|
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. |
It'd be nice to be able to break down that chart so that I can match it with other known terrorist attacks that may get swept under the rug of, "workplace violence." Will Omar's shooting spree get tallied under "self-hating gay" or Islam influenced radical? We'll see I guess.
I am quite certain that more than 147 were killed by Islam in the west than 147. In France alone it was at least 165 in 2015 for instance. It may not be a much larger number than 147 but it shows clear inaccuracy of the chart itself. Compound this with San Bernardino and a couple other shootings and it's clear that we're in a larger number here than 147.
And while Turkey may not be considered "the west" they've experienced 5 major bombings within one year. At least 4 of which are being blamed on ISIS.
|
San Bernardino happens to not be in Western Europe
|
On June 30 2016 11:11 SK.Testie wrote:It'd be nice to be able to break down that chart so that I can match it with other known terrorist attacks that may get swept under the rug of, "workplace violence." Will Omar's shooting spree get tallied under "self-hating gay" or Islam influenced radical? We'll see I guess. I am quite certain that more than 147 were killed by Islam in the west than 147. In France alone it was at least 165 in 2015 for instance. It may not be a much larger number than 147 but it shows clear inaccuracy of the chart itself. Compound this with San Bernardino and a couple other shootings and it's clear that we're in a larger number here than 147. And while Turkey may not be considered "the west" they've experienced 5 major bombings within one year. At least 4 of which are being blamed on ISIS.
Even if you count 50 more or less over the last few years it's pretty clear that people are very strongly misjudging the degree of violence that not only Europe but also the US experienced, not only limited to terrorism. Although rates for pretty much all crimes and violence are continuously going down people aren't getting tired of repeating how the world is getting more dangerous by the minute.
That political violence in modern history has somehow primarily been an Islamist or even religious phenomenon is a joke and historical revisionism.
|
On June 30 2016 09:47 SK.Testie wrote:
Except that now you have terrorists on video bragging that the west is too scared to even say the name of their brand. I think you simply underestimate that terrorists unless they are dead, can craft narratives too. If he says it, good for them. If he doesn't, still good for them. So long as they are alive to fight and find a way, it's good for them.
On June 30 2016 10:36 SK.Testie wrote:
It is indisputable that there is an increase in the number and scale of terrorist attacks in recent years, especially in the west.
This "west" you keep on yapping about means "North America". This is how narrow your view on the world is. Also the very stereotypical 'murican mindset of "if I shoots it dead it's gone" is completely void regarding fanatics. Ever heard of martyrdom? People die for causes, because they know their death in itself will have a much larger impact than anything they'd ever be able to accomplish alive. You are talking out of your ass, claiming to look at even "sources you hate". You obviously know very little about the world outside of North America.
Every child in Europe knows about the wild 70s and 80s, just have a look at the chart the other German dude supplied a few posts before mine. There were like weekly bombings, kidnappings and killings of politicians, businessmen and police. You might ask why? Well, maybe because people would follow ideological views and started acting upon them when they felt threatened. Today it's all sorts of religious fundamentalism really, covering mostly lifestyle issues. Then it was political fundamentalism, Communism vs Capitalism. Why? Because politicians and their media parrots hyped up the public about it, just as you would if you had any power. Obama is doing the right thing by not letting the muslim extremists have their way and stigmatize a whole following of a religion, pitting up one part of the world against another.
On June 30 2016 11:11 SK.Testie wrote:
I am quite certain that more than 147 were killed by Islam in the west than 147.
Wow, they got killed by Islam? Really?
|
On June 30 2016 10:56 zlefin wrote:
testie -> also, on the self-hating gay issue; that wasn't obfuscation by the administratoin; that was people trying to figure out what was happening in the immediate aftermath, before we had good information. It wasn't clear at the time, it became clear later. It's why I tend to advocate for reserving judgment until we have more info and have done investigations. Yes, it's annoying that some people continue to believe an incorrect version because they only heard parts of the initial story and not the followup later, but that's not on the administration.
