• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hating Free Speech

What about specific incitement to violence in a religious text. All 7 English translations of verse 9:29 of the Qur'an given in The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation translate the first word as, "Fight". Knowing nothing else you could take that to mean anything from arm wrestle to fight to the death. To solve that, you have to be able to read a little Arabic, which I can. The Arabic verb "qatl" (the 2nd person masculine plural imperative conjugation thereof) is the word translated as fight. I have the Arabic script of qatl below. Feel free to paste it into the online translator of your choice, and you will find that in verb form it means kill. Incitement to commit murder doesn't get any clearer than that. So, should the Qur'an be outlawed? How about Deuteronomy?

قتل
 
What about specific incitement to violence in a religious text. All 7 English translations of verse 9:29 of the Qur'an given in The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation translate the first word as, "Fight". Knowing nothing else you could take that to mean anything from arm wrestle to fight to the death. To solve that, you have to be able to read a little Arabic, which I can. The Arabic verb "qatl" (the 2nd person masculine plural imperative conjugation thereof) is the word translated as fight. I have the Arabic script of qatl below. Feel free to paste it into the online translator of your choice, and you will find that in verb form it means kill. Incitement to commit murder doesn't get any clearer than that. So, should the Qur'an be outlawed? How about Deuteronomy?

قتل

Let's kill some time at the mall.
That new comedian kills me.
The Knicks killed the Lakers last night.
Kill the lights!
and so on...

Moreover, the last part of the verse reads: "until they humbly pay the tax" -- which is senseless if you've killed them.
That is to say, a literal reading of the word does not make sense.

Finally, no book should ever be banned.
 
Let's kill some time at the mall.
That new comedian kills me.
The Knicks killed the Lakers last night.
Kill the lights!
and so on...

Moreover, the last part of the verse reads: "until they humbly pay the tax" -- which is senseless if you've killed them.
That is to say, a literal reading of the word does not make sense.

Finally, no book should ever be banned.

Seriously? That was absurd from start to finish. Did you even read the verse? The words following "kill" are "those who....". It was CLEARLY talking about killing people. You also missed the "until they...." part of it. Muslims are allowed to stop the killing when surviving members of the enemy infidels surrender and agree to live as dhimmis.

Actually, "absurd" is being kind.
 
Seriously? That was absurd from start to finish. Did you even read the verse? The words following "kill" are "those who....". It was CLEARLY talking about killing people. You also missed the "until they...." part of it. Muslims are allowed to stop the killing when surviving members of the enemy infidels surrender and agree to live as dhimmis.

Actually, "absurd" is being kind.
I appreciate your kindness. Shalom.
 
wc7JJgK.jpg

Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
That's it.
All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.

Leftists once upon a time claimed they would defend their opponents right to free speech, even if they vehemently disagreed with it. Not any longer.

I have many examples...
 
On the flip side, I believe the majority of conservatives believe that most newspapers contain nothing but "fake news" and there's no doubt a huge amount of them would support legislation that would roll back what they are and aren't allowed to print. We have a President who floated the idea. Both sides need to let each other speak, as I got into a pretty ugly back and forth with a very conservative poster here about "fake news" and it ended with civility and a mutual understanding of where we disagreed. Just let's not pretend that one side of the aisle has a monopoly on this.

The Right wouldn't support legistlation or introduce legistlation that would control the press in any way remotely close to what you have written. We know what that would mean... for us... later. We'd be ****ed royally.

The Fairness Doctrine, was a Leftist ploy to get their programming on the airwaves... Crap nobody wanted to listen to.

Righties are for a free market of ideas... even if our ideas are under-represented in the media. So long as we are permitted to have an outlet, so long as we can voice our opinion... fine. Let's compete.

The Left had a monopoly in TV and had their "Fairness Doktine" in radio for decades. Removing it allowed radio to flourish... much to the Left's chagrin. It's been the Left looking at ways to harness that outlet with new versions of The Fairness Doktine.

Obama spied on an opposition reporter. One was locked in jail for quite some time for not revealing sources.

I don't know of anyone on the right advocating regulation of the media. That would be political suicide. Leftists can try though... and do try, and have succeeded in the past.
 
yet here you are STILL saying I somehow think your calls to get me banned aren't free speech.
Except I didn't say that, nor have I said it in my last several posts (if I even ever did).

