PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on April 16, 2017, 08:11:08 PM
-
I am appalled at the lack of response from the so called moderate left when it comes to violence committed against republicans and particularly Trump supporters. One would/should correctly conclude that democrats simply embrace this wave of violence because they agree with it, otherwise, why aren't liberals what proclaim that they support peace so silent?
Hypocrisy seems o be the drug of choice for the democrats these days and the outlandish idiocy their brethren are proclaiming make me wonder if far more than half of all democrats are truly mentally disturbed.
-
Strawman argument.
-
I am appalled at the lack of response from the so called moderate left when it comes to violence committed against republicans and particularly Trump supporters. One would/should correctly conclude that democrats simply embrace this wave of violence because they agree with it, otherwise, why aren't liberals what proclaim that they support peace so silent?
Hypocrisy seems o be the drug of choice for the democrats these days and the outlandish idiocy their brethren are proclaiming make me wonder if far more than half of all democrats are truly mentally disturbed.
They embrace it because that's all they have. If they had actual policies and/or ideas that made sense or were in the mainstream, they wouldn't have to resort to violence. The democrat party has been hijacked by the Alt Left Progressives and has left it in total disarray.
The moderates in the democrat party quietly vote republican or independent. I believe they are hoping for a turn around but are growing more disillusioned with the DNC as a whole.
-
In Berkeley the police were ordered to stand down and let the lunatic left commit their acts of violence and then they ran off to mommy's basement leaving their garbage all over downtown.
In North Dakota the democrat protesters left tons of trash behind and traipsed back home without a thought about the environment they pretended to be so concerned about.
In every case where democrats protest, it seems they either burn people's cars, businesses, violently assault white citizens for simply existing and refusing to bow to their agenda, and/or trash everything in sight because they are supposed to be so concerned.
Where is integrity, honesty, law abiding and decency? The left seems to think they are above such inconvenient things and the democrats are either too stupid to see where their party is headed, or they agree with violence, arson, racism, hate and senseless destruction.
Are you democrats so unstable that losing to Donald Trump was all it took to make you all completely unhinged?
-
In Berkeley the police were ordered to stand down and let the lunatic left commit their acts of violence and then they ran off to mommy's basement leaving their garbage all over downtown.
In North Dakota the democrat protesters left tons of trash behind and traipsed back home without a thought about the environment they pretended to be so concerned about.
In every case where democrats protest, it seems they either burn people's cars, businesses, violently assault white citizens for simply existing and refusing to bow to their agenda, and/or trash everything in sight because they are supposed to be so concerned.
Where is integrity, honesty, law abiding and decency? The left seems to think they are above such inconvenient things and the democrats are either too stupid to see where their party is headed, or they agree with violence, arson, racism, hate and senseless destruction.
Are you democrats so unstable that losing to Donald Trump was all it took to make you all completely unhinged?
But...but....Russia!
-
To answer the question in your title, it is not ok and enough is enough. Time for us to continually practice our 2nd amendment rights by concealed carry.
-
The double standard, and media bias is shameful, and needs to be continually shown as so. It is un-American, and another example of the idiocy of the left, and the useful idiots they control.
-
To answer the question in your title, it is not ok and enough is enough. Time for us to continually practice our 2nd amendment rights by concealed carry.
What, in Kommifornia?
-
It isn't ok.
-
What, in Kommifornia?
I would be fine with that state seceding.
-
It isn't ok.
I don't really talk politics with liberals much any more. They are just too irrational. But the few I have spoken with don't see the "progressives" as being at fault in these clashes. They see "Trumpsters" getting what they deserve.
So why do you say "it isn't ok"?
-
I don't really talk politics with liberals much any more. They are just too irrational. But the few I have spoken with don't see the "progressives" as being at fault in these clashes. They see "Trumpsters" getting what they deserve.
So why do you say "it isn't ok"?
Even assuming their belief that those being attack "deserve it", they are still wrong. It is never ok for one group of people to dehumanize another and harm them. I happen to believe they are the aggressors, so that just makes them wrong for a different reason.
-
Even assuming their belief that those being attack "deserve it", they are still wrong. It is never ok for one group of people to dehumanize another and harm them. I happen to believe they are the aggressors, so that just makes them wrong for a different reason.
I do agree with you that it is NOT OK.