No. It was clearly an attempt at obfuscation and political points by the left. What other reason is there to force that clearly false narrative when on the very first night the report was, "there were calls that he claimed to be a soldier of Allah for ISIS!" While I agree he had no connection to ISIS it's clear where his ideology lay.
as to your loss of trust/opaqueness points; that's more a result of confirmation bias + politics causing some people ot have a continuously negative view of him. The republicans will attack obama whatever he does, that's just sadly how politics works sometimes; at least until we find a way to get rid of politicians.
I've been open to listening to Obama fairly for most of his 8 years and still think I give him an honest shake. I applaud him when he's right and on point and condemn him when he's wrong. I know that he's not above lying that's for sure.
PS I consider DoD and other studies on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies to be a better source than your opinion that it's a good or bad strategy to use.
What I'm saying is it still isn't going to quell the anger of people who see the colour blue, and when they're told "that's not blue you moranz!" they're going to have an instinctive and very real anger. And then they'll lose trust and have division within your own people. Once that trust is lost, it's hard to gain back.. if it can be gained back.
So while it may have a net benefit in fighting terrorism, it has a net loss of trust on your own populace. And that sentiment will fester and I don't think that's healthy for more people to lose trust in your president/government.
|
This is where we enter the realm of "I believe what I believe, damn the facts."
|
So if Obama says the words "Radical Islam" suddenly people that fucking despise him and have for 8 years are going to trust the man?
If people are going to be angry because he doesn't use certain verbage then they're children, its simple as that really. "He won't say the thing I want him to say, grrr I'm so mad!" Grow up, that's so silly.
I believe there has to be a discussion about terrorism and Islamism and whatnot. I think a lot of people on the left bury their head in the sand and a lot of people on the right are raving lunatics as well. Certain sensitive topics have to be addressed honestly, openly, rationally. If you think dying on the hill of Obama has to say Radical Islam is worth your time then you've missed the boat. It benefits no one, saying those 2 words doesn't change anything, doesn't make things better. It shuts up people who don't matter complaining about 1 thing, but there are still 10 billion other things for them to bitch about. Its not worth saying at all, but sure spend all your capital getting the man to say those 2 words like it fixes something.
|
On June 30 2016 11:52 OuchyDathurts wrote:
So if Obama says the words "Radical Islam" suddenly people that fucking despise him and have for 8 years are going to trust the man?
You're working under the assumption that everyone who disagrees with him here and there despises him. I'm not blind to people who blindly hate the man, but people who have honest disagreements with him aren't just pure hate machines.
If people are going to be angry because he doesn't use certain verbage then they're children, its simple as that really. "He won't say the thing I want him to say, grrr I'm so mad!" Grow up, that's so silly.
I think it unwise to pass them off as children when they're trying to make sense of it. Some may not initially be doing it out of hatred or bigotry you know. They simply want to call a spade a spade.
I've clearly stated that I've seen it create more division and impose a loss of trust. For you to casually dismiss them as children is kind of weird. To continue on colours, it's like seeing the colour orange. And people saying, "you know.. I think red and yellow are responsible for this." But then people say, "Idiot, red and yellow have nothing to do with this colour." It creates the feeling of being lied to when people are just trying to make sense of things. It's obfuscation that hurts discourse. Just google, "Omar Mateen self-hating gay". People actually had to go through the act of disproving rumours of him being on Grindr and being a homosexual.
I believe there has to be a discussion about terrorism and Islamism and whatnot. I think a lot of people on the left bury their head in the sand and a lot of people on the right are raving lunatics as well. Certain sensitive topics have to be addressed honestly, openly, rationally. If you think dying on the hill of Obama has to say Radical Islam is worth your time then you've missed the boat. It benefits no one, saying those 2 words doesn't change anything, doesn't make things better. It shuts up people who don't matter complaining about 1 thing, but there are still 10 billion other things for them to bitch about. Its not worth saying at all, but sure spend all your capital getting the man to say those 2 words like it fixes something.
