"This Is Fascism": Indian Law Stripping Naturalization Rights From Muslims Sparks Criticism and Protest

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | "This Is Fascism": Indian Law Stripping Naturalization Rights From Muslims Sparks Criticism and Protest

  • Author
    Posts
  • #236995

    Cold Mountain Trail
    Member
    • Total Posts: 5,579
    @coldmountaintrail

    Critics condemned Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government Tuesday after the Lok Sabha, the lower chamber of the country’s parliament, passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill, stripping naturalization rights granted to other groups from the nation’s 200 million Muslims living in the world’s largest democracy.

    “We are now moving closer to Modi’s dream of an India where a Muslim will have to walk the streets of his country with his gaze lowered, where democracy will be a privilege some can’t participate in, and Hindu nationalism will replace secularism in this once-glorious republic,” journalist Rana Ayyub wrote of the bill for The Washington Post Tuesday.

    The bill disallows Muslims from applying to become naturalized citizens in the same manner as other religious groups in the country.

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/10/fascism-indian-law-stripping-naturalization-rights-muslims-sparks-criticism-and

    Has tulsi spoken up about this??

  • #237104

    GZeusH
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,702
    @gzeush

    More like Nazism.  The Nazis were the ones who developed the art of stripping citizenship from groups of people they didn’t like.  Once people weren’t citizens, they moved on to the next step of sending them to death camps.

    • #237235

      Voltairine
      Member
      • Total Posts: 1,414
      @voltairine
      • #237345

        Cold Mountain Trail
        Member
        • Total Posts: 5,579
        @coldmountaintrail

         

        “The Bill amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to make illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan… eligible for Indian citizenship.

        There is a concern that the people who are unable to produce required documents to prove their citizenship and inclusion in NRC will be accepted as migrants and given Indian citizenship under the Bill, but the people of the community other than six religious communities mentioned in the Bill…. are not included under the Bill. (iow, Muslims).

        The bill exempts the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution from its applicability.

        According to Al Jazeera, the Bill is violative of the secular Constitution of India.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Citizenship_(Amendment)_Bill,_2019

         

        “The bill disallows Muslims from applying to become naturalized citizens in the same manner as other religious groups in the country.”

         

        DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran said: “This is a “half-hearted” Bill which has completely ignored Sri Lankan Tamils. The government is preoccupied with its hatred for Muslims.”

         

        DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran said: “This is a “half-hearted” Bill which has completely ignored Sri Lankan Tamils. The government is preoccupied with its hatred for Muslims.”

        “You say that Kashmir is part of India, will you give citizenship to Muslims who are fleeing from Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir to India? No, because you have one stand — we don’t want Muslims,” he said.

        https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/lok-sabha-passes-citizenship-amendment-bill/article30260415.ece

        • #237493

          Voltairine
          Member
          • Total Posts: 1,414
          @voltairine

          I agree it’s very bad legislation.

          Aloha!

  • #237105

    Ohio Barbarian
    Moderator
    • Total Posts: 8,838
    @ohiobarbarian

    No, I don’t think she has, and I don’t think she will because I think she may be something of a Hindu nationalist herself, at least when it comes to India. She can easily prove me wrong by condemning this religious bigotry for what it is.

    We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    With Bernie Sanders, we have the receipts. --Nina Turner

    • #237231

      Voltairine
      Member
      • Total Posts: 1,414
      @voltairine

      Her views on any and all kind of religious bigotry are very clear:

      Aloha!

      • #237303

        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 8,838
        @ohiobarbarian

        So why has she not condemned anti-Muslim bigotry on the part of the Indian Prime Minister and his religious nut job party? There’s a lot more evidence that this guy, when he had the power to stop it, allowed a massacre of 2000 Muslims to take place in the state for which he was Chief Minister, and then was subsequently cleared by people in his own Hindu Nationalist party that wants a Hindu theocracy in India?

        That’s some very heavy duty shit right there, man, and Tulsi hasn’t said one negative think about him. If she has, prove me wrong. I’d love to be wrong, but I think that fanatical cult she was raised in still biases her towards India in general and that theocratic fuck Narenda in particular.

