|
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 May 23 2017 12:26 Doodsmack wrote:
Yes, let's just milk a tragedy to score a few pettiness points on Trump. Good job, David Frump.
|
On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two.
Second hand smoke kills ~41,000 Americans a year, that's on the decline with smoking being banned pretty much everywhere. How long till you think terrorists (the one's who claim they are Muslim) overtakes ambient smoke entering non-smokers lungs?
Because you just said "generations" for Europe, which is going to experience all of this a lot sooner if for no other reason than proximity. Basically sounds like you're admitting accidentally that it really is an overblown threat. Particularly when you consider the more immediate threat of white male terrorists who are out killing any "Muslim" terrorists in this country for which your concern about seems significantly less.
|
On May 23 2017 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. Second hand smoke kills ~41,000 Americans a year, that's on the decline with smoking being banned pretty much everywhere. How long till you think terrorists (the one's who claim they are Muslim) overtakes ambient smoke entering non-smokers lungs? Because you just said "generations" for Europe, which is going to experience all of this a lot sooner if for no other reason than proximity. Basically sounds like you're admitting accidentally that it really is an overblown threat. Particularly when you consider the more immediate threat of white male terrorists who are out killing any "Muslim" terrorists in this country for which your concern about seems significantly less.
I also like how he set his time line for when the Muslim extremest become a serious problem out two generations. Safest prediction ever, we will all be dead or TL will be shut down by the time we know for sure.
|
On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two.
So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came?
|
On May 23 2017 11:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:47 m4ini wrote:It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue.
Until the next two towers go down. What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Do you think they're "done" with the US? I was really hoping that he'd expound on the dangers that Christianity poses to the Western world. alex jones apparently is a threat that needs to be called out. Whoa, constant news cycles every few months of mass murder must be child's play to him. You can see the effects of ideology so clearly, when common sense starts to escape someone. Ask people to call radical islam by it's name and not vague bullshit like 'terrorism', response is "but what about christianity!!" If christians in the name of jesus are plotting and killing with coordination and end up on multiple news cycles, let me know, and we can call it out as well.
You are aware that the reason politicians don't do that is because it translates poorly into Arabic, right? There is no hidden code here. No secret agenda. It is literally that the dumb fucking words dip shits politicians push for political points around election time translate poorly into a different language.
Like I don't understand why this code is hard to crack. They don't speak English in the Middle East, so some of the shit we say sounds weird.
|
On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue.
At least you're being upfront with whom you consider the real danger.
|
On May 23 2017 12:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:54 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:47 m4ini wrote:It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue.
Until the next two towers go down. What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Do you think they're "done" with the US? I was really hoping that he'd expound on the dangers that Christianity poses to the Western world. alex jones apparently is a threat that needs to be called out. Whoa, constant news cycles every few months of mass murder must be child's play to him. You can see the effects of ideology so clearly, when common sense starts to escape someone. Ask people to call radical islam by it's name and not vague bullshit like 'terrorism', response is "but what about christianity!!" If christians in the name of jesus are plotting and killing with coordination and end up on multiple news cycles, let me know, and we can call it out as well. You are aware that the reason politicians don't do that is because it translates poorly into Arabic, right? There is no hidden code here. No secret agenda. It is literally that the dumb fucking words dip shits politicians push for political points around election time translate poorly into a different language. Like I don't understand why this code is hard to crack. They don't speak English in the Middle East, so some of the shit we say sounds weird.
I am bemused, not relieved, to hear that the new reason the whole time that people chose to eschew certain cogent language in the USA when speaking in English to an American audience of their own citizens was that someone on the other side of the world might get a bad translation of it...
|
On May 23 2017 12:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. At least you're being upfront with whom you consider the real danger.
When you consider that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have said that right wing extremists were "the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States", it's not a terribly unreasonable position to hold.
|
On May 23 2017 13:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 12:43 Plansix wrote:On May 23 2017 11:54 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:47 m4ini wrote:It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue.
Until the next two towers go down. What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Do you think they're "done" with the US? I was really hoping that he'd expound on the dangers that Christianity poses to the Western world. alex jones apparently is a threat that needs to be called out. Whoa, constant news cycles every few months of mass murder must be child's play to him. You can see the effects of ideology so clearly, when common sense starts to escape someone. Ask people to call radical islam by it's name and not vague bullshit like 'terrorism', response is "but what about christianity!!" If christians in the name of jesus are plotting and killing with coordination and end up on multiple news cycles, let me know, and we can call it out as well. You are aware that the reason politicians don't do that is because it translates poorly into Arabic, right? There is no hidden code here. No secret agenda. It is literally that the dumb fucking words dip shits politicians push for political points around election time translate poorly into a different language. Like I don't understand why this code is hard to crack. They don't speak English in the Middle East, so some of the shit we say sounds weird. I am bemused, not relieved, to hear that the new reason the whole time that people chose to eschew certain cogent language in the USA when speaking in English to an American audience of their own citizens was that someone on the other side of the world might get a bad translation of it...
