|
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 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'm not talking about TL, I'm talking about the greater discussion at large. Anyone who thinks the president has to say those words will never hear him say it and will never get a seat at the adults table.
On June 30 2016 13:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
I think it has more to do with people in general are idiots. They're emotional and irrational, they lash out instead of looking inward, they divide and label because its the easiest thing to do.
So when someone says "Radical Islam" it rolls off some people's back, it means discussion for some people, to some people it means those dirty no good god damn Muslims are at it again, and some will only see it as their group is being attacked. The exact same reaction happens all the damn time on everything! Certain words will instantly put people on the defensive or offensive because of emotion driven responses. These things turn into "Well not all white men", "Well not all black people", "Well not all Republicans", etc. You see that one triggering word that applies to you and you're immediately on the defensive, or the person that hates your group is immediately on the "Yeah, fuck those people!" offensive. Then you get into a bunch of nitpicky bullshit trying to talk someone off the ledge. IF you manage to talk that person off the ledge you still have to talk the other million people off that ledge too, and that's a huge if to start with. It just opens a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.
People are horrifically flawed creatures, they're protective of any perceived attack, they're simple minded, they're irrational often doing things that make absolutely no logical sense, they're emotional. Every single person is guilty of all of these things, myself included. So saying something that could easily be taken as inflammatory, something that you know is going to instantly put people on the defensive and set other people on attack mode doesn't seem a very useful proposition.
I generally agree with a lot of thing Sam Harris has to say, Maajid Nawaz, Hitchens, etc. They're not dumb guys by any stretch, I certainly don't agree with everything they have to say though. This is one of those things I just can't abide by. I get the point they're getting at, and I might even agree with some of the points. I just don't think that saying those words does anything to alleviate anything. I believe all it would end up doing is leading down some never ending explain fest rabbit hole where you have to precisely articulate every single thing you mean and you've gotta answer a trillion questions to take people down the 50 pegs you've sent them up. It's a lot like terms that people like to bitch at PC culture and SJWs for using. Terms that end up being completely unhelpful to any reasonable discussion as they instantly put people on the back foot and pit people against each other. People that might actually see a lot of things eye to eye if they didn't feel like they were on the defensive.
|
On June 30 2016 13:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm not talking about TL, I'm talking about the greater discussion at large. Anyone who thinks the president has to say those words will never hear him say it and will never get a seat at the adults table.
We're on a Starcraft forum. We're not really at the adults table. That's probably reserved for people with high level clearance. Secondly, you chose to misrepresent what I was saying and focus on the wrong aspects of it. You made it seem like I personally want Obama to say radical Islam every time it happens for some cathartic release. I assure you that's not the case. That is not the stone I'm standing on "for a seat at the adults table." I noted a few possible problems with it and some observations.
|
On June 30 2016 10:29 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 10:21 Danglars wrote:On June 30 2016 09:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 30 2016 08:06 Danglars wrote:
Obama spends a great deal of time on rallying the nation to not strike back at Muslims after terrorism, and very little time identifying the threat as a dangerous radical Muslim ideology. You can see it after the Paris attacks ("randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris" and the categorization of Ft Hood shootings as "workplace violence." It all stems from a very weak narrative and understanding of the threat. Voices in this thread and elsewhere posit that any connection to Islam or Muslim, however qualified, gives some false legitimacy that is dangerous, more dangerous at least than calling it for what it is and rallying support to combat the persistent threat. It has been and remains a willful blindness on the part of the administration.
He turns around and says saying "radical Islamic terrorism" isn't a strategy. Well, Mr President, absolutely refusing to say it also isn't a strategy. The least he, and others, can do is identify the enemy in no uncertain terms if he means to oppose them. As it stands, he invites valid criticism, and is weak on terrorism in general. He doesn't say radical muslim for the same reason he does not call majority of shootings in the US radical christianism--because that's stupid. On the contrary, if school shooters predominantly identified with a radical Christian sect, I would expect him to call attention to it and demand he do so if he didn't. On June 30 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote:
I wonder how many of the right-leaning folk even read/heard Obama's rebuttal on the issue. I wonder how you can claim to be for "[recognizing] they do have a clear and understandable motive" when it's the right talking about the left, but when you talk about the right, no attempt is given for comprehension. Are you going to respond to the part where (apparently) this stance by Obama is in accordance with the advice and instructions he has been given by people who should know what they are doing? (Because if you're not even going to respond to the arguments people make against your points, why do you expect anybody to comprehend, much less agree, with you?)
