|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 24 2016 02:52 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote:
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dDonald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.”
“We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.”
“We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.”
“We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” "We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles? He literally said "he doesn't necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists." We have no idea what he would actually do. Anybody who claims they do is lying or omniscient. Why would we elect somebody who we have little to no idea what he would do on so many issues? The fact he changes his stances so often tells me he probably doesn't even know what he wants to do. He might fire bomb the whole country or he might decide it isn't worth our time and ignore them. WHO KNOWS. Guy is all over the place.
Agreed; that's literally the opposite of what he literally said before. He literally said that we should kill innocent family members of terrorists. Literally.
So at worst, he's still said we should kill innocent people (and not that long ago). And at best, he has no idea what the heck he's talking about and just backtracks and flip-flops all the time.
There's really no reason to trust anything Trump says. He's less consistent and less truthful than even the average politician.
|
United States43854 Posts
On June 24 2016 03:35 SolaR- wrote:
With the Obama statements by Trump that Kwark sourced, i think it is a good example of what I'm talking about. Trump knows that most of his base dislikes Obama for so many different reasons. I believe Trump's statement is ambiguous enough for someone to draw any conclusion on what he meant about Obama.
Any conclusion? So you think that him suggesting that it was suspicious that Obama wasn't very upset that a Muslim killed a bunch of Americans wasn't a specific nod to the "Obama is a Muslim who hates Americans" crowd but was also left open to anyone whose theory included Obama not getting upset when Muslims kill Americans. So potentially also the "Obama is a robot" crowd and the "none of this is real anyway" crowd and so forth?
Am I understanding your refutation correctly? That while it was a nod to the "Obama is a Muslim crowd' he wasn't specifically saying that because it was an equal opportunity conspiracy theory nod?
|
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group?
Also, it is basically Trump s job to make hillary and obama look bad. Hillary does the same crap. I don't think this has anything to do with birthers.
|
On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group?
That was definitely my perception of what he was appealing to.
|
United States43854 Posts
On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group?
And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on?
|
The main issue isn’t that liberals are not calling out Islamic terrorism. They are. They are just not doing it in a manner you approve of. Which is the core of all discussions about Islam in this thread. Its not about the acts or who does them, but how harshly the other side is “dealing with/apologizing for” the religion. And that is a mostly pointless discussion about tone and style over substance.
|
Drone strikes aren't as exciting as reading about the advance on Baghdad.
|
On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on?
First off the point of the discussion was what group that trump was speaking to. I wasnt stating my own opinions even though i do agree with that perspective. I was just citing an example.
To put it bluntly, liberals cannot do that because they have a naive ideology that clouds or distorts their judgement. They think all groups are equally important and should all be treated fairly and be understood. I agree with that on many levels, but i do not think religion should be tolerated and blindly accepted the same way as races or ethnicity, genders, sexual orientation, etc.
Religion is a belief system that is ultimately a choice and should be scrutinised for and held accountable for all the horrible actions of others who share the same religion. While not all muslims are bad, it is certainly enough to warrant calling it an epidemic.
Religion is unfairly sheltered from scrutinity and criticsm when it should be held under the same scrutiny as a political idealogy, cult, or any other group.
|
On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on?
Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue.
|
United States43854 Posts
On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue.
And have you been able to work out for yourself the reason Obama wasn't sufficiently upset that Americans died? What's going on there?
|
I would argue that you are not aware of the criticism, much like you are not aware of specific criticism of practices within the legal profession, social sciences, waste management or many other sections of the world. When the latest terrorist attack happens, there a full denouncement from many Muslim leaders, a call to reexamine the teachings about homosexuality and many other discussions. All of these don’t make it to CNN or the front page of reddit. A lot of them are in languages you don’t speak.
The same goes for liberal criticism of Islam. It exists. But is also sort of meaningless. The productive discussions are happening within the communities and religion. Its sort of like Turkey denouncing our drone strikes. They might be right and we maybe not use them quite so freely, but no one over here really gives a shit what Turkey has to stay.
|
On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue.
Lmao that is some revisionist history right there. Remember which side it was that ignored warnings about the Middle East, then got into a futile war on terror that cost immense American blood and wealth? How do you recommend Obama dig us out of this incredibly deep hole that Bush & co. got us into?
|
The notion that Russia's approach to terrorism is pragmatic and preferable to the US' deserves a lot of scrutiny lol
|
The Chechen war, very pragmatic solution.
I mean it sure sounds pragmatic if you actually want to provoke a race war in your country, which a good portion of the American right seems to be eager to conjure up as well.
|
On June 24 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue. Lmao that is some revisionist history right there. Remember which side it was that ignored warnings about the Middle East, then got into a futile war on terror that cost immense American blood and wealth? How do you recommend Obama dig us out of this incredibly deep hole that Bush & co. got us into?
? Democrats heavily favored the war in iraq as well. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden all voted for it among others.. So what side are you referring to?
|
On June 24 2016 04:31 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue. Lmao that is some revisionist history right there. Remember which side it was that ignored warnings about the Middle East, then got into a futile war on terror that cost immense American blood and wealth? How do you recommend Obama dig us out of this incredibly deep hole that Bush & co. got us into? ? Democrats heavily favored the war in iraq as well. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden all voted for it among others.. So what side are you referring to?
They all favored the war based on the false, misleading information provided by the Bush administration. They also favored the war assuming it would be well managed and not a fiscal nightmare where the Halliburton, a company Dick Cheney was CEO of, would receive over 30 billion in military contracts.