But the thread title asked "Why is it OK WITH LIBERALS . . ."
And in my experience, it IS OK with liberals.
-
I don't really talk politics with liberals much any more. They are just too irrational. But the few I have spoken with don't see the "progressives" as being at fault in these clashes. They see "Trumpsters" getting what they deserve.
Just like with the Tea Party which was a very peaceful, and well behaved protest, it is the progressive agitators that stir up trouble, and violence, then the media promotes it (lies) as the Tea Party, or "Trumpsters" being the violent ones.
-
The entire charade of the tolerant liberal comes undone when you see this kind of violence, arson and rioting but the press is so concerned with political correctness that they twist themselves into pretzels to avoid telling the truth.
It isn't any different than how the press treats the islamic radicals. They wouldn't call out those fucking psychos even when one of them shot and killed 49 homosexuals just because they exist. The obsession with the agenda trumps all relevance and intelligence with liberals.
Murdering homosexuals targeted just because they exist would be the greatest crime in history EXCEPT when perpetrated by muslims. Think about that. The obsession with their agenda is greater than their obsession with homosexual rights.
-
The entire charade of the tolerant liberal comes undone when you see this kind of violence, arson and rioting but the press is so concerned with political correctness that they twist themselves into pretzels to avoid telling the truth.
It isn't any different than how the press treats the islamic radicals. They wouldn't call out those fucking psychos even when one of them shot and killed 49 homosexuals just because they exist. The obsession with the agenda trumps all relevance and intelligence with liberals.
Murdering homosexuals targeted just because they exist would be the greatest crime in history EXCEPT when perpetrated by muslims. Think about that. The obsession with their agenda is greater than their obsession with homosexual rights.
The lefties get their panties in a because Trump said "pussy" but the have no issue with women being treated like cattle.
Psychotic.
-
The lefties get their panties in a because Trump said "pussy" but the have no issue with women being treated like cattle.
Psychotic.
It's because Trump is evil, so anything is permitted to destroy him. Muslims are good, so anything is permissible to save them.
It really is that simple to them.
-
It's because Trump is evil, so anything is permitted to destroy him. Muslims are good, so anything is permissible to save them.
It really is that simple to them.
I don't understand the media/progressive support, and promotion of Muslim ideals, and Sharia law that go counter with their views on gays, women, and other issues that are embraced by Islam yet are polarly opposite of the Progressive agenda/mantra.
-
If you need more evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder, you might check out MSNBC. Of course MSNBC is the home of ranting, foaming at the mouth, idiocy pretending to be news, but some nights it's even worse.
http://pamelageller.com/2017/04/msnbc-contributor-calls-isis-bombing-trump-property.html/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
-
I don't understand the media/progressive support, and promotion of Muslim ideals, and Sharia law that go counter with their views on gays, women, and other issues that are embraced by Islam yet are polarly opposite of the Progressive agenda/mantra.
I'll take a stab at this. Yes, Muslim ideals are polarly opposite of Progressive values. Much of the criticism from the right comes from why the left won't say: "Islamic Terrorists".
And that's because... we're not idiots.
The situation in the middle east is fraught with nuance. ISIS is damn near a legitimate Caliphate. Scarily so. Baghdadi is a true descendant of Mohammad & Khadija. If Mecca and Medina condoned Baghdadi as the Caliph, it would make it one - MUCH more so than the Ottoman empire ever was.
At that point, if you fight a war with the Caliphate you're fighting a war with every Sunni in the world - all 1.3 billion of them, which would be obligated to join the Caliphate. There's not even a debate about that. The only debate is whether the Caliphate is legit or not, which thankfully most Sunni's think it's not at this point. These are the only allies that we have, such as it is.
But each time you insult 1.3 billion Muslims, you're legitimizing the Caliphate more and more.
It took very smart people with great nuance to keep the cold war cold - not a bunch of cowboys. You need to really study this stuff and know what you're doing. At this point I don't even know if Trump can tell a Sunni from a Shia, and we don't really have checks and balances in place in Congress either. My only solace is that I don't think the Joint Chiefs would allow him to do something insanely stupid, but geez, that shouldn't be up to them.
If ever you want to read a book that will put a chill in your spine - read "The Way of the Strangers - Encounters with the Islamic State" by Graeme Wood. I assure you this is not a "liberal" read.