On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ 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.
Basically this, Aquanim. I don't know if you want to really go after some form of Obama a naive fool being misled by advisers he's the boss of. It is a very easy thing to say me and my advisers agree that invading Iraq is a good move .... or mislabeling a destructive political theology robs it of magic power.
I won't be watching this thread every ten minutes so you'll have to wait a bit if you have more Aquanim. At some point, I expect you to make it clear Obama's choice and rationale is sufficient for your agreement, and I'm still persuaded the left is being intentionally silly, duplicitous, and childlike in their approach. As already mentioned, Obama is incredibly clear he will continue to strawman and argue in bad faith. His pedantic tone couples with this to show his intention to sidestep until the cows come home. As also aforementioned, he should at least show how great this plan is working, like reduced ISIS recruitment ... decreased support for attacks against civilians in principle ... you name it.
|
Isis is failing pretty hard, they're continously losing ground. Which is probably the biggest reason that their attacks in Western nations have intensified over the last few months
|
On June 30 2016 13:44 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 13:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm not talking about TL, I'm talking about the greater discussion at large. Anyone who thinks the president has to say those words will never hear him say it and will never get a seat at the adults table. We're on a Starcraft forum. We're not really at the adults table. That's probably reserved for people with high level clearance. Secondly, you chose to misrepresent what I was saying and focus on the wrong aspects of it. You made it seem like I personally want Obama to say radical Islam every time it happens for some cathartic release. I assure you that's not the case. That is not the stone I'm standing on "for a seat at the adults table." I noted a few possible problems with it and some observations.
People on the right are beating their chests that Obama has to say those words. He's a filthy coward and a Muslim apologist who is weak on terror until he says them. Those people wish to be taken seriously, they wish to take part in the discussion. I'm telling you they will be summarily ignored till they drop that cross.
|
If people with long, respected careers pertaining to this sort of thing give their opinion, I'm gonna trust it. They are experts and I am not. If they can't tell me how to do my job, I shouldn't tell them how to do theirs. If they say it is a bad idea to say radical islam, I trust them.
|
On June 30 2016 14:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 13:44 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2016 13:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm not talking about TL, I'm talking about the greater discussion at large. Anyone who thinks the president has to say those words will never hear him say it and will never get a seat at the adults table. We're on a Starcraft forum. We're not really at the adults table. That's probably reserved for people with high level clearance. Secondly, you chose to misrepresent what I was saying and focus on the wrong aspects of it. You made it seem like I personally want Obama to say radical Islam every time it happens for some cathartic release. I assure you that's not the case. That is not the stone I'm standing on "for a seat at the adults table." I noted a few possible problems with it and some observations. People on the right are beating their chests that Obama has to say those words. He's a filthy coward and a Muslim apologist who is weak on terror until he says them. Those people wish to be taken seriously, they wish to take part in the discussion. I'm telling you they will be summarily ignored till they drop that cross.
Actually, I think they'll be ignored regardless of whether they have that cross or not. I'm not going to bring this up again to further the discussion on this because we've done it a few times now. But simply to reinforce the part of people ignoring others since I don't believe you were here for it.