Here's what I actually said, and have repeatedly said: "your constant claim that those who express their opinion are thuggish and hostile to free speech for doing so."

Your claim that I'm "still saying...aren't free speech" is clearly false, as evidenced by my own words in the post you quoted. At this point, given the frequency of your constant twisting and ignoring of actual words, I can only assume it's intentional and quite possibly defensive in nature.

I enjoyed a high quality civil debate with Zyphlin. You and I started out on much of the same path. But your constant attempts to twist the discussion by inserting things which are not relevant or true makes it much more difficult.

I'll say it again:
And, as I said earlier, that basically seems to be the fundamental difference. You feel there's a line before physicality and I don't. But I'd argue your position is more "hostile" to free speech than mine, as I support the right for all speech (assuming the speech is true and not a lie)...you only support the right to free speech up until it negatively affects someone else.
Now, perhaps you misunderstood a statement such as this, which may be why you think what you think about what I think. And I can even understand why you might come to that conclusion, even if it's an incorrect one, as "support the right to free speech" can certainly be interpreted in the way you seem to have interpreted it. But, as I have also said repeatedly, we're merely talking about the concept/principle of free speech itself and in my opinion there's no line before physicality where the free exercise of speech is not merely free speech. You think there's a line which, once crossed, means speech is "hostile" and "thuggish" to free speech. I disagree, for the many reasons I've already laid out.

I've no more interest in your constant posting of irrelevant or flat out wrong information with a haughty tone. We can either discuss this civilly and maturely or you can continue posting things which are not true and make up assumptions about me which are provably false. If you choose the former, I suspect you and I will end up somewhere close to where Zyphlin and I came to rest. If you choose the latter, then know I appreciated and enjoyed the beginning of our discussion and am somewhat disappointed by your choice to end it.
 
Last edited:
The Right wouldn't support legistlation or introduce legistlation that would control the press in any way remotely close to what you have written. We know what that would mean... for us... later. We'd be ****ed royally.

The Fairness Doctrine, was a Leftist ploy to get their programming on the airwaves... Crap nobody wanted to listen to.

Righties are for a free market of ideas... even if our ideas are under-represented in the media. So long as we are permitted to have an outlet, so long as we can voice our opinion... fine. Let's compete.

The Left had a monopoly in TV and had their "Fairness Doktine" in radio for decades. Removing it allowed radio to flourish... much to the Left's chagrin. It's been the Left looking at ways to harness that outlet with new versions of The Fairness Doktine.

Obama spied on an opposition reporter. One was locked in jail for quite some time for not revealing sources.

I don't know of anyone on the right advocating regulation of the media. That would be political suicide. Leftists can try though... and do try, and have succeeded in the past.

I'm talking about Joe the Plumber, not Clownface Von TrumpsTongueInhismouth (the distinguished congressman). There is undoubtedly a large percentage who would be thrilled to see a law that said the Washington Post could not print conversations between FBI officials and the President - just this President. No, only Corbyn would support it publicly, but I wasn't talking about the fools on the hill.

The insinuation the the fairness doctrine - established under FDR, that guy who was elected over and over again - was meant to get liberals time on the air is hilarious. Seriously. Are you kidding me? The reason that talk radio exploded is because Rush Limbaugh found out that when you tap into the deep, deep anger of stupid people, they eat it up. I give him credit for that. Remember how he trolled an audience to the point where they all walked out on the taping of a daytime talk show he guest hosted? But Limbaugh was doing his schtick in '84, because the fairness doctrine didn't do anything that you were fed to believe it did. But that's the world we live in today - uninformed idiots spouting uninformed crap because the real news which is exploding in popularity has too many facts and big words for the children.
 
yet here you are STILL saying I somehow think your calls to get me banned aren't free speech.
Except I didn't say that, nor have I said it in my last several posts (if I even ever did).

You said:

Again, you seem to want free speech to be a one way street (I know you claim you don't, but it's essentially what you're arguing). You agree Coulter should be allowed to say, "Barone has been assuring us for years that most of these Third World immigrants pouring into the country would go the way of Italian immigrants and become Republicans. They’re hardworking! They have family values! Maybe at first, but not after coming here, having illegitimate children and going on welfare.", but you don't agree I should be allowed to say "I don't want Coulter speaking those words where it represents me, using my tuition money to provide security for her to say offensive things."

