|
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 13:00 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 12:58 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 18 2016 12:52 amazingxkcd wrote:On September 18 2016 12:19 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2016 12:03 Hexe wrote:On September 18 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
So there was an explosion device that went off in new York. 23 injuries but apparently non life threatening ones.
That's going to be a story for a few days. was it a pipe bomb? Don't know but it was apparently in a dumpster when it went off which is why it didn't kill anyone. ISIS tactic. They like to throw explosives into metallic containers to get more shrapenel out of it Thats a retarded tactic. The dumpster is going to absorb a massive amount of the blast and shrapnel. You're way better off using more actual shrapnel.... This is ISIS we're talking about, not a military comprised of logical thinking smart folks
What ahrar al sham is not isis... also if they didn't have smart people fighting and making decisions for them they wouldn't have conquered as much land as they did, they have many ex Saddam military personal from the Baath party with them commanding troops. They fought an insurgency against the us and are capable of creating many improved explosive devices so i wouldn't call them dumb for that, i would say they are idiots for doing what they do but not dumb.
|
On September 19 2016 01:58 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 13:00 amazingxkcd wrote:On September 18 2016 12:58 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 18 2016 12:52 amazingxkcd wrote:On September 18 2016 12:19 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2016 12:03 Hexe wrote:On September 18 2016 11:22 Sermokala wrote:
So there was an explosion device that went off in new York. 23 injuries but apparently non life threatening ones.
That's going to be a story for a few days. was it a pipe bomb? Don't know but it was apparently in a dumpster when it went off which is why it didn't kill anyone. ISIS tactic. They like to throw explosives into metallic containers to get more shrapenel out of it Thats a retarded tactic. The dumpster is going to absorb a massive amount of the blast and shrapnel. You're way better off using more actual shrapnel.... This is ISIS we're talking about, not a military comprised of logical thinking smart folkshttps://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/764918279366467588https://twitter.com/thelateempire/status/777347530673754112 What ahrar al sham is not isis... also if they didn't have smart people fighting and making decisions for them they wouldn't have conquered as much land as they did, they have many ex Saddam military personal from the Baath party with them commanding troops. They fought an insurgency against the us and are capable of creating many improved explosive devices so i wouldn't call them dumb for that, i would say they are idiots for doing what they do but not dumb.
I know right, bunch of rag tag career mercenaries are taking the piss out of established forces all over the middle east and apparently they lack military acumen.
I can assure given the same military resources these cunts = would kick the shit out of most RC warriors the badass marines and seals think they are. One has been training for it for a few years and is probably a big dude. The other literally lives for war.
|
On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
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.
Because blaming the Islam solves nothing.
Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West.
I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism.
|
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.
that argument does not counter or oppose my argument.
|
On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
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. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism.
Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others.
Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way.
The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can.
Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell.
Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that.
|
Have you actually seen numbers of Islamic demographics supporting suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism? It's pretty scary dude..
The religion as a medium is heavily intertwined with everything they do. Solely blaming Islam is the same thing is blaming heroin for being so addictive for someone being addicted to it. It's dumb and shortsighted. However, it is a big parameter in the whole equation and if you deny that, you're just as shortsighted imo.
Don't underestimate the way a medium like religion, and Islam in particular, can inspire, indoctrinate and bring people together for a mutual malvolent cause.
This is a video of an Afghan women being publicly killed on the streets for allegedly burning a Quran. I don't want to generalize here, but it's pretty disturbing how "non extremist" muslims are so devout to their religion. I just don't think you understand what an impact this religion has on people when you're living in a secular state and has those roots at the end of the 19th century. There's just no comparison.
On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others.
Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way.
The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can.
Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell.
Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that.
Come on dude, if teachings of Islam vary from area to area, which I totally agree with. I'm in no way saying that Islam should be eradicated, I'm not even inherently against it. I'm just saying that it's still a big factor in these situations to unite people against a common enemy.
|
On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
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. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that.
A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion.
We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well?
Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. There is no option for reform since these main principles will persist through any reform. Most people dont care much about religion apart from peer pressure so the violent aspects of islams are not seen in every muslim but the foundation for harm is inherent to the religion.
The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. I think all religions are for the weak minded and fools but islam is the only one I considere actively harmful to humanity.
|
On September 19 2016 02:10 zlefin 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. that argument does not counter or oppose my argument.
Well, I was saying that if Clinton ends up losing to Trump because she refuses to address voters' Islamic skepticism, people are better off with Clinton being a little bit more offensive than she has been so far.
|
On September 19 2016 02:23 Uldridge wrote:Have you actually seen numbers of Islamic demographics supporting suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism? It's pretty scary dude.. The religion as a medium is heavily intertwined with everything they do. Solely blaming Islam is the same thing is blaming heroin for being so addictive for someone being addicted to it. It's dumb and shortsighted. However, it is a big parameter in the whole equation and if you deny that, you're just as shortsighted imo. Don't underestimate the way a medium like religion, and Islam in particular, can inspire, indoctrinate and bring people together for a mutual malvolent cause. This is a video of an Afghan women being publicly killed on the streets for allegedly burning a Quran. I don't want to generalize here, but it's pretty disturbing how "non extremist" muslims are so devout to their religion. I just don't think you understand what an impact this religion has on people when you're living in a secular state and has those roots at the end of the 19th century. There's just no comparison.
