- Thread starter
- #21
Here it is again:
The left (some but not all) mock YOUR right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...Claiming that it is somehow immoral to even consider that a government might become so corrupted that the people may be forced to take up arms to restore liberty...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means".
I must assume that they misguidedly believe these deplorable actions are somehow justified by a misconception that Palestinians have exhausted all possible avenues to peaceful resolutions AND that at that point violent means are necessary.
But how can they believe that, but not believe that under the same circumstances in the United States, if the government became oppressive and if all possible possible peaceful means had been exhausted, that citizens should not have the ability to protect their rights by force as a last resort?
Can anyone rectify these two disparate positions ?
The left (some but not all) mock YOUR right to defend yourself and your country from despotism...Claiming that it is somehow immoral to even consider that a government might become so corrupted that the people may be forced to take up arms to restore liberty...but in the next breath supports Palestinians who blow up buses filled with innocent woman and children, fire rockets indiscriminately into urban centers and shoot Israeli Olympians in cold blood in the name of "politics by other means".
I must assume that they misguidedly believe these deplorable actions are somehow justified by a misconception that Palestinians have exhausted all possible avenues to peaceful resolutions AND that at that point violent means are necessary.
But how can they believe that, but not believe that under the same circumstances in the United States, if the government became oppressive and if all possible possible peaceful means had been exhausted, that citizens should not have the ability to protect their rights by force as a last resort?
Can anyone rectify these two disparate positions ?
Last edited: