven images".

Others without those hang ups might do so anyway though if they smell dollars at the end of it for them.

[Stormsmith]

What I said was:
3000 people were murdered that day. Americans, Brits, Canadians, Christians, Muslims, Jews. They weren't soldiers, just family members at work. Nobody is going to emblazoned that man's, bin Laden, face on their chest outside of the mid or far East. Full stop.

Che has a well established market. bin Laden doesn't have one in the west, and never will.

[SolarCross]

What I said was:
3000 people were murdered that day. Americans, Brits, Canadians, Christians, Muslims, Jews. They weren't soldiers, just family members at work. Nobody is going to emblazoned that man's, bin Laden, face on their chest outside of the mid or far East. Full stop.

Che has a well established market. bin Laden doesn't have one in the west, and never will.

Okay but Che also killed plenty of civilians, as has every POTUS, Winston Churchill, Mao Zedong etc. Being a killer of civilians will not stop you making it on a T-shirt, otherwise the only political figures to make it to a T-shirt would be Jesus, the Dalai Lama and Gandhi.

Che was a killer long before he became trendy enough to be a "well established market".

[Stormsmith]

Congrats

This is why you won't see t-shirts with soldiers or battles on them. You won't find anyone wearing bin Laden either. No one wants to be beaten up nor have the FBI, CIA etc trailing them. Che is a one off.

[QatzelOk]

What I said was:
3000 people were murdered that day. Americans, Brits, Canadians, Christians, Muslims, Jews. They weren't soldiers, just family members at work. Nobody is going to emblazoned that man's, bin Laden, face on their chest outside of the mid or far East. Full stop.

Che has a well established market. bin Laden doesn't have one in the west, and never will.

By the time the towers came down, America had just finished "murdering" over 500,000 Iraqi children, and countless number of adults, a decade earlier during the first Iraqi war and the sanctions that follow.

If blowing up towers would stop this kind of bludgeoning of the earth's people... then even you would be wearing an Osama bin Laden tshirt.

Thing is, bringing down the WTC was a way to enable the USA to destroy more Arab countries and steal more resources. It wasn't any kind of effective payback.

[Stormsmith]

Karnak, dear, you're dead wrong.

1. bin Laden failed to declare war. There is an absence of the concept of fairness or sporting chance here. This was cold blooded mass murder.

2. We know sanctions can have unwanted consequences. (Canadian) General Lewis MacKenzie addressed Congress, warning them of such effects. Later, he said America want to be the toughest dog on the block. They forget that a small dog can leave them screaming like banshees if the small dog bites them in just the right spot.

3. That was one of bin Laden's goals: to force the US to engage in wasteful wars, to have them squander American treasure and lives. It was included in one of his earliest videos to America. He didn't give a damn about Muslims.

[QatzelOk]

3. That was one of bin Laden's goals: to force the US to engage in wasteful wars, to have them squander American treasure and lives. It was included in one of his earliest videos to America. He didn't give a damn about Muslims.

Yes, all the Western pro-establishment news sources kept telling us that invading Middle East and North African countries (and stealing their resources) was exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do.

How smart of our newspapers to know "the mind of bin Laden" and how dumb of our leaders to engage in exactly "what he wanted them to do." Right? Smart and dumb?

This reminds me of a teenager saying that his parents, by not empowering him enough, force him to stay up until 4 am smoking weed with his friends. ...Sure. You were forced to do this. By a mean person.

[SolarCross]

1. bin Laden failed to declare war. There is an absence of the concept of fairness or sporting chance here. This was cold blooded mass murder.

That is not strictly true. Well as he was a non-state actor you could be cute and claim he did not have the formal legal authority to declare war but in 1998 he did declare a fatwa that muslims should kill Americans and allies, civilian and military so there was forewarning if the US intelligence agencies were paying attention.

wiki

In 1996, al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they considered Islamic lands. Bin Laden issued a fatwa (binding religious edict),[152] which amounted to a public declaration of war against the US and its allies, and began to refocus al-Qaeda's resources on large-scale, propagandist strikes.

On February 23, 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, along with three other Islamist leaders, co-signed and issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill Americans and their allies where they can, when they can.[153] Under the banner of the World Islamic Front for Combat Against the Jews and Crusaders, they declared:

[T]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.[154]

Neither bin Laden nor al-Zawahiri possessed the traditional Islamic scholarly qualifications to issue a fatwa. However, they rejected the authority of the contemporary ulema (which they saw as the paid servants of jahiliyya rulers), and took it upon themselves.

[Rich]

A century ago, the leftists took on the project of secularizing and modernizing the Middle East.

And, though a lot change, that was still the project the Soviets were wedded to throughout the 60s and 70s.

Lets remember that homosexuality was illegal in the Soviet Union, that it was almost impossible to get contraception, unless you were part of the Red Aristocracy, and that even abortion was banned under Stalin.

The Soviet Union was a Theocracy, it just replaced Yahweh, the Old testament Prophets, Jesus, the Saints etc, with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. It was subject to the arbitrary whims of the Red Tsars, just as much as Medieval Christian Theocracies and modern day Muslim Theocracies are subject to their leaders.

[Stormsmith]

Yes, all the Western pro-establishment news sources kept telling us that invading Middle East and North African countries (and stealing their resources) was exactly what bin Laden wanted us to do.

How smart of our newspapers to know "the mind of bin Laden" and how dumb of our leaders to engage in exactly "what he wanted them to do." Right? Smart and dumb?

This reminds me of a teenager saying that his parents, by not empowering him enough, force him to stay up until 4 am smoking weed with his friends. ...Sure. You were forced to do this. By a mean person.

I don't recall bin Laden making identifiable targets, and certainly nothing about stealing assests.

Canada was in the fight for justice, but once bin Laden was killed, our job was done. An argument for withdrawal can be made, counterwise, an argument for staying to prevent genocide can be made. What isn't debatable is neither the Canadian Press nor or or Canadian leaders gave one sripus thought to the expansion of warfare in Asia

That is not strictly true. Well as he was a non-state actor you could be cute and claim he did not have the formal legal authority to declare war but in 1998 he did declare a fatwa that muslims should kill Americans and allies, civilian and military so there was forewarning if the US intelligence agencies were paying attention.

What authority he did or didn't have, what rules of war or international treaties he violated may be interesting, but at the end of the day, he was a mass murderer who's never going to be lionized in the west. Never. Full stop.