Welcome to global politics. You know have have CNN in other countries and they translate what our president says into the native language? You see, there are some politicians in this country that are so important that other nations listen to what they say and translate it. And in this case, radical Islam does not translate into "terrorist". So rather than provide 2000 free hours of B-roll for terrorist requirement videos, we opted to use a different set of words.
This is commonly called communication skills. When we find out that some specific language isn't going to convey the meaning we are looking for, we use different words. Because it is a free and easy way to solve the problems or avoid creating useless problems in the first place.
Also the term is dumb because it could also mean some 90s Muslims that are really into surfing.
|
On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came?
I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis.
|
|
|
On May 23 2017 13:04 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 12:54 Danglars wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. At least you're being upfront with whom you consider the real danger. When you consider that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have said that right wing extremists were "the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States", it's not a terribly unreasonable position to hold.
He said Christian extremists. It's a very specific claim--that Christian extremists are of more danger to him than Islamic extremists. It means very little to me to hear again the same arguments I've heard over the last decade; I'm just used to the mealy mouthed "Well of course islamic extremists are the real danger, but let us not neglect the vile influence of Christian fundamentalists..."
Now it seems you don't have to cloak that rhetoric to get the same play.
|
For me it's all exactly the same shit. Why bother differentiating between religions when they are both following the same ultra-conservative beliefs? They both want to maintain outdated social structures, they both want outbreed one another. They're almost literally the same in terms of raw ideology. It's just that the most extreme expressions are slightly different. On one side they are militarily invading countries and terrorizing populations with high-tech drones, while the other side is 'invading' countries through immigration and terrorizing with suicide attacks.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On May 23 2017 14:06 a_flayer wrote:
For me it's all exactly the same shit. Why bother differentiating between religions when they are both following the same ultra-conservative beliefs? They both want to maintain outdated social structures, they both want outbreed one another. They're almost literally the same in terms of raw ideology. It's just that the most extreme expressions are slightly different. On one side they are militarily invading countries and terrorizing populations with high-tech drones, while the other side is 'invading' countries through immigration and terrorizing with suicide attacks.
Why are military invasions and high tech drones a specifically Christian problem rather than a problem of the republic, a problem of representative democracy, a liberal and free open society problem, a nominal belief in a higher power problem, an old school cold war ideology and 'US as the policeman of the world' problem? I could go on. Our warfare seems pretty secular in purpose and origin; why are you blaming religion?
|
On May 23 2017 14:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 14:06 a_flayer wrote:
For me it's all exactly the same shit. Why bother differentiating between religions when they are both following the same ultra-conservative beliefs? They both want to maintain outdated social structures, they both want outbreed one another. They're almost literally the same in terms of raw ideology. It's just that the most extreme expressions are slightly different. On one side they are militarily invading countries and terrorizing populations with high-tech drones, while the other side is 'invading' countries through immigration and terrorizing with suicide attacks. Why is military invasions and high tech drones a specifically Christian problem rather than a problem of the republic, a problem of representative democracy, a liberal and free open society problem, a nominal belief in a higher power problem, an old school cold war ideology and 'US as the policeman of the world' problem? I could go on. Our warfare seems pretty secular in purpose, why are you blaming religion?
Said by George W. Bush:
I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.
Source
And I'm not saying it's specifically a Christian problem. That's exactly what I'm not saying. It's not an Islamic problem. It's not a Christian problem. It's people making idiotic decisions, and often times they are motivated by things like what President Bush said. Idiotic beliefs.
