In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote: To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe.
The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people.
These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago.
Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace.
I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist.
It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames.
No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture.
says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy.
I think this is an important point that gets overlooked frequently. Some dude shouting "I BELONG TO THIS GROUP AND MY MEMBERSHIP IS WHY I'M A PSYCHOPATHIC MURDERER" right before committing a mass murder doesn't somehow mean that we have to assume that the shooter does in fact belong to that group or that he acted predominantly because of his group membership.
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
Pretty sure mass bombings of ISIS just leads to more ISIS recruits. They want a war with the west, especially the US.
On June 17 2016 09:56 SolaR- wrote: Yeah it's the same message that Obama tried to play.
How many Islamic attacks will it take for people to acknowledge that radical Islam is a problem?
President Obama (AKA The Lord of Drones and Slayer of Terrorists) has launched 12,685 strikes in the fight against ISIS. Don't mistake Cruzian spin for reality.
As of 4:59 p.m. EST June 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 12,685 strikes (8,661 Iraq / 4,024 Syria). U.S. has conducted 9,663 strikes in Iraq and Syria (5,876 Iraq / 3,787 Syria)
Which is what? half the amount of air strikes that we launched during the first days of the Iraq War?
(1) We use more precise weapons now against smaller, man-sized targets and (2) the point is that Obama understands the dangers of Islamic Radicalism and Jihadism quite well, but he wants to keep Saudi Arabia as part of our pseudo coalition, much like all Presidents since FDR, so he consciously avoids language that might antagonize our critical Muslim-Arab allies.
10 million people live under Isis control. Yeah he's been doing a pretty good job
if you want to spend the one trillion dollars it would take to half-fix the problem, and still not have it fixed, then by all means. I have better uses for that trillion dollars.
this iranian deal more than anything betrayed the administration's designs on isis and the region. basically, secure israel, no nukes for anyone, and let them fight it out.
should approach it as a development problem. secure some exemplary development model showcase zones like jordan, and all the while just take the collapse of the land outside of the walls of civilization as a given for a while. the amount of blood and treasure needed to permanently secure the area is way too much.
On June 17 2016 10:53 oneofthem wrote: this iranian deal more than anything betrayed the administration's designs on isis and the region. basically, secure israel, no nukes for anyone, and let them fight it out.
should approach it as a development problem. secure some exemplary development model showcase zones like jordan, and all the while just take the collapse of the land outside of the walls of civilization as a given for a while. the amount of blood and treasure needed to permanently secure the area is way too much.
This may come as a surprise to a lot of idiots, but this isn't too far off of where I stand on what US policy in the Middle East should be. Where I differ is on the Iranian deal, Syria, and ISIS. The Iranian deal isn't looking so hot, and the Administation's policies on Syria and ISIS have clearly been inept at best.
One thing that I've privately noted is that I havn't heard a single note from the NRA. Even after Sandy Hook they made a statement about what they think should be done instead of regulating guns more. I think this plus the democrats keeping on message about the ar-15 platform might see actual legislation done this time. Hopefully they don't push too hard on the "no fly no buy" business that won't go anywhere.
What no one wants to talk about with the "no fly no buy" list is that there are a lot of rural white people on that list. They don't know it because they don't fly, but they sure as hell buy guns. That's what the "who's on the list" fight is really about. Though Republicans are going bold by playing the ACLU angle about the shortcomings of the list.
In conjunction with taking away the gun show loophole there will be no way to keep the (often) white militia type folks from being aware they are under investigation/starting something over their 2nd amendment rights. So Republicans have to only give up one and Dems know they have leverage on both, so long as they ignore the civil liberties angle (since this liberty happens to be gun related).
Despite the fear mongering, Republicans know Hillary is more pro gun than Obama anyway, so long as it doesn't show up hurting them at home you can expect them to push this to die in a summit after passing something inconsequential they can point at as acting immediately.
In the long run, Democrats can't afford to win on this anyway. I expect something called "universal background checks" but there will be plenty of loopholes still. They'll probably add "Are you a terrorist or do you plan on committing any terrorist acts" to the background questions as well.
You laugh, but they ask if you're on drugs or a wanted criminal and people say yes to those questions and get denied frequently enough that it's worth adding.
On June 16 2016 09:39 Introvert wrote: When was Gary Johnson added to the thread title photo? Though I feel the chopped look suits him, because in the end he really won't end up with that many votes. Unless Trump continues off the rails.
So then again I'm not so confident. I just don't know who he appeals to. Even with two really unpopular candidates, people vote strategically. Plus they aren't serious as a party. I just don't see it...
But in all seriousness, he is a real candidate in a solid party and the debates they had are amazing. It's really worth the time to watch. I thought all three candidates did great answering questions.
On June 16 2016 09:39 Introvert wrote: When was Gary Johnson added to the thread title photo? Though I feel the chopped look suits him, because in the end he really won't end up with that many votes. Unless Trump continues off the rails.
So then again I'm not so confident. I just don't know who he appeals to. Even with two really unpopular candidates, people vote strategically. Plus they aren't serious as a party. I just don't see it...
But in all seriousness, he is a real candidate in a solid party and the debates they had are amazing. It's really worth the time to watch. I thought all three candidates did great answering questions.