It doesn't fix it, but how can you have an honest rational discussion in the first place if it gets brushed off as "workplace violence" or "self-hating gay man". We've already had to debate two clearly false narratives, so to pretend that honest discourse is possible when the first things you have to fight are false narratives are just going to piss everyone off. The very basis of the conversation starts off dishonestly, so it cannot even happen in the first place.
|
The more I hear people push for the radical Islam boggy man to be front and center, the more it sounds like peoples replacement for "communism" as faceless evil to be blamed for all things.
|
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is. Pick something of actual substance, there's PLENTY of other real issues to take up on the matter.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!"
|
On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!"
the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly
|
On June 30 2016 12:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!" the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly
Yes, well kind of. But by and large yes. So stop worrying about whether or not Obama will say those words. Quit bitching about that like it matters at all and champion something useful if you really care. That's my entire point
|
On June 30 2016 12:19 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!" the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly or not.
It isn't. The experts dealing with terrorism have said so and provided evidence countering all the points made here. It is what ISIS wants, to create the West vs Islam as the narrative, because the "radical" part won't make it into their version of the narrative. They want the leaders of the western nations to say over and over that its the US/England/Germany vs Radical Islam. Because it will translate to "The West vs Islam".
So on the oldest tactic in all of war, once we figured out exactly what they wanted, we decided to not give it to them.
|
On June 30 2016 12:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:19 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!" the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly Yes, well kind of. But by and large yes. So stop worrying about whether or not Obama will say those words. Quit bitching about that like it matters at all and champion something useful if you really care. That's my entire point
fair enough, I am letting my own distaste for the religion of islam make this more important than it is. While I think it should be called radical islam, it doesn't actually change any of the actions taken by the government so it doesn't matter.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too.
+ Show Spoiler +
Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...?  though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example.
If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes.
|
Is there anyone in the counter terrorism world who could say that calling these guys (especially the ones who claim allegiance to multiple, often opposing, factions) "radical Islamic Terrorist/ism" was a bad idea and you would listen?
Or are people right to say you all don't care who says it, you all know better than any expert?
I know being treated like an idiot for joining something no one but the people trying to get me to join think is true would be a lot more effective than having every mainstream media outlet and the president of the US calling me a warrior for God if it was me in their position.
|
On June 30 2016 12:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 30 2016 12:19 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!" the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly Yes, well kind of. But by and large yes. So stop worrying about whether or not Obama will say those words. Quit bitching about that like it matters at all and champion something useful if you really care. That's my entire point fair enough, I am letting my own distaste for the religion of islam make this more important than it is. While I think it should be called radical islam, it doesn't actually change any of the actions taken by the government so it doesn't matter.
When you look at the whole quagmire. Radicalization, martyrdom, geopolitics, a muslim reformation, assimilation into society, the war on terror, secularism, theocracy, etc, etc, etc, etc. When you spread all that crap out on the table and look at it all, just look at it all! There's a proverbial sea of crap to discuss, nuance to dive into, ideas to challenge. But somehow in that massive pile of crap people see 1 lone post it with the words "President saying Radical Islam" scrawled on it and they go "ah-ha! Yes that, that's the problem. Lets worry about that thing right there, its very important!" A bigger case of missing the forest for the trees I can't think of.
|
It does seem pretty absurd to suggest that calling the threat "radical Islamic terrorism" will somehow legitimize ISIS and polarize muslims against the US. Surely even the most simple minded people can understand that the president is referring to extremist factions within the religion, and not the whole religion itself? Why would it "confuse" people or rally more Muslims to the cause of ISIS? Then again, people do tend to generalize *extremely* easily. You see it on this very board, and certainly in the media (it is way too easy to hear someone call someone else racist or bigot, and to generalize all liberals as being X or a person who shares particular liberal beliefs must therefore share them all, etc.)
