|
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 September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I disagree with the plan of pushing unsound rhetoric just to win. That just creates more problems.
|
On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate.
This is the fucking problem with politics.
No we should not accept politicians selling BS just because it gets them votes. We should want them to sell policies that work.
A fight to the bottom is how the US got into the fucked up candidate position it is in now.
|
On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate.
If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home.
Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,,
|
On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,,
The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism."
|
On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism."
Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region...
If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people.
|
On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people.
Maybe it's both? For all the insistence of nuance from the left, you dudes love giving islam a complete free pass.
|
On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people.
The problem with advancing the historical argument in favor of your position is that "Islam started it." It's a religion that developed and spread during the 7th and 8th centuries through military conquest and putting people to the sword. So yeah, I don't think you want to go there.
|
On September 19 2016 00:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I disagree with the plan of pushing unsound rhetoric just to win. That just creates more problems.
I would argue a Trump presidency would result in more unsound rhetoric.
|
On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people.
So in your view the west is in an open war with the middle east, therefore we should allow an unchecked flood of inmigrants from there? Do you see the contradiction here or how that may backfire under your own logic?
If the West pulled out from the Middle east completely you think terrorist atacks would stop?
|
Canada11350 Posts
On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism."
Unfortunately, what largely gets argued in public are two extreme versions: "we need to ban all Muslims" and "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism; it is a religion of peace." The reality is there are certain sects where there very much is a direct tie between what they believe and teach and the violence they propagate. Any sort of originalism that takes the lives of the first four Caliphs as applicable for imitative action in the modern day will likely get a martial mindset- their early leaders post-Mohammad (and really Mohammad himself) were warlords and conquering kings, not outcasts executed on crosses and stoned to death. However, there are giant variations of beliefs in Islam such as Sufism that latches on to texts that describe Mohammad not even harming insects or some such... and then everything in between.. (I'll note Sufism has the freedom to practice in the West, but not so much in many of those other Muslim countries.) But that's not what gets argued. Just Islam is X or Islam is not X. Whereas it seems Islam is a great many things.
|
On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people.
You have to understand how little this means to people who are downright scared of terrorism. They don't care what we did or what anyone did to make it start. They want it to stop and they need to know the next president will end it. This isn't a situation where we review history and try to determine cause and effect. This is a war of rhetoric that Trump has the potential to win if Clinton doesn't realize a huge amount of Americans really don't give two shits about why this started.
|
On September 19 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people. The problem with advancing the historical argument in favor of your position is that "Islam started it." It's a religion that developed and spread during the 7th and 8th centuries through military conquest and putting people to the sword. So yeah, I don't think you want to go there.
Unlike peaceful Christianity? Hell no, we spread it through fire and sword just as much.
Religion is a good way excuse the use of violence, regardless of Islam or Christianity.
I think it is important to look past religion in these discussion because more often then not there is a completely unrelated underlying reason for the violence, with religion just providing an easy explanation and excuse.
On September 19 2016 01:06 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people. So in your view the west is in an open war with the middle east, therefore we should allow an unchecked flood of inmigrants from there? Do you see the contradiction here or how that may backfire under your own logic? If the West pulled out from the Middle east completely you think terrorist atacks would stop?
Holy mother of strawman.
No where did I say any of that so please, go put words in someone else's mouth.
|
On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people.
There's a region pretty much all suicide bombers are islamists, it takes some serious religious fervour to commit such an act.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2016 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:22 zlefin wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I disagree with the plan of pushing unsound rhetoric just to win. That just creates more problems. I would argue a Trump presidency would result in more unsound rhetoric.
In this case your rhetoric is not unlike a religious zealot who believes that any fucked up actions are justified in the name of the unquestionably righteous higher cause that you support.
|
On September 19 2016 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people. The problem with advancing the historical argument in favor of your position is that "Islam started it." It's a religion that developed and spread during the 7th and 8th centuries through military conquest and putting people to the sword. So yeah, I don't think you want to go there. Unlike peaceful Christianity? Hell no, we spread it through fire and sword just as much. Religion is a good way excuse the use of violence, regardless of Islam or Christianity. I think it is important to look past religion in these discussion because more often then not there is a completely unrelated underlying reason for the violence, with religion just providing an easy explanation and excuse..
Hey, you're the one who brought up history. I merely illustrated why it's absurd for you to do so.
The problem with your position that we need to separate the religion from the violence is that it completely ignores what violent extremists are telling us about why they are doing what they're doing. When Abdul tells me that he's going to kill me for religious reasons, why shouldn't I believe him?
This isn't to say that economics and other non-religious factors have no role in explaining why the religious justification for Muslims killing heathens exists. But to completely divorce the religion from the violence is a bridge too far.
|
On September 19 2016 01:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2016 00:22 zlefin wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I disagree with the plan of pushing unsound rhetoric just to win. That just creates more problems. I would argue a Trump presidency would result in more unsound rhetoric. In this case your rhetoric is not unlike a religious zealot who believes that any fucked up actions are justified in the name of the unquestionably righteous higher cause that you support.