+ Show Spoiler +Here's an instance of just how much people will ignore others if they feel they know better than them. These are the people living closest to the problem of illegal immigration. The vast majority want the wall. These are your countrymen, these are the people closest to the problem. What they continually heard from both Republicans and Democrats was some pandering and being forgotten. Cast aside. It's like me living in Chicago saying, "yo there's a problem with gangs here we need to do something." and some fucker from Vermont saying, "Nah don't worry about it. It's all in your head. Also that's racist." And I'm like, "No, dude. Seriously. A person is shot every 13 hours and 15 minutes." Wall video from left journalism: It's a short clip easy to digest. http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/many-residents-along-border-support-trump-s-wall-699742787881
|
On June 30 2016 14:15 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 14:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 30 2016 13:44 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2016 13:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm not talking about TL, I'm talking about the greater discussion at large. Anyone who thinks the president has to say those words will never hear him say it and will never get a seat at the adults table. We're on a Starcraft forum. We're not really at the adults table. That's probably reserved for people with high level clearance. Secondly, you chose to misrepresent what I was saying and focus on the wrong aspects of it. You made it seem like I personally want Obama to say radical Islam every time it happens for some cathartic release. I assure you that's not the case. That is not the stone I'm standing on "for a seat at the adults table." I noted a few possible problems with it and some observations. People on the right are beating their chests that Obama has to say those words. He's a filthy coward and a Muslim apologist who is weak on terror until he says them. Those people wish to be taken seriously, they wish to take part in the discussion. I'm telling you they will be summarily ignored till they drop that cross. Actually, I think they'll be ignored regardless of whether they have that cross or not. I'm not going to bring this up again to further the discussion on this because we've done it a few times now. But simply to reinforce the part of people ignoring others since I don't believe you were here for it. + Show Spoiler +Here's an instance of just how much people will ignore others if they feel they know better than them. These are the people living closest to the problem of illegal immigration. The vast majority want the wall. These are your countrymen, these are the people closest to the problem. What they continually heard from both Republicans and Democrats was some pandering and being forgotten. Cast aside. It's like me living in Chicago saying, "yo there's a problem with gangs here we need to do something." and some fucker from Vermont saying, "Nah don't worry about it. It's all in your head. Also that's racist." And I'm like, "No, dude. Seriously. A person is shot every 13 hours and 15 minutes." Wall video from left journalism: It's a short clip easy to digest. http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/many-residents-along-border-support-trump-s-wall-699742787881
If they chose something worthwhile to complain about they're far less likely to be brushed off, stop clinging to that anchor when you're drowning. What the vast majority of people want doesn't necessarily matter, sometimes the vast majority of people don't know whats good for them. People are very short sighted, history repeats itself, all that jazz. Its not a compelling argument. But yeah, I'm done treading over all this. I'm telling you why what you're clamoring for is fruitless, take it or leave it.
|
On June 30 2016 14:22 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 14:15 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2016 14:05 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 30 2016 13:44 SK.Testie wrote:On June 30 2016 13:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm not talking about TL, I'm talking about the greater discussion at large. Anyone who thinks the president has to say those words will never hear him say it and will never get a seat at the adults table. We're on a Starcraft forum. We're not really at the adults table. That's probably reserved for people with high level clearance. Secondly, you chose to misrepresent what I was saying and focus on the wrong aspects of it. You made it seem like I personally want Obama to say radical Islam every time it happens for some cathartic release. I assure you that's not the case. That is not the stone I'm standing on "for a seat at the adults table." I noted a few possible problems with it and some observations. People on the right are beating their chests that Obama has to say those words. He's a filthy coward and a Muslim apologist who is weak on terror until he says them. Those people wish to be taken seriously, they wish to take part in the discussion. I'm telling you they will be summarily ignored till they drop that cross. Actually, I think they'll be ignored regardless of whether they have that cross or not. I'm not going to bring this up again to further the discussion on this because we've done it a few times now. But simply to reinforce the part of people ignoring others since I don't believe you were here for it. + Show Spoiler +Here's an instance of just how much people will ignore others if they feel they know better than them. These are the people living closest to the problem of illegal immigration. The vast majority want the wall. These are your countrymen, these are the people closest to the problem. What they continually heard from both Republicans and Democrats was some pandering and being forgotten. Cast aside. It's like me living in Chicago saying, "yo there's a problem with gangs here we need to do something." and some fucker from Vermont saying, "Nah don't worry about it. It's all in your head. Also that's racist." And I'm like, "No, dude. Seriously. A person is shot every 13 hours and 15 minutes." Wall video from left journalism: It's a short clip easy to digest. http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/many-residents-along-border-support-trump-s-wall-699742787881 If they chose something worthwhile to complain about they're far less likely to be brushed off, stop clinging to that anchor when you're drowning. What the vast majority of people want doesn't necessarily matter, sometimes the vast majority of people don't know whats good for them. People are very short sighted, history repeats itself, all that jazz. Its not a compelling argument. But yeah, I'm done treading over all this. I'm telling you why what you're clamoring for is fruitless, take it or leave it.