There was a survey and it showed on average about 20% of the islamic population thought suicide bombing wasn't a problem or actively supported it. That is a huge number, and then you have the "moderates" who would actively resort to violence if you display any sort of anti islamic rhetoric publicly. Buddhism might be a religion of peace, but islam ain't, even if you look at it in aggregate.
|
I am sure there are a group of people in the middle east talking about the US populations support of drone strikes with a similar level of distastes. And how our culture of toxic neo-imperialism is destroying the world. Muslims represent 1.5 billion people and their views on subjects are as varied the US. You can't sum them up in a single poll any more than you can the entire US. If we want to talk about specific sections of the Middle East, that would be more productive.
|
On September 19 2016 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:10 zlefin 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. that argument does not counter or oppose my argument. Well, I was saying that if Clinton ends up losing to Trump because she refuses to address voters' Islamic skepticism, people are better off with Clinton being a little bit more offensive than she has been so far.
I agree that is what you were saying. It simply doesn't counter my point at all.
|
Indonesia isn't that bad. We should use them as a proxy for our dealings with muslim nations until they're not fucked up anymore.
Last bad thing I heard from them about the west was them having a problem with lady gagas preformance but still allowing her to play I think.
|
On September 19 2016 02:33 Plansix wrote:
I am sure there are a group of people in the middle east talking about the US populations support of drone strikes with a similar level of distastes. And how our culture of toxic neo-imperialism is destroying the world. Muslims represent 1.5 billion people and their views on subjects are as varied the US. You can't sum them up in a single poll any more than you can the entire US. If we want to talk about specific sections of the Middle East, that would be more productive.
I can't for the life of me understand how is US population even supporting drone strikes in the first place? No sane human being would support killing other humans for personal gains.
|
On September 19 2016 00:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:06 ACrow wrote:On September 19 2016 00:03 biology]major 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. you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment. As a non-American, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. If not, might I ask if you are actually college educated, like your name suggest? Curious. How about you just respond to what I wrote instead of getting butt hurt
Ok, I'll take that as "being serious" and "not college educated". I wouldn't know how to reply to what you wrote, because it is so contrary to anything my life experience has taught me, that it just seems entirely non-sensical to me. And I'm not butt hurt, I have no stake at all in any internal US laws, besides the occasional business trip and maybe future vacation plans (where I would prefer not to be shot by some mad hill billy with freely available guns, but that can be avoided by going to states with intelligent gun control only).
I'm just slightly worried that the populist rethoric in this election cycle might lead to a right extreme president who ruins the US and its international affairs, as, alas, the US is still the leading world power, and disaster for them would lead to disaster for many countries all around, including the world economy. So I'd hope the US stay a healthy, democratic country. But I trust the Americans to make the right choices (but then, I made a bet that even the republicans wouldn't be so stupid to make Trump their candidate, so maybe I overestimated).
|
On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
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. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god.
Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?...
The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west.
Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution.
Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come?
|
On September 19 2016 02:49 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 00:09 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2016 00:06 ACrow wrote:On September 19 2016 00:03 biology]major 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. you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment. As a non-American, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. If not, might I ask if you are actually college educated, like your name suggest? Curious. How about you just respond to what I wrote instead of getting butt hurt Ok, I'll take that as "being serious" and "not college educated". I wouldn't know how to reply to what you wrote, because it is so contrary to anything my life experience has taught me, that it just seems entirely non-sensical to me. And I'm not butt hurt, I have no stake at all in any internal US laws, besides the occasional business trip and maybe future vacation plans (where I would prefer not to be shot by some mad hill billy with freely available guns, but that can be avoided by going to states with intelligent gun control only). I'm just slightly worried that the populist rethoric in this election cycle might lead to a right extreme president who ruins the US and its international affairs, as, alas, the US is still the leading world power, and disaster for them would lead to disaster for many countries all around, including the world economy. So I'd hope the US stay a healthy, democratic country. But I trust the Americans to make the right choices (but then, I made a bet that even the republicans wouldn't be so stupid to make Trump their candidate, so maybe I overestimated).
It seems ridiculous to you because we are no where near that point where the attacks are frequent or deadly enough. If the rate of individually inspired terrorist activity increases above a certain threshold where it is no longer tolerable, given the current strategy the population will either have to continue tolerating it and just accept it as a part of society OR give up their rights and have the government gain access to all text messages/social media online. I offered an alternative approach, which is obviously not applicable now but just imagine if we had mass shootings on a daily/weekly basis.
|
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.