        I have a problem with that. When I looked to see if I could prove myself wrong before I watched your video and made my reply, I found things like this on Tulsi’s own congressional website, which do indicate I might be wrong:

        “Prime Minister Modi and I had a productive conversation about the importance of the US-India relationship. India is the world’s largest democracy and one of the United States most important partners in the Asia-Pacific region. We spoke about the need to continue to work together to address the pressing issues that impact us and the world—like combating climate change and protecting our environment, improving the economic well-being of our people, increasing trade, counterterrorism efforts, and preventing nuclear war and nuclear proliferation.  We discussed the situation in Kashmir, civil rights, empowering women and addressing poverty, as well as the concern about escalating tensions with Iran.

        It is important that we continue to strengthen this partnership between our two nations that has long had support from both Democrat and Republican leaders. As we work toward mutual prosperity for our people through economic growth, science, health, the environment, security, and more, we recognize that everyone on our planet, we are all one family. There is no place for hate, bigotry, ignorance and prejudice.” (emphasis mine)

        Just to be clear, my own bias is towards secularism, so I see Modi and his Hindu nationalists who will persecute infidels as far worse than the staunchly secular Assad. While Tulsi’s statement about Modi is a diplomatic masterpiece–she’d be a historic Secretary of State–she mentions all the right things while completely ignoring Modi’s abysmal record on minority rights and military aggression.

        India’s not the same as Syria. It has a history of religious violence and massacre that makes the Jim Crow South look like a mildly strenuous hike in comparison. Given Tulsi’s background and upbringing, I will not be satisfied that she won’t let that affect her actions towards India and its slide towards theocracy until she comes out and says something definitive on that specific subject.

        @voltairine

        We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

        With Bernie Sanders, we have the receipts. --Nina Turner

        • #237338

          Voltairine
          Member
          • Total Posts: 1,414
          @voltairine

          Tulsi’s father is a Catholic and her mother a Hare Krishna, so her background is multi-faith.

          The Hama massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre) is not so different from the Gujarat massacre.

          I don’t like Modi or Assad. But I don’t agree with the premise of your demand, that politicians should go about moralizing about other leaders to pass your purity tests. Their job is to be diplomatic in order to be able to do their job as servants of people. How would a politician wagging the finger of a supposed moral superiority help people in any actual and real way?

          Aloha!

          • #237565

            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 8,838
            @ohiobarbarian

            Then what good does wagging the finger at Israel and Saudi Arabia do, then? I don’t see you criticizing Tulsi for that. It’s the potential double-standard that bothers me. I do not know what Tulsi thinks about, say, the treatment of Muslim Bengali immigrants who have been in India for years is. She hasn’t said. I wonder why.

            I have every right to be concerned about this. If you don’t think so, I really don’t care.

            We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

            With Bernie Sanders, we have the receipts. --Nina Turner

            • #237576

              Voltairine
              Member
              • Total Posts: 1,414
              @voltairine

              Tulsi has not said that she wants to keep Israel a Jewish state, but said that she supports two-state solution, but I don’t agree with her on that. The main issue is to end the apartheid state – which is now worse than South Africa was – in any and all form.

              Saudi-Arabia and Israel are different from India because US actively supports the oppressive regimes in both places with tax-payer money and/or by allowing and accepting extensive corruption of US political system by them.

              Aloha!

        • #237443

          The Red Menace
          Member
          • Total Posts: 463
          @twilightsporkle

          I’mma go out on a limb and suppose it’s because she’s a US congressmember and not an Indian MP?

          “You’re of Indian descent,we demand you answer for what India is doing!” is… kinda a shitty angle to play? Like Sanders is a Jewish guy of Polish background, are we gonna demand he step up and answer to the actions of Israel or the rising of fascism in Poland? Come on here.

          • #237563

            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 8,838
            @ohiobarbarian

            It’s how she was raised that concerns me, and I consider that concern a legitimate one as regards things Indian. And I didn’t demand she answer for what India is doing. You have no call to put words in my mouth.

            We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

            With Bernie Sanders, we have the receipts. --Nina Turner

            • #238490

              The Red Menace
              Member
              • Total Posts: 463
              @twilightsporkle

              And I didn’t demand she answer for what India is doing. You have no call to put words in my mouth.

              Are you sure about it? ‘Cause here’s what you said, right out of your own mouth.