-
But each time you insult 1.3 billion Muslims, you're legitimizing the Caliphate more and more.
So I read this sentence and I think to myself this guy truly believes that all Muslims are terrorists. When I use the term "islamist terrorist" I think only of the jackasses who are killing, maiming destroying non-Muslims and Muslims who don't agree with them. I have a Muslim friend whom I asked what is going on over there. He told me these guys, the "Islamic terrorists" are nuts, there is no other explanation for it. He is just is concerned about them as any non-Muslim, non-progressive is.
The rhetoric and the goal of these guys hasn't changed in 1,000 years. They seek to conquer the world, total subservience or the destruction of non-believers and the implementation of their medieval domination over them.
It is the same insanity that spawned the Crusades 1400 years ago to drive them back to the middle east. Let's hope the accommodation and appeasement of the left over the past 10 years doesn't allow them, the "Islamic Terrorists" to achieve their goal this time around.
That anyone can ignore the sheer brutality of these animals and speak of it as though this abominable behavior by them should be accepted as some type of birthright they deserve to have is sickening.
-
I'll take a stab at this. Yes, Muslim ideals are polarly opposite of Progressive values. Much of the criticism from the right comes from why the left won't say: "Islamic Terrorists".
And that's because... we're not idiots.
The situation in the middle east is fraught with nuance. ISIS is damn near a legitimate Caliphate. Scarily so. Baghdadi is a true descendant of Mohammad & Khadija. If Mecca and Medina condoned Baghdadi as the Caliph, it would make it one - MUCH more so than the Ottoman empire ever was.
At that point, if you fight a war with the Caliphate you're fighting a war with every Sunni in the world - all 1.3 billion of them, which would be obligated to join the Caliphate. There's not even a debate about that. The only debate is whether the Caliphate is legit or not, which thankfully most Sunni's think it's not at this point. These are the only allies that we have, such as it is.
But each time you insult 1.3 billion Muslims, you're legitimizing the Caliphate more and more.
It took very smart people with great nuance to keep the cold war cold - not a bunch of cowboys. You need to really study this stuff and know what you're doing. At this point I don't even know if Trump can tell a Sunni from a Shia, and we don't really have checks and balances in place in Congress either. My only solace is that I don't think the Joint Chiefs would allow him to do something insanely stupid, but geez, that shouldn't be up to them.
If ever you want to read a book that will put a chill in your spine - read "The Way of the Strangers - Encounters with the Islamic State" by Graeme Wood. I assure you this is not a "liberal" read.
That doesn't address my question at all. I am not on board with randomly killing Muslims of any faction, and I understand there are tribal issues that come into play that make borders (created by Europeans) meaningless. My point is the liberal/progressive left (media, democrats, education, etc) not only give Muslims a pass for abusing, murdering, and criticizing women, gays, and anyone else they don't like, yet the progressives will not speak out against them for doing that. WHY?
-
That doesn't address my question at all. I am not on board with randomly killing Muslims of any faction, and I understand their are tribal issues that come into play that make borders (created by Europeans) meaningless. My point is the liberal/progressive left (media, democrats, education, etc) not only give Muslims a pass for abusing, murdering, and criticizing women, gays, and anyone else they don't like, yet the progressives will not speak out against them for doing that. WHY?
In the progressive world, feminist trumps traditional.
Black trumps traditional.
Black trumps white, and feminist.
Homosexual trumps black.
Muslim trumps homosexual, black and feminist.
So, progressive s NEVER criticize muslim atrocities against women and gays because their political masters told them not to.
-
So, progressive s NEVER criticize muslim atrocities against women and gays because their political masters told them not to.
Or as Nudnik pointed out, it is because we are afraid of them. If we piss them off, they will join the Caliphate. So we should bow and scrape to them in the hopes they will like us.
-
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/04/17/mullah-marx-hitler-socialists-communists-and-islam/
-
So I read this sentence and I think to myself this guy truly believes that all Muslims are terrorists.
Not yet...
I have a Muslim friend whom I asked what is going on over there. He told me these guys, the "Islamic terrorists" are nuts, there is no other explanation for it.
So you have a friend who is a Muslim who doesn't believe in the Quran and the Hadith. Good for you. Unfortunately most Muslims do.