I appreciate that the CIA and FBI are telling Obama to say things in a specific way. But lets also not pretend these organizations are infallible. Is there an actual argument being presented or should it just be taken as an argument from authority? If its the latter there's no point in bringing it up in a forum since it apparently can't be discussed on its own merits.
I'm pretty sure David Cameron pointed out in one of his speeches that there was a real threat and problem with some factions of Islam. If the leader of the UK can say it, it argues against how compelling the supposed argument really is.
However I think the argument is probably weak either way and it likely doesn't matter whether Obama does or doesn't say Islamic extremism or whatever else. Everyone knows what the threat is when you don't say it, and everyone knows (or should know) what you're referring to when you do say it.
On June 30 2016 12:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:28 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2016 12:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 30 2016 12:19 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!" the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly Yes, well kind of. But by and large yes. So stop worrying about whether or not Obama will say those words. Quit bitching about that like it matters at all and champion something useful if you really care. That's my entire point fair enough, I am letting my own distaste for the religion of islam make this more important than it is. While I think it should be called radical islam, it doesn't actually change any of the actions taken by the government so it doesn't matter. When you look at the whole quagmire. Radicalization, martyrdom, geopolitics, a muslim reformation, assimilation into society, the war on terror, secularism, theocracy, etc, etc, etc, etc. When you spread all that crap out on the table and look at it all, just look at it all! There's a proverbial sea of crap to discuss, nuance to dive into, ideas to challenge. But somehow in that massive pile of crap people see 1 lone post it with the words "President saying Radical Islam" scrawled on it and they go "ah-ha! Yes that, that's the problem. Lets worry about that thing right there, its very important!" A bigger case of missing the forest for the trees I can't think of.
You could argue that about lots of things. The reality is none of us forum dwellers are going to accomplish anything meaningful in these discussions, it is purely out of interest. In that respect it doesn't matter what we focus on; for whatever reason particular topics are interesting to people and I think that's sufficient for it to be a topic of discussion. Should we always, and only, discuss the most critical topics? Then several threads on TL should be shut down because they aren't discussing global warming, and other global disasters.
It would be absurd, because anytime anyone points out something of interest you could immediately interject and say there are more important issues. Why does it matter? People should be free to discuss whatever issue suits their interest.
|
On June 30 2016 13:25 radscorpion9 wrote:
I appreciate that the CIA and FBI are telling Obama to say things in a specific way. But lets also not pretend these organizations are infallible. Is there an actual argument being presented or should it just be taken as an argument from authority? If its the latter there's no point in bringing it up in a forum since it apparently can't be discussed on its own merits.
I'm pretty sure David Cameron pointed out in one of his speeches that there was a real threat and problem with some factions of Islam. If the leader of the UK can say it, it argues against how compelling the supposed argument really is.
