Would radical leftists empathize another terrorist attack on the U.S. ?

Even back in 9-11, there were radical leftists on University campuses and elsewhere that were sympathetic to the attack on the U.S. According to these left-wing extremists, the U.S. "had it coming to them"....

And since 9-11, we've seen radical leftists constantly apologize for terrorist bombings of innocent civilians by, once again, blaming their actions on "the West" or "U.S." or "GWB".

If a terrorist group managed to attack the U.S. again with a smuggled nuclear weapon, biological bomb, or other method, would radical leftists empathize with the attack ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is strange is that this scenario just might happen.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

big difference between sympathy and understanding.
but yeah,fuck it,id love another attack.then i could buy some dollars while they were at rock bottom and make some money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyway, do you mean empathize, or did you mean sympthasize? Empathize mean to put onesself in another's shoes, in order to gain an insight into what they're thinking, or how their mind works. Terrorist-hunters the world over must do this in order to try to understand what the enemy's going to do almost before it even knows it itself.

So your question doesn't even make any sense.

 

In the common vein of these questions, we continue:

Would Cazzo-type rightists empathize with gutshooting pregnant women at checkpoints in the US ?

 

This is trolling at it's finest.

Yes, I think radical leftists would welcome any event that harmed the evil capitalist system and furthered the establishment of a glorious workers paradise. That being said, I think there are few of those people present in the US.

 

I disagree. It is quite crude, clumsy, and obvious.

 

The radical Left is most certainly against the US enough to want a terrorist attack or other attack against it.

 

Who is the radical left? Trey Arrow? Ecoterrorists? They are insignificant.

 

what is the grievance this time? present and lemme judge if this great nation of mine is deserving of this blowback

andale, mofo

 

The only people I've ever heard express regret at the absence of terrorist attacks in the US are W administration officials and their pet columnists, who feel that it would remind people of how serious the threat is, and how important W&Co's efforts in combating it are.

Of course, one doesn't hear "radical Left" views anywhere on the major media, so maybe there's a crowd of them calling for more terrorism against the US, somewhere.

 

You mean the Right does. Ever since 911 conservatives have been foaming at the mouth, salivating at the prospect of us getting hit again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24629509/

Zionist columnist who suggested we need to suffer another 9/11-type attack to unify Americans is respectfully interviewed on the Big Story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQlOpiw8tM4

Here's a video of Newt Gingrich saying that Bush should allow more terrorists attacks to remind of us of the threat of terrorism.

http://www.dailymotion.com/country:fi/video/x5lmje_newt-gingrich-bush-should-allow-rem_news

Cazzo, it's only been radical Republicans who're hoping for another attack. In the PNAC document they were wishing for a Pearl Harbor event to justify their aggression.

 

Yes, there have been people that said since 9-11 most Americans have become passive about the terrorist threat, and that only another terrorist attack would wake them up again and realize they've been too passive about the threat. That doesn't mean they "want" a terrorist attack when they say that though.... And at least I'm willing to admit it.
Some of the radical leftists we find on these forums won't admit they'd have empathy (or "sympathy") for terrorists that commit another terrorist attack on the U.S. which doesn't surprise me.

 

So, you found no support for your assertion, and try to rationalize it as dishonesty.

And George W. Bush has been too passive? What more would you like him to do?

 

Of course I found no support (from the leftists on this forum) for my assertion; I doubted from the start of this thread any radical leftist would admit they'd sympathize another terrorist attack on the U.S. But it's pretty predictable since many radical leftists are apologists for terrorists.

How's GWB been too passive ? He's been fighting tooth and nail to keep laws for detecting and observing terrorist communications. But that's a different topic too.

 

George Bush is the one in charge since his War on Terror started, so you can't blame anyone but him for not doing enough.

The leftists (whatever that means) on this forum are not, for the most part, radicals. If anything we are populists. Standing up for the law and the constitution isn't radical.

 

I don't think any leftist American would appreciate another terrorist attack. There are definitely people outside the country that would love it, though - not necessarily leftists only, but also international enemies (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, possibly China)

 

I'm not saying this is you, but there's some radical leftists on these forums that fit this bill :
-Being apologists for terrorists is radical IMO.
-Acting like a democide of tens of millions of people is "nothing" and "not important" is radical IMO.
-Being supportive of Communists like Che is radical IMO.
-Supporting activist "judges" instead of real judges that follow the Constitution is radical IMO.
etc....

 

Apparently you've never heard of Ward Churchill and his thousands of followers.

 

I agree, except for the "activist" judges part, that's just what conservatives call a decision they don't like.