This is the kind of mind numbing drivel offered up by the loon left that keeps them from ever being taken seriously. Who cares about the “good intentions” of totalitarians, they happen to be the worst of the worst, the kind that think that they’re actually doing you a favor all the while they inflict unspeakable crimes against you if you stray from their world view.

So what if Stalin or Hitler were kind to their staff, or kept animals as pets and gave care packages to the poor, believing that the state alone is responsible for its subjects, (statists) they were monsters who violated every aspect of human decency and morality. The Guardian needs to be taken to the wood shed over this article, what a bunch of nonsense. KGS

NOTE: Using their logic, al-Capone and his gang who ruled Chicago by fear…..”were altruists”, for the dole they handed out to the less privileged in the areas under their control. This is the argumentation that these numbskulls use, in describing the “social networks”, for an example, of the Hamas and the Hezbollah, but it’s all about power, pure raw power, not social welfare.

That’s the mind of the left for you, where we see pure tyranny, they see the positive attributes of the “nanny state” in the fiefdoms run by Hamas and Hezbollah, and yes even the Taliban.

Taliban: We’re just here to help!

Are al-Qaida and the Taliban driven by the desire to help others?

It seems hard to countenance, but could academics be right in thinking that Islamist terrorists are driven by ‘basically altruistic’ thoughts?

Osama bin Laden was the most famous terrorist in the world; he also served as the single biggest distraction from a serious analysis of the roots of terrorism. With his murderous version of Muslim piety and references to a 7th-century caliphate, the al-Qaida head helped define Islamist extremism as ideological, apocalyptic and imperialist. That story bore as much relation to the truth as a skinny man’s reflection in a hall of mirrors – but it’s the one that US and British politicians bought. Judging by yesterday’s comments from US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and defence secretary Liam Fox, it’s the version they still believe. Not only is that account wrong; some of the best academic research suggests that following it does little to tackle terrorism.

The conventional view of Islamist terrorism is the one set out by Clinton yesterday, of a “violent ideology that holds no value for human life”: evil, inexplicable, and irreconcilable with any civilised values. Yet analysis from social scientists suggests the opposite.

However odd it may seem to use these terms of would-be jihadists and suicide bombers, some researchers describe Islamist terrorists as in the main rational, desperate figures operating in wrecked countries. Over the decades, two academics working in separate disciplines have come up with a particularly compelling, heavily researched account both of what Islamist terrorists are not, and of what drives them on.

The rest of this crap can be viewed here.