              So why has she not condemned anti-Muslim bigotry on the part of the Indian Prime Minister and his religious nut job party? … That’s some very heavy duty shit right there, man, and Tulsi hasn’t said one negative think about him. If she has, prove me wrong. I’d love to be wrong, but I think that fanatical cult she was raised in still biases her towards India in general and that theocratic fuck Narenda in particular. … While Tulsi’s statement about Modi is a diplomatic masterpiece–she’d be a historic Secretary of State–she mentions all the right things while completely ignoring Modi’s abysmal record on minority rights and military aggression. … Given Tulsi’s background and upbringing, I will not be satisfied that she won’t let that affect her actions towards India and its slide towards theocracy until she comes out and says something definitive on that specific subject.

              Explain to me how your demands that Tulsi – and especially Tulsi, only Tulsi – answer for what India is doing… is you NOT demanding Tulsi answer for what India is doing?

      • #237407

        Cold Mountain Trail
        Member
        • Total Posts: 5,579
        @coldmountaintrail

        That is a carefully parsed speech, framed in a certain way.  Through that frame, I see something different than you do.  Sins of omission.

  • #237228

    salemcourt
    Donor
    • Total Posts: 781
    @salemcourt

    The stripping language is not correct.  I think what India is doing is letting a few religious groups (who they claim are persecuted in three countries – Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh) obtain their citizenship through naturalization at a faster pace than current laws.  I think all religious groups should be provided a faster pace for naturalization and religion should not be considered.

  • #237236

    Voltairine
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,414
    @voltairine

    CMT, this is not the first time you try to smear Tulsi with untruth.

    Aloha!

    • #237351

      Cold Mountain Trail
      Member
      • Total Posts: 5,579
      @coldmountaintrail

      “smear” = bullshit.

      I posted some true information & asked a question.  so far as i know, she hasn’t spoken about the matter at all.

      where’s the smear?

      I’d say you accusing me of smearing tulsi is more smear-like.

      as for my alleged previous ‘smear’, it was a post about this same question.

      It’s a legitimate question.

  • #237268

    salemcourt
    Donor
    • Total Posts: 781
    @salemcourt

    It seems all the MSM has spread this false smear about India.  In US also, people from some countries (European mainly) get a much faster pace for naturalization compared to people from Asia.  Maybe, this should be labeled as US strips citizenship from Asians.  Common dreams seems to spread too much of these MSM smears lately.

    • #237355

      Cold Mountain Trail
      Member
      • Total Posts: 5,579
      @coldmountaintrail

      “It seems all the MSM has spread this false smear about India”

      more bullshit.  It’s not a “smear,” it’s a fact.

      The law as written gives a preferential path to members of certain religions (& regions inside india, though no one seems to be taking issue with that here.

      I don’t know the politics of India but I’m gonna assume they’re trying to exclude some groups from those regions too.)

      “In US also, people from some countries (European mainly) get a much faster pace for naturalization compared to people from Asia”

      I think a review of immigration law might be in order.  That was the case (for immigration per se) decades ago, but it is no longer the case since approximately 50s/60s.  And in fact, the majority of immigrants over the last several decades have been from Latin America.

      As for naturalization per se, I’ve not heard of faster/slower naturalization ‘tracks’ by national origin: if you have a link explaining that, please post.

      And if there are such preferential paths to naturalization in the US, would it also be a “smear” to state that fact?

      Clearly, it would not be a “smear” by any definition of that word I know of.

  • #237323

    Ohio Barbarian
    Moderator
    • Total Posts: 8,838
    @ohiobarbarian

    Thank you for posting. This law is clearly a discriminatory measure aimed strictly at Muslims. It provides an excuse for bigoted Hindu officials to deny a Muslim refugee or immigrant, usually from Burma or Bangladesh, naturalization, which does ultimately deny them citizenship.

    It’s little different from what Trump is doing to immigrants in the United States, yet some don’t see it because it might make Tulsi Gabbard look bad. Well, it does put her in a bad light, and for understandable reasons.

    Why anyone on the left would apologize for Narenda Modi, a religious bigot who is the head of a party of religious bigots, and a fucking corporatist to boot, is beyond me.

    We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    With Bernie Sanders, we have the receipts. --Nina Turner

  • #237390

    Voltairine
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,414
    @voltairine

    Has Bernie spoken about this? Frankly, calling out Tulsi but not other candidates is itself bigoted sectarianism.