-
So you have a friend who is a Muslim who doesn't believe in the Quran and the Hadith. Good for you. Unfortunately most Muslims do.
Islam is like any other religion, you have people that rarely participate, those who participate socially, those who actively study their scriptures, those that live and breath everything about their religion, and then you have the nut case radicals that use the religion to justify their hatred.
I've lived and worked in heavily Muslim regions of the world. I have Muslim friends who disavow the crap that the radicals are doing in the name of their religion.
-
My point is the liberal/progressive left (media, democrats, education, etc) not only give Muslims a pass for abusing, murdering, and criticizing women, gays, and anyone else they don't like, yet the progressives will not speak out against them for doing that. WHY?
There are plenty of liberals who speak out against stuff like FGM, including Hillary Clinton. Name one example of anybody of influence who condone that behavior?
It's the ultimate strawman argument since you don't need any facts to back up "not speak out".
This is like me saying: "Conservatives gives nutjobs with guns a pass for school shootings, since they don't speak out against them for doing that" or "Conservatives won't speak out against people who eat dogs". Hey it works for everything: "Conservatives give liberals a free pass for raping their daughters since they won't speak out against it".
-
There are plenty of liberals who speak out against stuff like FGM, including Hillary Clinton. Name one example of anybody of influence who condone that behavior?
It's the ultimate strawman argument since you don't need any facts to back up "not speak out".
This is like me saying: "Conservatives gives nutjobs with guns a pass for school shootings, since they don't speak out against them for doing that" or "Conservatives won't speak out against people who eat dogs". Hey it works for everything: "Conservatives give liberals a free pass for raping their daughters since they won't speak out against it".
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
-
Islam is like any other religion, you have people that rarely participate, those who participate socially, those who actively study their scriptures, those that live and breath everything about their religion, and then you have the nut case radicals that use the religion to justify their hatred.
I've lived and worked in heavily Muslim regions of the world. I have Muslim friends who disavow the crap that the radicals are doing in the name of their religion.
No, it's not. I'll give an analogy. Christians for the most part believe in the returning of Christ before the world ends, right?
There are some tiny sects that believe they can predict exactly when that will happen, and those are the nutjobs, but for the most part they're harmless and go away again. But as a whole, Christians believe that Christ will return one day, would you agree?
For that to happen there's some prophecies to be fulfilled, and again, mostly harmless, with the exception that, for Christ to ever return, there must exist a Jewish state in Israel. And that's a big one - Christians will support, with force if need be, a Jewish state in Israel. It's not exactly harmless, but it's not Isis level.
Muslims believe there will be a Caliphate one day before the world will end, with as strong a conviction as Christians feel about the return of Christ. I don't think there is really any significant difference of opinion on that, the only opinion difference is whether Baghdadi is the true Caliph and whether Isis is legit. The problems is that they are as legit as anything in the last 1000 years. Muslims who say Isis is not Islamic are outright ignoring their teachings.
-
There are plenty of liberals who speak out against stuff like FGM, including Hillary Clinton. Name one example of anybody of influence who condone that behavior?
It's the ultimate strawman argument since you don't need any facts to back up "not speak out".
This is like me saying: "Conservatives gives nutjobs with guns a pass for school shootings, since they don't speak out against them for doing that" or "Conservatives won't speak out against people who eat dogs". Hey it works for everything: "Conservatives give liberals a free pass for raping their daughters since they won't speak out against it".
What are you talking about? When do liberal/progressives castigate Muslims for abusing women, and gays? Murder, physical abuse, maiming, public shaming, etc. When do they admit that there is such a thing as Islamic terrorism, especially when it happens here?
-
Or as Nudnik pointed out, it is because we are afraid of them. If we piss them off, they will join the Caliphate. So we should bow and scrape to them in the hopes they will like us.
Not exactly afraid. Were we afraid of Russia in the cold war? I don't believe we were, but we still had to treat them with kid gloves.
-
Not exactly afraid. Were we afraid of Russia in the cold war? I don't believe we were, but we still had to treat them with kid gloves.
Were we afraid of the Soviet Union (Russia) during the Cold War? When people start building bomb shelters for fear of a nuclear attack, I would say a resounding YES!!!
