or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 81

post #1201 of 1314

1. insofar as there is "mainstream judaism", "mainstream christanity", "mainstream zoroastrianism" etc. 

 

2. i'm not sure we're on the same page here - one of the issues in europe seems to be the fostering of extremism in enclaves. are those neighborhoods self-selecting or has the surrounding society pushed these neighborhoods together? (not rhetorical, i really am unsure how those places develop). so will an adult moderate or liberal muslim start building bombs? it doesn't seem likely, but their kids might sympathize with an extremist agenda depending on a number of factors obviously. 

 

3. when i write "terror strategists" i'm actually talking about leadership of violent extremist groups. my point being that a wedge between non-muslim western liberal society and islam is good for business if you happen to be in the business of recruiting potential extremists. 

post #1202 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

2. i'm not sure we're on the same page here - one of the issues in europe seems to be the fostering of extremism in enclaves. are those neighborhoods self-selecting or has the surrounding society pushed these neighborhoods together? (not rhetorical, i really am unsure how those places develop). so will an adult moderate or liberal muslim start building bombs? it doesn't seem likely, but their kids might sympathize with an extremist agenda depending on a number of factors obviously. 

It's not so much a problem that there are predominately muslim areas, this is natural for all people to stick around with people from their own country/culture. Problem is some of people in those area wish to live their lives in total ignorance of culture/laws etc forming parrarel societies(probably size of minority pop. plays role too). From what I observed/read so far it is predominately self-segregation.

As much as kids sympathizing with extremist agenda- we at least don't see this in other religions. We didn't see that in christanity when Jesus was ridculed in Charlie Hebdo cartoons or when christianity is attacked by likes of Richard Dawkins. We see a lot of butthurt but not a lot of violence. I think the way Islam today is understood by too many muslims is the problem. I have not seen enough evidence so far that harsh criticsm of some islamic doctrines or interpretations is likely to push otherwise peaceful people either in hands of extremists or to symphatize with them. It's the belief itself that these doctrines are true is the problem. Not a problem west can solve though that's why I don't think that big multi-million muslim minorities are beneficial to european countries overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

3. when i write "terror strategists" i'm actually talking about leadership of violent extremist groups. my point being that a wedge between non-muslim western liberal society and islam is good for business if you happen to be in the business of recruiting potential extremists. 

Ofc that wedge works for them, but that wedge exists no matter what because conservative muslim values are incompatible with laregely secularised western values. They think we pretty much represent what is wrong with the world, like acceptance of homosexuality for instance or women not covering up.
post #1203 of 1314
"He wasn't a real Muslim. He was just crazy. Al Qaeda terrorists read scholarly texts and memorize the Koran. They are real Muslims."

Uhhh OK. So they're *not* crazy? Or *also* crazy? And you've got a bar for when a person decides they're Muslim do you? Interesting. I just take what people say (yell) at face value. I don't assign myself veto priviliges on their faith or how they choose to express it. (Complain about rap music..blow up innocent people etc)

I love how every lone wolf islamic terrorist is "just crazy.""
post #1204 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

"He wasn't a real Muslim. He was just crazy. Al Qaeda terrorists read scholarly texts and memorize the Koran. They are real Muslims."

Uhhh OK. So they're *not* crazy? Or *also* crazy? And you've got a bar for when a person decides they're Muslim do you? Interesting. I just take what people say (yell) at face value. I don't assign myself veto priviliges on their faith or how they choose to express it. (Complain about rap music..blow up innocent people etc)

I love how every lone wolf islamic terrorist is "just crazy.""

I assume that's directed at my comment from awhile back?


The point isn't to say people "aren't real Muslims," which is sort of a useless distinction. The point is understanding the problem. Why is ISIS so much more effective at creating home grown terrorists? What factors make someone susceptible to radicalization by ISIS? The differences between Al Qaeda and ISIS are going to let us address that. ISIS is recruiting different people with different motivations.