    Progressives condemn Sanders for saying that Israel should stay Jewish state not because he is Jewish, but because that’s ultranationalist chauvinism and wrong from any candidate.  By not applying same standards to everyone Sanders moralizing on human rights has now credibility, as he does not recognize equal human rights of Palestinian Moslems. Sanders stating his ultranationalist views does not improve his possibilities to effectively broker peace in Middle East, on the contrary.  Sanders condemning Trump for meeting with Modi does not improve his possibilities to broker peace between India and Pakistan, on the contrary. It’s dumb and counterproductive empty moralizing and does not serve the interests of people who want peace.

    Tulsi has said she is ready and willing to meet with both Pakistan and Indian leaders if she can in any way help to broker a deal over Kashmir. She has also made clear that she does not want to interfere in internal matters of other countries unless there’s high confidence of positive outcome for ordinary people. A true leader is a wise servant, not interventionist moralizer with double standards.

    Aloha!

    • #237404

      Cold Mountain Trail
      Member
      • Total Posts: 5,579
      @coldmountaintrail

      “Has Bernie spoken about this? Frankly, calling out Tulsi but not other candidates is itself bigoted sectarianism.”

      yes, he has, e.g.:

      on edit:  apologies; the article i meant to post is embedded in the tweet.  here it is:

      https://www.news18.com/news/world/modi-trump-rally-happening-at-a-time-when-kashmir-remains-under-lockdown-says-bernie-sanders-2318737.html

       

      • #237494

        Voltairine
        Member
        • Total Posts: 1,414
        @voltairine

        That’s about Kashmir, not this legislation.

        Aloha!

        • #237497

          Cold Mountain Trail
          Member
          • Total Posts: 5,579
          @coldmountaintrail

          same constellation, and the legislation in question also excludes some *regions* from its provisions.

          “The solidification of the cult of Modi has been accompanied by an aggressive erosion of the legal and constitutional foundations on which the Indian republic stands. Last week the government arrogated to itself powers to designate individuals as terrorists. Presumption of innocence, legal representation and the right to judicial appeal – everything that distinguishes a civilised democracy from an autocracy – is severely restricted. Muslims and other minorities, favoured quarry of the lynch mobs emboldened by the regime, will be the principal targets of the new measures….

          Modi’s willingness to take the risk was no doubt dictated by the reward. He has in one stroke ground down and humiliated Kashmiris, and held them up as an example to other Indian states, a demonstration that nobody is immune from his untrammelled authority. The termination of Kashmir’s special status is simultaneously a culmination of a longstanding Hindu nationalist yearning to domesticate the region’s dissenting Muslim majority and a successful test case for the project to remake the entirety of India in accordance with Modi’s ideology. What has happened there will be repeated elsewhere.”

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/06/narendra-modi-india-kashmir-revoke-special-status

          • #237511

            Voltairine
            Member
            • Total Posts: 1,414
            @voltairine

            Well, since Bush POTUS has claimed the right not only to designate individuals as terrorists but also to assassinate them with drones. Both Bernie and Tulsi say that they would continue drone assassination program. We can’t honestly say that they hold the moral higher ground to wag finger at Modi. And voters can’t consistently condemn Modi if they don’t hold also progressive candidates to same standards.

            I’m not defending Modi. What we can do is to get rid of our own cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization to the best of our ability.

            Aloha!

            • #237548

              Cold Mountain Trail
              Member
              • Total Posts: 5,579
              @coldmountaintrail

              “Bernie and Tulsi say that they would continue drone assassination program”

              –I’ve read that tulsi has said that (said she thought it was needed v. all out war), but not bernie.

              If you could link me to bernie saying so, much appreciated, thanks.

              “What we can do is to get rid of our own cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization to the best of our ability”

              -yes, agreed.  we as individuals, we as a nation, we as a world.

              • #237550

                Voltairine
                Member
                • Total Posts: 1,414
                @voltairine
                • #237560

                  Cold Mountain Trail
                  Member
                  • Total Posts: 5,579
                  @coldmountaintrail

                  Thank you for the link.

                  Bernie’s foreign policy is the area that concerns me about his possible presidency.  Same with Tulsi.

                  https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/bernie-sanders-resolution-normalising-war-terror-180524082055549.html

                  • #237580

                    Voltairine
                    Member
                    • Total Posts: 1,414
                    @voltairine

                    With her faults, Tulsi is the only candidate seriously going against MIC, which is where foreign and domestic policy meet and are inseparable.