-
Were we afraid of the Soviet Union (Russia) during the Cold War? When people start building bomb shelters for fear of a nuclear attack, I would say a resounding YES!!!
touché
-
No, it's not. I'll give an analogy. Christians for the most part believe in the returning of Christ before the world ends, right?
There are some tiny sects that believe they can predict exactly when that will happen, and those are the nutjobs, but for the most part they're harmless and go away again. But as a whole, Christians believe that Christ will return one day, would you agree?
For that to happen there's some prophecies to be fulfilled, and again, mostly harmless, with the exception that, for Christ to ever return, there must exist a Jewish state in Israel. And that's a big one - Christians will support, with force if need be, a Jewish state in Israel. It's not exactly harmless, but it's not Isis level.
Muslims believe there will be a Caliphate one day before the world will end, with as strong a conviction as Christians feel about the return of Christ. I don't think there is really any significant difference of opinion on that, the only opinion difference is whether Baghdadi is the true Caliph and whether Isis is legit. The problems is that they are as legit as anything in the last 1000 years. Muslims who say Isis is not Islamic are outright ignoring their teachings.
Again, you don't have a clue.
-
Not exactly afraid. Were we afraid of Russia in the cold war? I don't believe we were, but we still had to treat them with kid gloves.
It wasn't Russia back then, it was the Union of Soviets Socialist Republic. (Loser socialist/communist regimes screwing everything up as they always do). And yes, people were afraid during the cold war. And the progressive nutjobs went bonkers when Reagan announced peace through strength, deployed the "peacekeeper" missile and announced the SDI initiative, it was a beautiful thing. Ted Kennedy had one of his many treasonous bizarre moments when he asked the Soviets to "unseat" Reagan for fear he would start WW3. Of course, turns out Reagan skillfully handled the Soviets leading to the commies ceding control and the end of the cold war.
It's reminiscent of what Trump is doing now.
-
And yes, people were afraid during the cold war.
Ok, ok, I concede the afraid point.
Of course, turns out Reagan skillfully handled the Soviets leading to the commies ceding control and the end of the cold war.
This is what I want to happen. Someone who understands the nuances of the situation in the middle east and "skillfully handle" it. We need a Reagan.
It's reminiscent of what Trump is doing now.
And this is not what I think is happening. I have seen no evidence of skill. Just bluster. Were'd we park that carrier group again?
-
Were'd we park that carrier group again?
Bullshit. That carrier group is not "parked".
-
And this is not what I think is happening. I have seen no evidence of skill. Just bluster. Were'd we park that carrier group again?
And that is exactly what the progressive intellectuals of the time said about Reagan. They thought he was the dumbest ass on the planet. I find it interesting you feel the same way now about Trump as they felt about Reagan.
-
And that is exactly what the progressive intellectuals of the time said about Reagan. They thought he was the dumbest ass on the planet. I find it interesting you feel the same way now about Trump as they felt about Reagan.
He doesn't remember Reagan, or the Reagan presidency. I can guarantee you it was before his time.
-
What are you talking about? When do liberal/progressives castigate Muslims for abusing women, and gays? Murder, physical abuse, maiming, public shaming, etc. When do they admit that there is such a thing as Islamic terrorism, especially when it happens here?
Eat your heart out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpdGK3F4pC0
And Clinton on it:
http://www.voanews.com/a/clinton-cultural-tradition-is-no-excuse-for-female-genital-mutilation--139478343/159614.html
Now I think you're going to immediately object that Clinton said "Cultural" and not "Islamic". And that's where the kid gloves come in.
I am vehemently anti-Islam in every way shape or form. I've lived many years in an Islamic community. Hate everything it stands for with every fiber of my being. I've shown my childhood friend of 20 years the door the day he converted to Islam. But I fully understand why someone of power can't say: "Islamic Terrorism".
Imagine the USSR came out and said: "Our war isn't with capitalism, it's with Christians". We would be living in a very different world today.
-
Imagine the USSR came out and said: "Our war isn't with capitalism, it's with Christians". We would be living in a very different world today.
Sometimes you have a good argument. Sometimes, NOT.
Who ever said we had a war with "ISLAM"? We have a war with Islamic terrorists.
Can you not see the difference?
-
I'm pretty sure that communism of the Soviet era was at war with Christians, along with just about everyone else who wouldn't succumb to their murderous tyranny, as are communists of today.