Even if Trump came down hard on Muslim extremism, Trump would still have been far worse. This entire election is about who is worse. Clinton is unquestionably better with regards to Muslim relations. Becoming worse, but still not nearly as bad as Trump, for the sake of winning, is still a net benefit to Muslim Americans over a Trump presidency.
|
On September 19 2016 01:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 01:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2016 00:45 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2016 23:49 Rebs wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I hope you realise that regardless of what she says, there is absolutely zero that you can do to eliminate attacks of the nature that happened yesterday. Zero. Well short of becoming an authoritarian police state. Of course I do. But I don't care about that. I care about her ratings going up and Trump not being president. If Clinton tries to peddle this PC bullshit about how "Most victims of attacks are Muslims! Billions around the world! We are united together!", a lot of people are gonna start tuning her out. She needs to be beating the drums against a group and Muslims are a prime candidate right now. Obviously she won't actually do anything. The big issue is that people can't feel like Trump is the only domestic safety candidate. If that is the rhetoric you support just to win then really you are fucked as a country whether Hillary wins or not. So much for values. Also its not PC bullshit to state facts. Muslims are infact the biggest victims of attacks. Other facts include the US being responsbile for more spilling more blood post WW2 than all terror groups combined. But hey as long as we are safe at home. Also to that nonsense comment by biologymajor, yeah im sure carrying guns will totally solve the problem of an internet made diy pressure cooker. Like really ,,,, The facts don't matter so much as the narrative that the facts are used to illustrate. It should be pretty clear by now that a majority of Americans aren't buying this pushed narrative that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. And frankly, the childish narrative is the PC one. There's plenty of room to accommodate both "Islamic terrorism is related to problematic interpretations of Islam (or Islam itself, for that matter)" and "We need to work with Muslims to stop Islamic terrorism." Except for the part where its not because of the Islam but because of centuries of bloody western intervention in the region... If the West didn't constantly fuck around in their backyard they would be sitting around talking about the 'silly western heathens' instead of trying to blow up people. The problem with advancing the historical argument in favor of your position is that "Islam started it." It's a religion that developed and spread during the 7th and 8th centuries through military conquest and putting people to the sword. So yeah, I don't think you want to go there. Unlike peaceful Christianity? Hell no, we spread it through fire and sword just as much. Religion is a good way excuse the use of violence, regardless of Islam or Christianity. I think it is important to look past religion in these discussion because more often then not there is a completely unrelated underlying reason for the violence, with religion just providing an easy explanation and excuse.. Hey, you're the one who brought up history. I merely illustrated why it's absurd for you to do so. The problem with your position that we need to separate the religion from the violence is that it completely ignores what violent extremists are telling us about why they are doing what they're doing. When Abdul tells me that he's going to kill me for religious reasons, why shouldn't I believe him? This isn't to say that economics and other non-religious factors have no role in explaining why the religious justification for Muslims killing heathens exists. But to completely divorce the religion from the violence is a bridge too far.
Because religion is basically propaganda and Abdul has bought into it?
It is how religion has been used throughout human history, its not something new or limited to Islam.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 19 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2016 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2016 00:22 zlefin wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I disagree with the plan of pushing unsound rhetoric just to win. That just creates more problems. I would argue a Trump presidency would result in more unsound rhetoric. In this case your rhetoric is not unlike a religious zealot who believes that any fucked up actions are justified in the name of the unquestionably righteous higher cause that you support. Even if Trump came down hard on Muslim extremism, Trump would still have been far worse. This entire election is about who is worse. Clinton is unquestionably better with regards to Muslim relations. Becoming worse, but still not nearly as bad as Trump, for the sake of winning, is still a net benefit to Muslim Americans over a Trump presidency.
Again, this is how religious-style extremism is justified in the first place. But what you don't realize is this. Let's say on a scale of 1 to 10, Hillary is a 4 and Trump is a 3. Both utter shit, but one is better than the other. You're thinking that Trump should be painted as a -5 just because 4 > 3 and we have to get the 4 elected. But a lot of the blunders in the primaries and in Hillary's campaign have been that Trump is definitely not a -5, and people can see quite clearly that he's not quite as bad as his enemies paint him to be. Which makes people really question if he really is worse than a 4, and a fair few will decide that no, he really isn't, especially when Trump paints Hillary as a 1 which is much more believable if he uses more proportionate attacks on her character.
|
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour.
|
On September 19 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:28 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2016 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2016 00:22 zlefin wrote:On September 18 2016 23:46 Mohdoo wrote:
LMAO, as if his lawyers are springing outward and Trump is holding them back.
Clinton has a chance here. She needs to bring the hammer down hard on Islamic terrorism. She needs to use the phrase, she needs to unveil a plan to cut down on DOMESTIC attacks. This plan needs to be NEW and it needs to be an escalation. Educated voters may not be scared from this, but the majority of our country is poorly educated. Don't fuck this up, Clinton. Toss Muslims under the bus for now. Win the election, be more reasonable then.
I disagree with the plan of pushing unsound rhetoric just to win. That just creates more problems. I would argue a Trump presidency would result in more unsound rhetoric. In this case your rhetoric is not unlike a religious zealot who believes that any fucked up actions are justified in the name of the unquestionably righteous higher cause that you support. Even if Trump came down hard on Muslim extremism, Trump would still have been far worse. This entire election is about who is worse. Clinton is unquestionably better with regards to Muslim relations. Becoming worse, but still not nearly as bad as Trump, for the sake of winning, is still a net benefit to Muslim Americans over a Trump presidency.
I call bullshit. Hillary is going to introduce the exact same policies that Trump is when it comes to stuff like this because of the possible blowback after Syria and calls for higher national security from the government at large due to a higher risk of domestic and foreign terrorism coming into the country.
The only difference between the two is that Hillary much like Obama will appear as if she isn't because the left centered media will keep shilling for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