Because it's doing nothing besides pissing people off, which makes the lives of all the people actually working on combating terrorism more difficult. It's like burning a Koran on television, great entertainment if you're a troll on 4chan but not really a smart or helpful thing to do in general
Also given that good old Dave has just managed to practically tear his hundreds of years old kingdom up I'd be careful about taking him as a role model for decision making as far as unifying the public is concerned
|
On June 30 2016 13:25 radscorpion9 wrote:It does seem pretty absurd to suggest that calling the threat "radical Islamic terrorism" will somehow legitimize ISIS and polarize muslims against the US. Surely even the most simple minded people can understand that the president is referring to extremist factions within the religion, and not the whole religion itself? Why would it "confuse" people or rally more Muslims to the cause of ISIS? Then again, people do tend to generalize *extremely* easily. You see it on this very board, and certainly in the media (it is way too easy to hear someone call someone else racist or bigot, and to generalize all liberals as being X or a person who shares particular liberal beliefs must therefore share them all, etc.) I appreciate that the CIA and FBI are telling Obama to say things in a specific way. But lets also not pretend these organizations are infallible. Is there an actual argument being presented or should it just be taken as an argument from authority? If its the latter there's no point in bringing it up in a forum since it apparently can't be discussed on its own merits. I'm pretty sure David Cameron pointed out in one of his speeches that there was a real threat and problem with some factions of Islam. If the leader of the UK can say it, it argues against how compelling the supposed argument really is. However I think the argument is probably weak either way and it likely doesn't matter whether Obama does or doesn't say Islamic extremism or whatever else. Everyone knows what the threat is when you don't say it, and everyone knows (or should know) what you're referring to when you do say it. Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 30 2016 12:28 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2016 12:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 30 2016 12:19 biology]major wrote:On June 30 2016 12:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Lets have an honest dialogue about radicalization, religion, terrorism, etc. If the price of admission to sit at the table and discuss things is the president has to say "Radical Islam" then you're never getting a seat at the table. Its as simple as that really. That's the hill you've chosen to die on for absolutely no reason.
Maybe Obama should use that. Republicans give him universal health care, legal weed, gun control, increased taxes on the rich, and lets sprinkle in a supreme court justice and he'll say those 2 words. Use that to bend the right over a barrel.
You can think it's unwise all you want, you can think its calling a spade a spade. You're free to be as wrong as you want. Just because you believe that spade is a spade doesn't mean it is. But you believe its a spade with all of your heart! So what? People believe a million wrong things. Its like Trump "He says what he thinks!" wow that's great. But half the stuff he thinks is flatly wrong, what a virtue! But he thinks it, and he's willing to openly vomit those thoughts out!
If it doesn't help things its a waste of time pure and simple. You're not going to get the man to say it because it hurts more than it helps. Now, would you like to dump that one worthless issue and come to the table and discuss other actual useful things in the Islamism and terrorism vein? Because that part isn't up for debate, so move on to something that is.
This actually reminds me of the whole War on Christmas. "Happy Holidays!" "NO! Say Merry Christmas god damnit!" the argument was never if it actually is radical islam or not, but rather if it is pragmatic to call it that publicly Yes, well kind of. But by and large yes. So stop worrying about whether or not Obama will say those words. Quit bitching about that like it matters at all and champion something useful if you really care. That's my entire point fair enough, I am letting my own distaste for the religion of islam make this more important than it is. While I think it should be called radical islam, it doesn't actually change any of the actions taken by the government so it doesn't matter. When you look at the whole quagmire. Radicalization, martyrdom, geopolitics, a muslim reformation, assimilation into society, the war on terror, secularism, theocracy, etc, etc, etc, etc. When you spread all that crap out on the table and look at it all, just look at it all! There's a proverbial sea of crap to discuss, nuance to dive into, ideas to challenge. But somehow in that massive pile of crap people see 1 lone post it with the words "President saying Radical Islam" scrawled on it and they go "ah-ha! Yes that, that's the problem. Lets worry about that thing right there, its very important!" A bigger case of missing the forest for the trees I can't think of. You could argue that about lots of things. The reality is none of us forum dwellers are going to accomplish anything meaningful in these discussions, it is purely out of interest. In that respect it doesn't matter what we focus on; for whatever reason particular topics are interesting to people and I think that's sufficient for it to be a topic of discussion. Should we always, and only, discuss the most critical topics? Then several threads on TL should be shut down because they aren't discussing global warming, and other global disasters. It would be absurd, because anytime anyone points out something of interest you could immediately interject and say there are more important issues. Why does it matter? People should be free to discuss whatever issue suits their interest.
I think it has to do with the fact that Muslims are extremely protective of their religion, more so than others (IMO). They will not tolerate any form of criticism to their own faith and will interpret radical Islam as an attack on Islam itself and would probably lead to more radicalization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