-
I'm pretty sure that communism of the Soviet era was at war with Christians
Could be, but they didn't come out and say that.
-
Sometimes you have a good argument. Sometimes, NOT.
Who ever said we had a war with "ISLAM"? We have a war with Islamic terrorists.
Can you not see the difference?
Pretty sure we have a problem with all terrorist... Or are there some terrorists that we are supposed to like now?
To add "Islamic" in front of it serves only to goad them and to strengthen them. Ok - what good do you think comes of doing that?
-
Pretty sure we have a problem with all terrorist... Or are there some terrorists that we are supposed to like now?
To add "Islamic" in front of it serves only to goad them and to strengthen them. Ok - what good do you think comes of doing that?
Yeah, stop saying "Islamic terrorists" and they will stop sawing people's heads off and blowing people up, just like when Obama was president...... oh, wait a minute..
-
Yeah, stop saying "Islamic terrorists" and they will stop sawing people's heads off and blowing people up, just like when Obama was president...... oh, wait a minute..
Ok, same question directed at you - what is the virtue of calling it "Islamic terrorism"? What do you gain by that?
-
Pretty sure we have a problem with all terrorist... Or are there some terrorists that we are supposed to like now?
To add "Islamic" in front of it serves only to goad them and to strengthen them. Ok - what good do you think comes of doing that?
Why don't you find one of your pretty graphs that show that there are as many Swedish terrorists as there are Islamic terrorists? (I know, I am mixing nationality with religion, but in the M.E. it gets hard to tell the difference).
-
Ok, same question directed at you - what is the virtue of calling it "Islamic terrorism"? What do you gain by that?
If an avowed Christian killed 20 people tomorrow, what do you think the headline would be on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC?
-
Ok, same question directed at you - what is the virtue of calling it "Islamic terrorism"? What do you gain by that?
So I'm a lowly engineer, certainly not well versed in political matters, can barely hold my own in life matters and try to hold my own in a debate. But as a lowly engineer, I've learned that certain methods used in engineering can and do apply broadly across fields and even in life. One of the most basic things I've learned is that in order to solve a problem you must first define the problem, then work to understand the problem. In this process usually the solution to the problem reveals itself.
Now just as in life, people sometimes for whatever reason want to obscure an engineering problem. Who knows why, maybe they don't want to be wrong, maybe they are invested in a belief that deep down they know is wrong be refuse to acknowledge it, maybe they are just dumb. But whatever the reason, if the problem doesn't get defined, or a factor in the problem is obscured or ignored, the problem doesn't get solved, it just festers.
So what does this mean in reference to your question to me? It's quite simple. We have people, who have attacked us on our soil and on foreign soils. They have hit our allies and killed at least 10's if not 100's of thousands in the past decade. They cut people's heads off, they enslave and prostitute thousands of women, young girls and boys. And they do this in the name of Islam. They are Islamic Terrorists. All the politically correct intellectually corrupt rhetoric that progressive use to hide that fact just detract attention from the problem and delay any solution. The price paid for this nonsense is the continual loss of life, usually of the most vulnerable because these Islamic Terrorist cowards love to kill the defenseless, but hate fighting those that can fight back.
-
Why don't you find one of your pretty graphs that show that there are as many Swedish terrorists as there are Islamic terrorists? (I know, I am mixing nationality with religion, but in the M.E. it gets hard to tell the difference).
Sure, but with that argument why not say: "Anti-gay terrorists" or "Chauvinistic terrorists" or "White-ish male terrorists"?
When you do that you're implicitly associating the prefix with the group. And that's exactly why people want others to do that in the first place - they want to make a class out of it. And even though I agree with the class, the problem in this case is, that ISIS ALSO wants us to do that.
-
Sure, but with that argument why not say: "Anti-gay terrorists" or "Chauvinistic terrorists" or "White-ish male terrorists"?
When you do that you're implicitly associating the prefix with the group. And that's exactly why people want others to do that in the first place - they want to make a class out of it. And even though I agree with the class, the problem in this case is, that ISIS ALSO wants us to do that.
Argh, more BS premises. What about rainbow terrorists, or unicorn fart terrorists, what about those...
-
But whatever the reason, if the problem doesn't get defined, or a factor in the problem is obscured or ignored, the problem doesn't get solved, it just festers.