I'm sorry, I do not agree with you at all. If Coulter should be free to "claimed the Mexican culture is “deficient” and went on to claim that part of Mexican culture includes “uncles raping their nieces.”", then I should be equally free to say Coulter doesn't deserve to speak at my university. Coulter can speak on Fox News, she can speak on Breitbart, she can speak on any other blog or can write a book, and in doing so, have a much larger audience for her speech than I would have. I'm not stifling her speech if I protest her speaking at the university.

^^^^
Calls to get Coulter banned was one example of the same point you were trying to make when you suggested your own hypothetical calls to me banned. So here, twice, you're saying I don't think it's free speech to do as you described.

In fairness, I snipped that part of your quote in my post for space. But I noted I was snipping for space, and I expected you to remember what you posted.

You also say:

But I'd argue your position is more "hostile" to free speech than mine, as I support the right for all speech (assuming the speech is true and not a lie)...you only support the right to free speech up until it negatively affects someone else.

Thus, you're saying I don't support your right, i.e., it isn't free speech. No. I said, explicitly:

I explained it to you several times - your words may well be free speech, but your intent to silence me is hostile to free speech. This doesn't mean you're not protected by free speech even though you're hostile to it.

Thus:

Your claim that I'm "still saying...aren't free speech" is clearly false, as evidenced by my own words in the post you quoted.

Is simply wrong. You said what you said, multiple times.


At this point, given the frequency of your constant twisting and ignoring of actual words, I can only assume it's intentional and quite possibly defensive in nature.

:shrug: I didn't do any such thing.


I enjoyed a high quality civil debate with Zyphlin. You and I started out on much of the same path. But your constant attempts to twist the discussion by inserting things which are not relevant or true makes it much more difficult.

I'll say it again:

Now, perhaps you misunderstood a statement such as this, which may be why you think what you think about what I think. And I can even understand why you might come to that conclusion, even if it's an incorrect one, as "support the right to free speech" can certainly be interpreted in the way you seem to have interpreted it. But, as I have also said repeatedly, we're merely talking about the concept/principle of free speech itself and in my opinion there's no line before physicality where the free exercise of speech is not merely free speech. You think there's a line which, once crossed, means speech is "hostile" and "thuggish" to free speech. I disagree, for the many reasons I've already laid out.

I've no more interest in your constant posting of irrelevant or flat out wrong information with a haughty tone. We can either discuss this civilly and maturely or you can continue posting things which are not true and make up assumptions about me which are provably false. If you choose the former, I suspect you and I will end up somewhere close to where Zyphlin and I came to rest. If you choose the latter, then know I appreciated and enjoyed the beginning of our discussion and am somewhat disappointed by your choice to end it.

I didn't misquote you, and while I've said a few impatient things, as have you, I have not nearly been so uncivil as you suggest.
 
Why are a bunch of Republican legislators in several states trying to stifle free speech rights?

Because it's the thing to do? Because they want to emulate Teresa May?
 
I'm talking about Joe the Plumber, not Clownface Von TrumpsTongueInhismouth (the distinguished congressman). There is undoubtedly a large percentage who would be thrilled to see a law that said the Washington Post could not print conversations between FBI officials and the President - just this President. No, only Corbyn would support it publicly, but I wasn't talking about the fools on the hill.

The insinuation the the fairness doctrine - established under FDR, that guy who was elected over and over again - was meant to get liberals time on the air is hilarious. Seriously. Are you kidding me? The reason that talk radio exploded is because Rush Limbaugh found out that when you tap into the deep, deep anger of stupid people, they eat it up. I give him credit for that. Remember how he trolled an audience to the point where they all walked out on the taping of a daytime talk show he guest hosted? But Limbaugh was doing his schtick in '84, because the fairness doctrine didn't do anything that you were fed to believe it did. But that's the world we live in today - uninformed idiots spouting uninformed crap because the real news which is exploding in popularity has too many facts and big words for the children.

I stand by my comments. The Right isn't the party that would create legistlation to control the media. The Left would, did, and still tries to today.

You control the airwaves, you control a lot, and it's not just what you report, it is what is not reported. And in FDR's day, radio was as powerful as TV.