So yeah, they voted for it based on a lie. But they had little say in how it was managed and disagreed with many of the decisions.
|
On June 24 2016 04:31 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue. Lmao that is some revisionist history right there. Remember which side it was that ignored warnings about the Middle East, then got into a futile war on terror that cost immense American blood and wealth? How do you recommend Obama dig us out of this incredibly deep hole that Bush & co. got us into? ? Democrats heavily favored the war in iraq as well. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden all voted for it among others.. So what side are you referring to?
The side which lied to Congress, the American people and the UN.
|
On June 24 2016 04:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:31 SolaR- wrote:On June 24 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue. Lmao that is some revisionist history right there. Remember which side it was that ignored warnings about the Middle East, then got into a futile war on terror that cost immense American blood and wealth? How do you recommend Obama dig us out of this incredibly deep hole that Bush & co. got us into? ? Democrats heavily favored the war in iraq as well. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden all voted for it among others.. So what side are you referring to? They all favored the war based on the false, misleading information provided by the Bush administration. They also favored the war assuming it would be well managed and not a fiscal nightmare where the Halliburton, a company Dick Cheney was CEO of, would receive over 30 billion in military contracts. So yeah, they voted for it based on a lie. But they had little say in how it was managed and disagreed with many of the decisions.
That seems a little to convenient to me. I was against the iraq war among many other people. There was well known groups who claimed the bush adminstration were lying about WMDs before we even decided to go to war with Iraq. So the information and the suspicion was out there. How do we know that people in the senate were not aware of the lie and when everything turned south they assigned blame solely to the bush adminstration and quietly walked away?
I'm not asserting anything, i am just saying how can you say for certain that Hillary and the democrats were honest and innocent in their decisons?
|
On June 24 2016 04:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue. And have you been able to work out for yourself the reason Obama wasn't sufficiently upset that Americans died? What's going on there?
Oh, you're just interested in misrepresenting my position and asking random stupid questions. I'll pass.
On June 24 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I would argue that you are not aware of the criticism, much like you are not aware of specific criticism of practices within the legal profession, social sciences, waste management or many other sections of the world. When the latest terrorist attack happens, there a full denouncement from many Muslim leaders, a call to reexamine the teachings about homosexuality and many other discussions. All of these don’t make it to CNN or the front page of reddit. A lot of them are in languages you don’t speak.
The same goes for liberal criticism of Islam. It exists. But is also sort of meaningless. The productive discussions are happening within the communities and religion. Its sort of like Turkey denouncing our drone strikes. They might be right and we maybe not use them quite so freely, but no one over here really gives a shit what Turkey has to stay.
There are also a fair number of Islamic leaders, political and religious, who support these actions either openly or covertly, who bankroll and recruit terror movements that lead to these kinds of attacks. While you are not wrong that there are Muslims who do not subscribe to this pro-terror philosophy and are probably a majority, there is a substantial portion of the Muslim population that is culturally incompatible with Western values and is willing to show it through terrorism. That is what the mainstream left does not openly acknowledge.
And why exactly is liberal criticism meaningless? It shapes the discussion within the West and has a significant effect on how we deal with this conflict in values that leads to terror attacks. That has a lot more impact on US policy than what Turkey says.
On June 24 2016 04:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 03:53 KwarK wrote:On June 24 2016 03:47 SolaR- wrote:
Maybe it appeals to the "why can't liberals call out islamic terror for what it is and address the radical islamic threat growing within our country instead of worrying about offending muslims and being politically correct" group? And why can't liberals do that? Do you think there might be something going on? Naivete and the difficulty of reconciling a strong stance against terrorism with their political philosophy is the main reason I can see. Looking at the left's arguments that certainly seems to be the obvious source of their shitty inability to deal with these issues before they explode. East/Central Europe and Russia, which have actually dealt with large, organized domestic terror cells, are much more pragmatic about this issue. Lmao that is some revisionist history right there. Remember which side it was that ignored warnings about the Middle East, then got into a futile war on terror that cost immense American blood and wealth? How do you recommend Obama dig us out of this incredibly deep hole that Bush & co. got us into?
Neocon-style poorly planned military intervention and leftist cultural naivete can both be bad? Who coulda thunk it?
I don't know why you even brought that up. I've always been quite explicitly against shitty poorly planned FP interventionism.
On June 24 2016 04:21 farvacola wrote:
The notion that Russia's approach to terrorism is pragmatic and preferable to the US' deserves a lot of scrutiny lol
Make the case then (though perhaps not in this thread). While I don't disagree that the approach Russia has taken has not been without its blunders and that Russian counterterrorism has blood on its hands, it also has a much larger domestic threat due the fact that it is actually adjacent to the MidEast. For being an ocean away from the trouble, the US does have a disproportionate amount of fuckups on its hands when it comes to terrorism.
US has one shooter shoot up a club, kill 50, and that's the worst terror attack in history. Russia has had domestic militants hold a school hostage and has attempted terrorism on just about every major holiday in the country, and has had that happen for the past few decades.
On June 24 2016 04:25 Nyxisto wrote:
The Chechen war, very pragmatic solution.
Indeed it was. Though it does look fucked up from a distance if you ignore the circumstances. Including the fact that the "race war" you fear could happen had already started years before any form of Chechen intervention.
Since this isn't a Russia thread and one aside isn't worth becoming a large derail, I'll leave this one five-reply post as the end of it and offer one bit of reading on the Chechen issue: Link
|
Once again, I do not believe the liberal criticism in completely meaningless. I said that effect and reach are pretty limited in general. And it exists, but not in the tone or manner that you approve of. And the liberals argument is that the tone and manner you would like would not increase how effective the criticism is.
Much like the hard line our politicians take with Iran is effective at gaining support at home and pleases crowds. But the diplomat from Iran said that it is difficult make any headway in negotiations when every politician talks about bombing Iran every time the topic comes up. Because its hard to claim the US is reasonable when CNN is broadcasting the we will bomb them at any moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