                    Aloha!

                    • #237611

                      Cold Mountain Trail
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 5,579
                      @coldmountaintrail

                      But she’s not, that’s part of my problem with her.

                      She’s said it herself, she’s a dove on regime-change war & a hawk on the war on terrorism.  and the definition of ‘terrorism’ is also part of the problem.  also the way regime-change & war on terror melt into each other.

                      also who defines terror.  as we see, modi has recently defined it to get a desired result.  as can we all, and as the us has repeatedly.

                    • #237962

                      Voltairine
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 1,414
                      @voltairine

                      She gets often misquoted. She said “hawk against terrorists”.

                      Not arbitrarily definable abstract -ism concept, but actual AQ and it’s affiliates and offspring like IS. I think that’s important distinction, and the Neocons with their Timber Sycamore fear her for making that distinction clear with military mind for clearly defined missions. On the other hand she wants to strip POTUS from arbitrary powers on making war and return to the constitutional order where that is matter for Congress to decide.

                      Aloha!

                    • #238304

                      Cold Mountain Trail
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 5,579
                      @coldmountaintrail

                      same difference.

                      just like ‘terror’ can be defined as *anything* the ptb want it to be, so can ‘terrorists’

                      in this go-round, it’s typically muslims who fill that slot.  unless they’re our oil-rich friends, of course.

                      otoh, our oil-rich enemies get killed.

                    • #238349

                      Voltairine
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 1,414
                      @voltairine

                      The distinction is very clear to me, and from what I have seen and heard, Gabbard agrees with me.

                      Have you heard Tulsi make bigoted statements against all Muslems? No you have not. The Salafist-Wahhabist sect is ideologically committed to “physical jihad”, ie. using physical violence and terror to impose rule of their dogma of extreme monotheism over other peoples. The criterion of justified self-defense could not be more clear in this case.

                      If others muddle things and speak untruth, that is their problem, not ours, and it is unfair to project their unclarity and dishonesty to Tulsi, Is this matter unclear to you?

                      Aloha!

                    • #238356

                      Cold Mountain Trail
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 5,579
                      @coldmountaintrail

                      “The distinction is very clear to me”

                      – Not to me.  Because I don’t focus on one arena & cherry pick cases, or fail to examine the history or the funding.

                      But what I hear you saying is that the “Salafist-Wahhabist sect” is terrorist because it uses violence and fear to “impose its own rule’ & norms over others.

                      I think that definition applies to lots more entities than this one.  I’d also say there’s state power & arms behind this faction, which also applies to other cases.

                      Wahabi was a podunk little sect until adopted by the house of Saud, and the house of Saud a podunk little tribal grouping until allied with the UK & the US & the oil majors, which are the ultimate source of its power.

                      Which makes sense, because without some organized power grouping, how are individual terrorists going to impose their ‘rule’ over others except in the sense that local gang-bangers are able to?  So are gang-bangers definitionally ‘terrorists’?

                      Gets to be a slippery slope when you tease it out.

                      Is that unclear to *you,* & can you understand why others don’t see clarity where you do?

                      And can you understand that indeed, the power to cherry pick that case & define those people as ‘terrorists’ while excluding other cases that meet your vague definition is the problem?

                      And that definitional constellation is so fundamentally dishonest & serves corruption all across the board, including the corruption of all the actors involved?

                      Doesn’t the US use violence to impose its POV, norms, practices on others?  Don’t other countries do the same, particularly imperial powers or aspiring imperial powers?

                      Was/Is Christianity a terroristic entity since it has indeed used violence throughout its history to impose its norms on others?  We can make a case that most of the world religions have been “terrorist” during some period of their history using your definition, particularly when they have acted as state-like powers (as in the case of the catholic church) or in alignment with state power.

                      “By their fruits you will know them” & the fruits of the ‘war on terror (and the war on ‘terrorists’)’ have been death, destruction of culture, families, countries, displacement and refugees, and ‘primitive accumulation’ in the marxian sense: displacing populations through violence, taking land and resources and privatizing them.  And the creation of ‘terrorists’ — perhaps even the creation of ‘wahabism’ in its most recent guise.  The wahaabis have existed since the 1700s but its only in the last 20-30 years they’ve been ‘terrorists,’ strangely enough.