When you tell broadcasters what they must broadcast and in what proportion is not freedom of speech. It is regulated speech. I don't care if it was FDR, JFK or Ghandi who proclaimed such rules.

The reason Limbaugh exploded is because The Fairness Doktrine was lifted. It's why talk radio exploded. They were free to say what they wanted in the proportion they wanted.

The "deep, deep anger"... ROTFLOL... during the past 6-months everyone has witnessed the "deep, deep anger" of the Left. Violence, anger, and schools "of higher learning" denying people who love the Constitution the right from speaking freely on campus.

The Tea Party were law abiding citizens protesting a government whose spending was out of control. We didn't have hooded vandals or criminals running around like you do now, or did with OWS.

The Left has a long history of expressing their anger through violence... whether it's today's thugs, or the KKK.
 
I stand by my comments. The Right isn't the party that would create legistlation to control the media. The Left would, did, and still tries to today.

You control the airwaves, you control a lot, and it's not just what you report, it is what is not reported. And in FDR's day, radio was as powerful as TV.

When you tell broadcasters what they must broadcast and in what proportion is not freedom of speech. It is regulated speech. I don't care if it was FDR, JFK or Ghandi who proclaimed such rules.

The reason Limbaugh exploded is because The Fairness Doktrine was lifted. It's why talk radio exploded. They were free to say what they wanted in the proportion they wanted.

The "deep, deep anger"... ROTFLOL... during the past 6-months everyone has witnessed the "deep, deep anger" of the Left. Violence, anger, and schools "of higher learning" denying people who love the Constitution the right from speaking freely on campus.

The Tea Party were law abiding citizens protesting a government whose spending was out of control. We didn't have hooded vandals or criminals running around like you do now, or did with OWS.

The Left has a long history of expressing their anger through violence... whether it's today's thugs, or the KKK.

I'm not occupy wall street. I've never gone out and marched for anything. I've written for online publications about the failure of new media to be thorough and accurate. The idea of me, to those who know me, walking around breaking windows is laughable. But I switch between NPR and Republican radio and when I do listen to Republican radio, I can assure you that the majority of callers have an incredibly deep anger toward all liberals and hosts use such phrases - this is verbatim - as "the left is the enemy and its goal is to destroy America."

Talk radio has been absolutely horrible for America. It's made us far more divided and I think it's useless talking to a person who thinks that FDR's liberalism is the same as Barack Obama's liberalism. Would Barack Obama put the Japanese in internment camps in an age when conservatives want to ban Muslims from entering the country and liberals want to supposedly let them take over the country? We live in a different America. The fairness doctrine allowed, but did not mandate, the FCC to require media outlets from providing contrasting editorial viewpoints. The lack of such diversity is the ire of conservatives in regard to the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

I support the right of all Americans to speak freely in person, in public, and in the media as long as it doesn't constitute a violation of the law. But it's unfortunate that so many of us only want to hear what we already believe to be true. You couldn't pay a Limbaugh listener to read a New York Times editorial or a Rachel Maddow viewer to listen to a half hour of Limbaugh. We - ironically, this seems to apply to me (the liberal) and not you (the conservative) - will never tolerate what we (again, just you) see as "the enemy."
 
It's more like people not wanting to hear the truth about themselves.

So true! The epitome of this is the USA. It's so bloody evident. Over 70 illegal invasions by the US since WWII, every US president has been a war criminal by Nuremberg standards, tens of millions slaughtered by the US, trillions and trillions of others wealth stolen, ... and no one talks about it, or wants to talk about it, and so many "freedom of speech "lovers"" do all they can to crush any such dicussions.
 
I stand by my comments. The Right isn't the party that would create legistlation to control the media. The Left would, did, and still tries to today.

You control the airwaves, you control a lot, and it's not just what you report, it is what is not reported. And in FDR's day, radio was as powerful as TV.

When you tell broadcasters what they must broadcast and in what proportion is not freedom of speech. It is regulated speech. I don't care if it was FDR, JFK or Ghandi who proclaimed such rules.

The reason Limbaugh exploded is because The Fairness Doktrine was lifted. It's why talk radio exploded. They were free to say what they wanted in the proportion they wanted.