I'll be sure to tell you what I think is good for you to eat, read, and watch. Because, personally, I don't think you know what's good for you. I'll also be giving you dating advice and work advice. Because you probably don't know what's good for you. Any problems in your life? Ask me first, I'm actually an expert in all areas. Odds are, you wouldn't know what's good for you anyway.
|
Don't really see why the phrase 'Radical Islam' is such a sticking point. Everyone in the world knows that it is groups like ISIS that need to be dealt with and the President indicates that in his public comments.
All this BS above having "honest conversations" is kind of a crap argument. Conversations about what? The darker parts of Islam? Sure that conversation probably needs to be had....by Muslims themselves. Outsiders interjecting their thoughts into things has always worked right? External pressure like that just pushes an US VS THEM mentality and as was said above, people get emotional, defensive, and irrational. So if you really are hoping for a culture change within the middle east it has got to come from within and that is something the Middle East has been doing for many years in a series of bloody conflicts made worse through constant outside intervention. All it has done is create more chaos and resentment that distracts the people there from just focusing on themselves when we give them plenty of reason to throw blame on the outsiders and their meddling.
|
As his wife is under federal investigation for her use of a private email server, former President Bill Clinton met privately with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix Airport Monday evening in what both sides say was an unplanned encounter.
An aide to Bill Clinton confirmed to CBS News that the meeting wasn't planned in advance: President Clinton saw the attorney general on the tarmac and wanted to say hello, so he boarded her plane to talk.
The meeting comes as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still under investigation for her email practices--and also came the day before House Republicans released a report criticizing the Obama administration's response to the 2012 Benghazi attacks.
Lynch told reporters that the topics of Benghazi and Clinton's email server did not come up, and that she and Clinton spoke largely about his grandchildren, golf and travel.
"Actually, while I was landing at the airport, I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as I was leaving, and he spoke to myself and my husband on the plane," she said. "Our conversation was a great deal about his grandchildren. It was primarily social and about our travels. He mentioned the golf he played in Phoenix, and he mentioned travels he'd had in West Virginia."
Source
|
On June 30 2016 14:00 Danglars wrote:
...
I won't be watching this thread every ten minutes so you'll have to wait a bit if you have more Aquanim.
...
I think I've made my point already... until you're willing to engage with the fact that the US government's approach to terrorism, ISIS, etc. is based on analysis and the expertise of the FBI, CIA, et al., rather than some "leftist" agenda of Obama et al., there is no productive conversation to be had here.
(EDIT: I am not the person in this thread with the best positioning and knowledge to have that conversation in the first place. Nevertheless, a conversation about whether the FBI and CIA are correct in their assessment might be productive. A conversation based on you having the belief that this policy is rooted in "leftist, silly, duplicitous and childish" thinking is a complete waste of time.)
|
Wow Sam Harris is such a hack. I can't believe he's serious about himself.
|
Fun fact: Every time someone is shot in Chicago, Testie gets a boner.
I mean, seriously, I come back to this thread after a week and the first thing I see is you talking about Chicago's concerned citizens. Also, the wall is still a dumb idea but I'm sure you know that.
|
|
|
Oh man, populist politics at its best.
|
Now i understand the FOX "typo" about Britain leaving the UN.
/tinfoil hat off
|
On June 30 2016 16:19 Surth wrote:
Fun fact: Every time someone is shot in Chicago, Testie gets a boner.
I mean, seriously, I come back to this thread after a week and the first thing I see is you talking about Chicago's concerned citizens. Also, the wall is still a dumb idea but I'm sure you know that.
I currently live in Chicago and am pro gun control. Coincidence? I think not!
|
Ron Paul put similar bills up.
Good idea if you ask me.
TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook.
|
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?
This faith in humanity that you have, I'm not sure what you based it on. Surely it hasn't been based on reading youtube comments after a terrorist attack, or listening to people speak on the subject of islam and talking about culture wars, it hasn't been based on reading Sam Harris, it hasn't been based on considering the policies of the "radical islam terrorism" people.
Right here, right now, plenty of people who push for saying "radical islamic terrorism" are championing policies that target all muslims. I'm not sure why you expect a different reception in the muslim world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