                      And what modi’s doing in india is not so different.

                      IOW (imho), ‘terror’/’terrorist’ are useful terms for the great powers, to distinguish the ‘bad violence’ of others to their own ‘good violence’.

                    • #238372

                      Voltairine
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 1,414
                      @voltairine

                      I think that definition applies to lots more entities than this one. I’d also say there’s state power & arms behind this faction, which also applies to other cases.

                      As I’ve told, I’m anarchist, and anarchism is desire to liberate from all forms of structural violence, including state terrorism which starts from taxation at gunpoint. I’ve put a lot of thought to your slippery slope argument and try my best to keep my shit as coherent and pragmatic as I can. I recognize that Tulsi applies clarity of military thinking to clearly defined enemy according to US Constitution which she has sworn to defend. She’s very consistent and I can’t expect much better from a soldier and a politician who is working in the context of state, to prevent US from harming people with war and imperialism. US has played a role in creating and empowring AQ and Daesh that attacked among others our libertarian socialist comrades in Rojava, and when no other help was available, US military aid as such to YPG/J was the right thing to do. Regardless of everything else not so right.

                      I’m very familiar with all the ways that Neocons have misused the war powers granted by Congress after 9/11. On candidate who consistently opposes and calls out both in words and actions that misuse has been Tulsi Gabbard.

                      Do you support her Stop Funding Terrorists Act, demand for release of classified documents concerning Saudi role in 9/11 and drafting bill for investigation into fraud and lying by US officials revealed by Afganistan Papers?

                      Aloha!

                    • #238377

                      Cold Mountain Trail
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 5,579
                      @coldmountaintrail

                      And can you understand that indeed, the power to cherry pick that case & define those people as ‘terrorists’ while excluding other cases that meet your vague definition is the problem?

                      And that definitional constellation is so fundamentally dishonest & serves corruption all across the board, including the corruption of all the actors involved?

                    • #238383

                      Voltairine
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 1,414
                      @voltairine

                      Yes, the problem is so challenging that you need most honest and clearest thinking minds available to address it. You need to face the problem straight on, and that’s what Tulsi is doing.

                      Our long term goal of stopping state and it’s thugs from terrorizing people with threat of physical violence if they don’t pay protection money called “taxes” is not inconsistent with short term goal of stopping US imperialism. Anarchists who consistently reject terrorism in every form don’t have the problem of trying to compartmentalize taxation under threat of physical violence into something other than terrorism. Of course our long term goal requires practical, process oriented thinking and action for constructive alternatives for better win-win games, and I think we are making good progress in that regard.

                      Aloha!

                    • #238457

                      Cold Mountain Trail
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 5,579
                      @coldmountaintrail

                      “You need to face the problem straight on, and that’s what Tulsi is doing”

                      I don’t think so judging from the you tube video you posted.  labeled as representing her views on religious bigotry.

                      its similar to the way you respond to my posts

                      ‘taxation’ as ‘terror’ = lol

                      money is the creature of the state you anarchist you

                      taxation gives it its value

                      the serious think things through

                      as opposed to shit-stirrers and bomb throwers

                       

                    • #238485

                      Voltairine
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 1,414
                      @voltairine

                      Terrorism, dictionary definition: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” Under this definition, taxation at gunpoint is clearly terrorism.

                      Therefore, to take away state power, rethink money and replace capitalist state money with libertarian socialist money distributed as gift. Go Potlach!

                      Aloha!

                    • #238564

                      Cold Mountain Trail
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 5,579
                      @coldmountaintrail

                      “….as opposed to shit-stirrers and bomb throwers…”

                    • #238597

                      Voltairine
                      Member
                      • Total Posts: 1,414
                      @voltairine

                      Yes, opposed to that. Shit-stirring and bomb-throwing is what your taxes are mainly being used for, by the bipartisan decisions of Congress.

                      Aloha!

  • #237557

    Voltairine
    Member
    • Total Posts: 1,414
    @voltairine
  • #238568

    LiberalElite
    Donor
    • Total Posts: 947
    @liberalelite

    It profoundly baffles me how anyone thinks this law is a good thing.

    I feel much better since I gave up hope.

    "If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace." – John Lennon

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.