I totally agree the problem needs to be defined, and very very carefully defined, but throwing out 'Islamic Terorrist' doesn't define it.
We have people, who have attacked us on our soil and on foreign soils. They have hit our allies and killed at least 10's if not 100's of thousands in the past decade. They cut people's heads off, they enslave and prostitute thousands of women, young girls and boys. And they do this in the name of Islam. They are Islamic Terrorists. All the politically correct intellectually corrupt rhetoric that progressive use to hide that fact just detract attention from the problem and delay any solution. The price paid for this nonsense is the continual loss of life, usually of the most vulnerable because these Islamic Terrorist cowards love to kill the defenseless, but hate fighting those that can fight back.
I was personally affected by 9/11. I don't even call them Islamic Terrorists, I just call them Muslims. And to say Isis is acting in the name of Islam is ignoring the facts. They ARE Islam. These aren't your 9/11 hijackers that say they're Muslim but then the night before go drinking and go to a strip club. Isis follow the Quran and the Hadith to the letter and they're able to convince many people to follow them as a result.
Every Muslim believes (well, every Sunni at least) that what Isis is doing IS eventually going to happen - just not now. But every wrong move we make legitimizes them more - it convinces more people that it IS now. Heck, if we just accidentally attack them from the wrong side, we can be seen as the Roman empire, and that will convince millions more that Isis has a legitimate Caliphate.
I'm not prepared at this point to go to war with a billion Muslims.
-
I totally agree the problem needs to be defined, and very very carefully defined, but throwing out 'Islamic Terorrist' doesn't define it.
I was personally affected by 9/11. I don't even call them Islamic Terrorists, I just call them Muslims. And to say Isis is acting in the name of Islam is ignoring the facts. They ARE Islam. These aren't your 9/11 hijackers that say they're Muslim but then the night before go drinking and go to a strip club. Isis follow the Quran and the Hadith to the letter and they're able to convince many people to follow them as a result.
Every Muslim believes (well, every Sunni at least) that what Isis is doing IS eventually going to happen - just not now. But every wrong move we make legitimizes them more - it convinces more people that it IS now. Heck, if we just accidentally attack them from the wrong side, we can be seen as the Roman empire, and that will convince millions more that Isis has a legitimate Caliphate.
I'm not prepared at this point to go to war with a billion Muslims.
So you prefer "Muslim terrorists" rather than Islamic terrorists? "Every wrong move we make....", please explain what a "wrong move" is?
-
I'm not prepared at this point to go to war with a billion Muslims.
I am. Better now than when there are 4 billion Muslims.
-
I'm not prepared at this point to go to war with a billion Muslims.
I don't subscribe to the theory, as you do, that all Muslims are latent terrorists. Although if we stand by and let groups like the Taliban, Al Queda, ISIS, Boko Haram and others subdue them and force them to fight, then all bets are off.
-
I see the key to reducing Muslim terrorism being the moderate Muslims policing their own ranks. If the moderate Muslims took a very hard stand against those committing acts of violence, then it would be drastically reduced. Right now, I see them either just ignoring it, or actually supporting it in a non-transparent way. I don't know what it will take to get moderate Muslims off their collective asses to punish the radical terrorists.
-
I see the key to reducing Muslim terrorism being the moderate Muslims policing their own ranks. If the moderate Muslims took a very hard stand against those committing acts of violence, then it would be drastically reduced. Right now, I see them either just ignoring it, or actually supporting it in a non-transparent way. I don't know what it will take to get moderate Muslims off their collective asses to punish the radical terrorists.
Ideally yes. This plus everyone on the globe just getting brutal with them. You have to squash them like cockroaches. Until the moderate Muslim gets on board with this, the Islamic terrorist threat will only grow.
It's also a cultural thing, a "we" vs "them" thing. If on the whole your culture has more in common with the terrorists, then you will side with them, even if you on theory disagree with their methods of targeting innocent civilians. Those who grew up in Muslim cultures that I have spoken with, the key is that they are exposed to Western culture and ideas, and begin to identify more with Western culture and values. That is when they become actively against the terrorists. The radical fundamentalists seem to be rooted in outdated stone age, nomadic, tribal ideas, such as covering up their women, chopping off hands and heads, etc.