The "deep, deep anger"... ROTFLOL... during the past 6-months everyone has witnessed the "deep, deep anger" of the Left. Violence, anger, and schools "of higher learning" denying people who love the Constitution the right from speaking freely on campus.

The Tea Party were law abiding citizens protesting a government whose spending was out of control. We didn't have hooded vandals or criminals running around like you do now, or did with OWS.

The Left has a long history of expressing their anger through violence... whether it's today's thugs, or the KKK.

So you have no interest in responding to my very fair and thoughtful post? Are you able to write sentences that don't call all liberals clansman, thugs or hooded criminals smashing windows in the night? Let's try again, what say you to this:

I'm not occupy wall street. I've never gone out and marched for anything. I've written for online publications about the failure of new media to be thorough and accurate. The idea of me, to those who know me, walking around breaking windows is laughable. But I switch between NPR and Republican radio and when I do listen to Republican radio, I can assure you that the majority of callers have an incredibly deep anger toward all liberals and hosts use such phrases - this is verbatim - as "the left is the enemy and its goal is to destroy America."

Talk radio has been absolutely horrible for America. It's made us far more divided and I think it's useless talking to a person who thinks that FDR's liberalism is the same as Barack Obama's liberalism. Would Barack Obama put the Japanese in internment camps in an age when conservatives want to ban Muslims from entering the country and liberals want to supposedly let them take over the country? We live in a different America. The fairness doctrine allowed, but did not mandate, the FCC to require media outlets from providing contrasting editorial viewpoints. The lack of such diversity is the ire of conservatives in regard to the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

I support the right of all Americans to speak freely in person, in public, and in the media as long as it doesn't constitute a violation of the law. But it's unfortunate that so many of us only want to hear what we already believe to be true. You couldn't pay a Limbaugh listener to read a New York Times editorial or a Rachel Maddow viewer to listen to a half hour of Limbaugh. We - ironically, this seems to apply to me (the liberal) and not you (the conservative) - will never tolerate what we (again, just you) see as "the enemy."

Will you tolerate opposing viewpoints? I see no evidence of that at all. It seems just the opposite. I respond to you and am too polite so you look for somebody to have a shouting match with. So yes, you have a deep, deep anger, and that is quite obvious and I'm sorry for the years that will take off of your life.
 
So true! The epitome of this is the USA. It's so bloody evident. Over 70 illegal invasions by the US since WWII, every US president has been a war criminal by Nuremberg standards, tens of millions slaughtered by the US, trillions and trillions of others wealth stolen, ... and no one talks about it, or wants to talk about it, and so many "freedom of speech "lovers"" do all they can to crush any such dicussions.

:lamo :roll:
 
If you feel a need to "reinterpret" the Constitution, you must know that what you want to do is unconstitutional.

A lawyer???
 
No, I'm saying ALL speech is okay, unless treasonous, libelous, slanderous, or physically harmful. ;)

Anything the power structure doesn't wish discussed can be "treasonous".
 
So true! The epitome of this is the USA. It's so bloody evident. Over 70 illegal invasions by the US since WWII, every US president has been a war criminal by Nuremberg standards, tens of millions slaughtered by the US, trillions and trillions of others wealth stolen, ... and no one talks about it, or wants to talk about it, and so many "freedom of speech "lovers"" do all they can to crush any such dicussions.

Well we're "exceptional" don'tcha know, WE get to do that shyte.
 
I stand by my comments. The Right isn't the party that would create legistlation to control the media. The Left would, did, and still tries to today.

You control the airwaves, you control a lot, and it's not just what you report, it is what is not reported. And in FDR's day, radio was as powerful as TV.

When you tell broadcasters what they must broadcast and in what proportion is not freedom of speech. It is regulated speech. I don't care if it was FDR, JFK or Ghandi who proclaimed such rules.

The reason Limbaugh exploded is because The Fairness Doktrine was lifted. It's why talk radio exploded. They were free to say what they wanted in the proportion they wanted.

The "deep, deep anger"... ROTFLOL... during the past 6-months everyone has witnessed the "deep, deep anger" of the Left. Violence, anger, and schools "of higher learning" denying people who love the Constitution the right from speaking freely on campus.

The Tea Party were law abiding citizens protesting a government whose spending was out of control. We didn't have hooded vandals or criminals running around like you do now, or did with OWS.