And besides that, there's the social conservatism and science denying which also has deep religious roots for the vast majority of people who have those views. All of these things are displayed by extremists and non-extremists alike on both sides. Both sides are in fact the same ultra-conservative side in society, although they're too daft to understand it.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On May 23 2017 14:51 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 14:48 Falling wrote:On May 23 2017 14:06 a_flayer wrote:
For me it's all exactly the same shit. Why bother differentiating between religions when they are both following the same ultra-conservative beliefs? They both want to maintain outdated social structures, they both want outbreed one another. They're almost literally the same in terms of raw ideology. It's just that the most extreme expressions are slightly different. On one side they are militarily invading countries and terrorizing populations with high-tech drones, while the other side is 'invading' countries through immigration and terrorizing with suicide attacks. Why is military invasions and high tech drones a specifically Christian problem rather than a problem of the republic, a problem of representative democracy, a liberal and free open society problem, a nominal belief in a higher power problem, an old school cold war ideology and 'US as the policeman of the world' problem? I could go on. Our warfare seems pretty secular in purpose, why are you blaming religion? Show nested quote +Said by George W. Bush:
I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. SourceAnd I'm not saying it's specifically a Christian problem. That's exactly what I'm not saying. It's not an Islamic problem. It's not a Christian problem. It's people making idiotic decisions, and often times they are motivated by things like what President Bush said. Idiotic beliefs.
Hm. Not so sure what to make of that quote. It appears the White House denies it was ever said. And if the Australian news is to believed, Abbas denied it as well.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html
In any event, I'd be hesitant to attach much meaning to someone's recollection of the event as people sometimes take wonky meanings contrary to original intention, particularly cross-culture. An alternate memory:
"THE Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians' meeting to [Glen] Kessler [of The Washington Post] and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker. The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation was this: "God inspired me to hit al-Qa'ida, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them." Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down . . .in Arabic, then back into English."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/cutandpaste/who-knows-better-what-george-w-bush-said-george-w-bush-or-mahmoud-abbas/news-story/a1b3a66d0fa82f6de2d19e3c55b10c58?nk=042b1865c39a9cc38eb43587912489f0-1495518807
But regardless, it doesn't require religion at all to want to go into Iraq- see Hitchens for that.
I really don't think the US got into Iraq because George believed he had divine special revelation to go in and that was that. Do you think that was also the reason Obama and Bush Sr went in?
|
Melania knows how to deal with Donald :D
|
On May 23 2017 12:28 LegalLord wrote:Yes, let's just milk a tragedy to score a few pettiness points on Trump. Good job, David Frump.
Can we just all agree to drop this false horror at events being used politically in a political context? Unless you think it's super offensive that xDaunt and Danglars are currently using this to score points against SJWs in this thread... It's not here, and it's not there.
|
On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis.
Why do you like selling weapons to the people who are likely to give them to other people that you pretend to be at war with?
|
On May 23 2017 13:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 12:36 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On May 23 2017 12:05 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:On May 23 2017 11:55 hunts wrote:On May 23 2017 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On May 23 2017 11:45 Nevuk wrote:On May 23 2017 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakharia say radical islamism/jihadism lol Let's see whether blowing up a bunch of little girls makes a difference to our PC brethren. It's not nearly as much of a problem to me personally as radical right wing christian extremists are. Both politically and physically I'm under threat by them, while Muslim terrorism seems limited to europe currently. It's nothing to do with PC to not care about what is a fundamentally European issue. R/The_Donald or the Redpill people are far more likely to be the source of the next terrorist attack on US soil, and definitely the next one to kill a massive number of people in the US. I've definitely heard of comment threads on the_donald about how to use violence to ensure that Trump remains in power indefinitely. So I ask, why hasn't Mike Pence or Donald Trump come out and condemned these terrorist breeding grounds? Is he in favor of biblical rules against witches that would allow him to exsanguinate and burn political opponents alive? Why haven't they condemned far right conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones or Tuck Buckford? The SJWs actually do the terrorism though, through violent protest of destroying other people's properties. The Red Pill people are 100% less violent in their approach, just watch the difference between the feminist and the MRAs in The Red Pill movie. It is pretty apparent. Except that most actual terrorist attacks by the definition of terrorism on us soil are done by far right people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorismSince you seem to know what many people disagree on, care to explain what the definition of terrorism is? edit: nevermind, lets not go into semantics. The definition for terrorism doesn't exist. There's one that suits your argument, and one that doesn't. You just chose to take the one that suits you and paint it at the definition. The bigger problem is the myopia of their argument. Yes, you can technically argue that radical Islam is not the biggest threat to America today, but you only get there by completely ignoring future expectations and the severity of the threat posed. I suspect that things will get a little more real over here as the situation in Europe continues to degenerate over the next generation or two. So how do you feel about Trump curtsying to, dancing with, and selling 100 billion dollars of weapons to a radical islamic kingdom that subsidizes mosques everywhere and from which most of the 9/11 attackers came? I'm not a fan of this trip. The only thing that I like is that he sold a shitton of weapons to the Saudis.
What exactly is to be liked about that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