Take the psychopath murdering people at his word, but act as if the countless peaceful Muslims who say calling it "Islamic Terrorism" would be detrimental are idiotic liars, got it.
|
On September 19 2016 02:23 Uldridge wrote:Have you actually seen numbers of Islamic demographics supporting suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism? It's pretty scary dude.. The religion as a medium is heavily intertwined with everything they do. Solely blaming Islam is the same thing is blaming heroin for being so addictive for someone being addicted to it. It's dumb and shortsighted. However, it is a big parameter in the whole equation and if you deny that, you're just as shortsighted imo. Don't underestimate the way a medium like religion, and Islam in particular, can inspire, indoctrinate and bring people together for a mutual malvolent cause. This is a video of an Afghan women being publicly killed on the streets for allegedly burning a Quran. I don't want to generalize here, but it's pretty disturbing how "non extremist" muslims are so devout to their religion. I just don't think you understand what an impact this religion has on people when you're living in a secular state and has those roots at the end of the 19th century. There's just no comparison. Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. + Show Spoiler +Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others.
Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way.
The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can.
Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell.
Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. Come on dude, if teachings of Islam vary from area to area, which I totally agree with. I'm in no way saying that Islam should be eradicated, I'm not even inherently against it. I'm just saying that it's still a big factor in these situations to unite people against a common enemy.
As someone else said, How many Westerners are OK with drone bombings?
Don't pretend like we are much better. How long ago did we burn people at the stake for being a heretic? How many cultures have we destroyed in the name of Christianity. How many 'non-extremist' Christians enjoyed a good witch killing?
Yes the West is a lot less religious nowadays and you can argue we are more 'enlightened' then the Middle East but lets not pretend like 'we' were different.
And lol at someone thinking suppressing religion has ever really worked.
|
On September 19 2016 03:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:49 ACrow wrote:On September 19 2016 00:09 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2016 00:06 ACrow wrote:On September 19 2016 00:03 biology]major 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. you could encourage responsible gun ownership and offer classes, and have people trained enough to protect themselves. We haven't reached the level of domestic violence to justify such measures, but that is a far better alternative than an authoritarian state. Might not be able to stop these trash bomb tactics, but will help vs the crazies that use conventional tactics. Either way I agree with you that relying on the government to stop these individually motivated acts of terror is completely impossible. These 2 bombs cost a miniscule amount, and now the citizens have fear instilled in them, and the government has to spend a MASSIVE amount of resources that will likely do nothing. The solution to domestic terrorism is actually in the 2nd amendment. As a non-American, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or not. If not, might I ask if you are actually college educated, like your name suggest? Curious. How about you just respond to what I wrote instead of getting butt hurt Ok, I'll take that as "being serious" and "not college educated". I wouldn't know how to reply to what you wrote, because it is so contrary to anything my life experience has taught me, that it just seems entirely non-sensical to me. And I'm not butt hurt, I have no stake at all in any internal US laws, besides the occasional business trip and maybe future vacation plans (where I would prefer not to be shot by some mad hill billy with freely available guns, but that can be avoided by going to states with intelligent gun control only). I'm just slightly worried that the populist rethoric in this election cycle might lead to a right extreme president who ruins the US and its international affairs, as, alas, the US is still the leading world power, and disaster for them would lead to disaster for many countries all around, including the world economy. So I'd hope the US stay a healthy, democratic country. But I trust the Americans to make the right choices (but then, I made a bet that even the republicans wouldn't be so stupid to make Trump their candidate, so maybe I overestimated). It seems ridiculous to you because we are no where near that point where the attacks are frequent or deadly enough. If the rate of individually inspired terrorist activity increases above a certain threshold where it is no longer tolerable, given the current strategy the population will either have to continue tolerating it and just accept it as a part of society OR give up their rights and have the government gain access to all text messages/social media online. I offered an alternative approach, which is obviously not applicable now but just imagine if we had mass shootings on a daily/weekly basis.
You have mass shootings on a weekly basis...
|
On September 19 2016 02:47 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:33 Plansix wrote:
I am sure there are a group of people in the middle east talking about the US populations support of drone strikes with a similar level of distastes. And how our culture of toxic neo-imperialism is destroying the world. Muslims represent 1.5 billion people and their views on subjects are as varied the US. You can't sum them up in a single poll any more than you can the entire US. If we want to talk about specific sections of the Middle East, that would be more productive. I can't for the life of me understand how is US population even supporting drone strikes in the first place? No sane human being would support killing other humans for personal gains.
I don't see how drone killings are related to killing for personal gain.
drone strike support varies a fair bit in the US; and it depends also on in which case.
I'd be surprised if you haven't heard plausible cases for drone strikes in certain cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