-
So you prefer "Muslim terrorists" rather than Islamic terrorists? "Every wrong move we make....", please explain what a "wrong move" is?
It's different when we speak among each other than when we make a public statement to the world. To me you can call them whatever you want. Neither of us have any influence over anybody. It's very different when a President says that.
An example would be if we were to initiate a land battle in Dabiq (Aleppo) lead by western forces. It would completely play into their Mohammad's prophecies. Aleppo needs to be sacked & kept by other Islamic forces - not by the west. Russia MIGHT be ok - I actually don't know. But definitely not the West, since we're seen as Rome, and this is where Mohammed said the great battle between Rome and Islam would take place. This is why ISIS went nuts when the first got it - they wanted a battle with the west in Dabiq.
I know this is crazy, but it's crazy stuff believed by a billion people.
-
I wonder how much better off the planet would be with fewer people? Say, a billion fewer. And I know just the billion. But I have no idea how to accomplish that.
-
I wonder how much better off the planet would be with fewer people? Say, a billion fewer. And I know just the billion. But I have no idea how to accomplish that.
China already prevented 400 million people from being born, and all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, are at least secretly very glad that they did.
-
China already prevented 400 million people from being born, and all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, are at least secretly very glad that they did.
Why. Limiting their population made them more efficient and productive. If they had 400 million more peasant mouths to feed, poverty would be monumental and they couldn't afford as many ships and missiles.
-
Why. Limiting their population made them more efficient and productive. If they had 400 million more peasant mouths to feed, poverty would be monumental and they couldn't afford as many ships and missiles.
It would be 400 million more people competing for resources (and polluting).
-
It would be 400 million more people competing for resources (and polluting).
Oh, I see, people, everyone but you and I of course, but people are parasites on mother earth, sucking the life out of her justifying the murder of other people to, you know, make it better. Give me a break.
Pretty much all of the hunger and strife on this earth are a direct result of tyrants, who take power by force or via "democratic socialism".
-
Leftists always justify their behavior by introducing idiotic nonsense to shore up their weak arguments.
The truth is that the PC culture has evolved to a point where the terms of public discussion have moved to where having an original thought is now triggering to liberals.
Fuck them.
Who honestly cares if snowflakes get their feelings hurt, other than people living off the taxpayers?
Allowing democrats to use violence to shut down free speech is a deeply disturbed behavior. It is even worse than then ghetto thugs and pathetic college students and parasites committing the violence.
Cities that permit this type of crime need to have all federal funds cut off and those responsible for allowing it need to be indicted for conspiring to commit those crimes.
Ever since the Rodney King riots, violence committed by either racist blacks, or lunatic liberals, against white people has become more and more acceptable.
-
It would be 400 million more people competing for resources (and polluting).
You have the same attitude as the U.S. Park Service, and many other in government power. You see, to them the parks are THEIRS, and we are the problem that just destroys them. More restrictions on the public use is always their goal yet we pay for them, and the purpose of the parks is for us to enjoy.
How about we find new, and innovative ways to effectively accommodate people on this Earth instead of killing them? Do you not believe in Human intellect, nor Human inspiration, and innovation? The problem with the Left is that they believe humans are the entire problem with Earth.
-
How about we find new, and innovative ways to effectively accommodate people on this Earth instead of killing them? Do you not believe in Human intellect, nor Human inspiration, and innovation? The problem with the Left is that they believe humans are the entire problem with Earth.
Probably the best way to curb the explosive population growth is to free up economics so all nations prosper. People tend to have fewer children the richer they get. I think it's got something to do with meaning. Very poor people don't get meaning and purpose from a career, but if you can't do anything else significant, you can always have children. I didn't come up with this, there is research to support it. They don't just do it for the welfare checks.
Maybe liberals are working from the wrong end, trying to push abortion and birth control programs for the poor. Maybe they need to support free market enterprise, loosening regulations, etc., everything that brings back small business and upward mobility.
-
Maybe they need to support free market enterprise, loosening regulations, etc., everything that brings back small business and upward mobility.
That's spelled T r u m p.
-
That's spelled T r u m p.
T - to
R - ramp
U - up
M - man's
P - prosperity
-
T - to
R - ramp
U - up
M - man's
P - prosperity
Oh, nooooooo...
You've just triggered an entire generation of snowflake, attention whores.