On June 16 2016 09:39 Introvert wrote: When was Gary Johnson added to the thread title photo? Though I feel the chopped look suits him, because in the end he really won't end up with that many votes. Unless Trump continues off the rails.
So then again I'm not so confident. I just don't know who he appeals to. Even with two really unpopular candidates, people vote strategically. Plus they aren't serious as a party. I just don't see it...
But in all seriousness, he is a real candidate in a solid party and the debates they had are amazing. It's really worth the time to watch. I thought all three candidates did great answering questions.
.......A solid party? The one talking about driver's licenses?
Watch the debate. They answer major questions very clearly. If your best argument is the driver license issue then all you're doing is letting mainstream media tell you how to think instead of doing it yourself. How about you take a major political topic, identify Gary Johnson's view on it, and explain why another parties perspective/position would be better then his. And then I and others can reply back. That's how real discussions are conducted.
Support for stricter gun laws is up sharply after America’s most deadly mass shooting to date, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds.
Americans are more concerned about gun violence and more optimistic that such shootings can be stopped than they were in a poll taken just days before the attacks.
A 55 percent majority of respondents now say they support stricter guns laws, up 7 points since earlier this month. The share of Americans who believe that gun violence is a very serious problem rose by a similar margin, while the percentage who think that passing gun control is possible and that shootings are preventable saw smaller upticks.
Specific gun control policies are even more popular. Eighty-six percent of Americans polled support closing the so-called terror gap by passing a law preventing individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. Sixty-two percent back a ban on the sale of assault rifles.
Most Americans are classifying the shooting as both an act of terrorism and a hate crime — 65 percent of respondents following news about the Orlando shooting say they have done so, as has the FBI. Thirteen percent say the attack was a hate crime but not an act of terrorism, 6 percent that it was terrorism but not a hate crime, and the rest are unsure.
On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote: To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe.
The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people.
These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago.
Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace.
I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist.
It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames.
No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture.
says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy.
According to Wikipedia, he said his religion was "Odinism," he wrote his own manifesto, and the templar stuff was a schizophrenic fabrication? In other words, he said he was loyal to an organization that doesn't exist and therefore has no history of spreading propaganda or controlling territory or calling for terrorist attacks, may as well have said he was an Illuminati. The difference is between Charles Manson crazying up some "Helter Skelter" nonsense and Dylann Roof actually being seduced by neo-Nazism.
On June 17 2016 09:11 SolaR- wrote: To be honest I don't see why it matters if it was a direct attack from ISIS or not. It is still ISIS's influence, it is still radical Islamic terrorism, and it is clear the guy was heavily inspired by ISIS. So, what is the point? I actually think it's much worse of a situation, that an American citizen became a home grown Islamic terrorist, influenced by a radical group from the other side of the globe.
The guy claimed allegiance with three terrorist groups who all at the same time are at war with each other. Isis is a brand for those guys. It makes about as much sense as blaming Ford when someone drives a Fiesta into a crowd of people.
These terrorists are basically like pirates, they aren't Osama Bin Laden. The lawyer of the French cell leader described the guy as "as stupid as an empty ashtray who hadn't even read the Quran". You're not dealing with the same terrorists we had 20 years ago.
Again, why does it matter? It doesn't matter that his ideas were disjointed and that he supported multiple groups. What does matter is that Radical Islam is influencing more and more Islamic youth at a drastic pace.
I think this form of terrorism is much worse and much more alarming. At least 20 years there was some semblance of who the enemy was. Now anyone can be an Islamic terrorist.
It matters because it means that his primary motivation likely lay elsewhere. If he wouldn't have taken Islam as a motivation he could have put on a black trenchcoat and we'd be back to discussing videogames.
No it doesn't. It is clear that is motivation stemmed from radical Islamic beliefs. His motivation stemmed from radical Islam in general. He didn't care about the inside political war between the different extremists groups in the middle east. He related to their ideals, and their hatred of western culture.
says who exactly? Claiming allegiance isn't sufficient. Breivik claimed to be influenced by Christians and thought he was some kind of templar. This doesn't mean that we're going to hold any church responsible for his lunacy.
According to Wikipedia, he said his religion was "Odinism," he wrote his own manifesto, and the templar stuff was a schizophrenic fabrication? In other words, he said he was loyal to an organization that doesn't exist and therefore has no history of spreading propaganda or controlling territory or calling for terrorist attacks, may as well have said he was an Illuminati. The difference is between Charles Manson crazying up some "Helter Skelter" nonsense and Dylann Roof actually being seduced by neo-Nazism.
Breivik originally identified as a christian conservative anti-jihadist and anti-culturalmarxist. The odinism is a more recent thing, and marks his recent attempts at tying himself towards classical nationalism and neo-nazism rather than what he claimed post 11th july.
If anything, Breivik is an example that you cannot take the words of such people at face value. They will claim association and ideologies to make their actions seem grander, justified and to fit a narrative. Tjeir actual motivation isnt neccessarily apparent, even to themselves.
Blamimg the big scary muslim for the gay bar shooting is very much misfiring your ammunition.
EPT