The Left has a long history of expressing their anger through violence... whether it's today's thugs, or the KKK.

Yes of course the KKK was/is "left", Jesus.
 
Well we're "exceptional" don'tcha know, WE get to do that shyte.

I know, Fenton. Fancy speeches at Nuremberg about how all men should be judged as the Nazis were being judged, the "poison chalice" handed to whoever commits similar crimes and the US has done so over 75 times since that judgment was handed down and no "poison chalice" was ever handed to any one of the war criminal US presidents.
 
So true! The epitome of this is the USA. It's so bloody evident. Over 70 illegal invasions by the US since WWII, every US president has been a war criminal by Nuremberg standards, tens of millions slaughtered by the US, trillions and trillions of others wealth stolen, ... and no one talks about it, or wants to talk about it, and so many "freedom of speech "lovers"" do all they can to crush any such dicussions.

Got HYPERBOLE?
 

You need a huge reality check. Trump tells the truth, for once.


The United States and the Russian devil: 1917-2017

Conservatives have had a very hard time getting over President Trump’s much-repeated response to Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly’s calling Russian president Vladimir Putin “a killer”. Replied Trump: “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. You think our country is so innocent?”

One could almost feel a bit sorry for O’Reilly as he struggled to regain his composure in the face of such blasphemy. Had any American establishment media star ever heard such a thought coming from the mouth of an American president? From someone on the radical left, yes, but from the president?

Senator John McCain on the floor of Congress, referring to Putin, tore into attempts to draw “moral equivalency between that butcher and thug and KGB colonel and the United States of America.”

Ah yes, the infamous KGB. Can anything good be said about a person associated with such an organization? We wouldn’t like it if a US president had a background with anything like that. Oh, wait, a president of the United States was not merely a CIA “colonel”, but was the Director of the CIA! I of course speak of George Herbert Walker Bush. And as far as butchery and thuggery … How many Americans remember the December 1989 bombing and invasion of the people of Panama carried out by the same Mr. Bush? Many thousands killed or wounded; thousands more left homeless.

Try and match that, Vladimir!

And in case you’re wondering for what good reason all this was perpetrated? Officially, to arrest dictator Manuel Noriega on drug charges. How is that for a rationalization for widespread devastation and slaughter? It should surprise no one that only shortly before the invasion Noriega had been on the CIA payroll.

It’s the “moral equivalency” that’s so tough to swallow for proud Americans like O’Reilly and McCain. Republican Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell also chipped in with: “And no, I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does.” Other Senators echoed the same theme, all inspired by good ol’ “American exceptionalism”, drilled into the mind of every decent American from childhood on … Who would dare to compare the morals of (ugh!) Russia with those of God’s chosen land, even in Moscow’s current non-communist form?

The communist form began of course with the October 1917 Russian Revolution. By the summer of 1918 some 13,000 American troops could be found in the newly-born state, the future Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Two years and thousands of casualties later, the American troops left, having failed in their mission to “strangle at its birth” the Bolshevik state, as Winston Churchill so charmingly put it.

US foreign policy has not been much more noble-minded since then. I think, dear students, it’s time for me to once again present my concise historical summary:

Since the end of World War 2, the United States has:

Attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically-elected.
Dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
Attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.
Attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries.
Grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
Though not as easy to quantify, has also led the world in torture; not only the torture performed directly by Americans upon foreigners, but providing torture equipment, torture manuals, lists of people to be tortured, and in-person guidance by American instructors.

Where does the United States get the nerve to moralize about Russia? Same place they get the nerve to label Putin a “killer” … a “butcher” … a “thug”. It would be difficult to name a world-renowned killer, butcher, or thug – not to mention dictator, mass murderer, or torturer – of the past 75 years who was not a close ally of Washington.

READ ON, AS I KNOW YOU WILL, AT,

https://williamblum.org/aer/read/149
 
You need a huge reality check. Trump tells the truth, for once.

Gee buddy, how many people did the Soviets kill again? Stalin was second only to Mao in the massacure of his own people. Seems to me you are so desperate to justify Putin's murder of journalists and dissidents you'll say just about anything.

And judging by the fact that the vast majority of those "populist" movements encouraged nationalism to conquer and butcher the neighbors.....the irony level is huge.
 
Back
Top Bottom