"Because Islam" is the extreme lazy way out on that, and taking that approach is going to have some pretty major costs that we might not really need to pay.
post #1205 of 1314
All good questions. I was mostly yelling randomly/ at shahman or ethan. However, I live in a culture of fear and am scared to get a falafel...
post #1206 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

You do realize that this is the case with basically every decision a politician makes? Are you really this naive about how the world works? Or are you too old to remember life's complexities...

This is a measurable, material risk that is completely avoidable and the government has an obligation to avoid such a risk.

I give you a lot of credit for admitting you think a certain number of deaths from terrorism are acceptable as long as the number of refugees we take is exponentially greater than that death toll. I suspect that's how many politicians on the left think, though they'd never admit it because it would end their careers (it used to called treason).

I'm sure you think you are taking the moral high ground because you're potentially saving more lives than you're sacrificing (a big assumption on its own), but putting people's lives in danger without their consent while lying to them about it is not morally defensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

So, you have shifted the goal posts. It was originally "we have no legal obligation." Now, it's "okay, maybe we have some legal obligation, but that legal obligation doesn't specify the exact number of people." Actually, that's generous. You shifted even further by adding "despite material security risks." No. This just isn't how it works.

First, you are correct. We do have some ability to pick and choose. Nobody has suggested or argued otherwise. In fact, several people have mentioned that we pick and choose, explaining numerous times that the bar for refugee status is extremely high. This is our picking and choosing. Much of this is codified. It's not just the whim of some government dudes. Second, if you are looking for the defined obligation to take X number of people, you should look to Section 207 of the INA, which provides the mechanisms for determining that number. There is tons of info out there about how that number is reached. Here is some of it:
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/docsforcongress/247770.htm
I also would suggest reading the Congressional Record, if you would like more information about how we determine X number. This number is set every year by Congress and the president.

Changing policy to reduce the number of refugees admitted and to increase the stringency of screening process are totally reasonable suggestions to address the concerns you are raising. I haven't said your concerns are invalid. I've said you don't understand the proper way to address your concerns. These policy discussions can't exist when people in the conversation don't understand some of the basic legal frameworks under which U.S. refugee policy is operating. At some point, it's not productive to continue the conversation, if you are not interested in understanding that framework.

Are you implying that we are forced to take refugees from Somalia? I don't believe you are, so you're essentially agreeing with me. My original position was that we have no legal obligation to protect someone in Somalia at the expense of putting our own citizens lives at risk.

Discussing an obligation to take some refugees from somewhere is another topic altogether. I am not opposed to all refugees. But anyway, thank you for the link and I'll definitely take a look at it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/21/federal-charges-filed-against-ny-nj-bombings-suspect.html

The father of NYC bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami called the FBI to report his own son. The FBI couldn't find anything suspicious. I am not at all confident that our government can detect a potential terrorist coming out of Somalia or Afghanistan or Syria, which is why part of that selection process should be a moratorium on taking people from certain areas of the world, at a minimum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

Most muslims claim ISIS isn't islamist, which is part of an underlaying issue. The first step to solving the problem is adminting there is a problem.
Scared no. Wholeheartedly worried about the way our society is moving and the socioeconomic and societal issues, yes.

A few years ago a lot of people only locked their doors, when they went to sleep. Now we are seeing the first signs of gated communities with guards and panic rooms. This has happened within a 10 year period. I wouldn't be surprised if we are going to see a change in the weapons laws within 10 years and armed guards are going to be allowed.

I know a bunch of people in their 20-30s who believe the welfare state is going to be dead, when they retire. Other people have chosen not to have kids due to their worries about the way the society is moving.

The biggest threat to privacy rights and our ability to avoid a true police state will be our immigration policy toward certain areas of the world. I prefer we not sacrifice privacy on the altar of political correctness. Watch what will happen to France, for example, with regard to armed military on street corners and a massive shift in the police state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post


I'm really curious how afraid some posters really are, or if they're just couching true intent in such language. Seems like a very stressful way to lead a life.

I'm not personally "afraid" in my everyday life, but I feel sorry for people who live in areas that will disproportionately feel the brunt of an increase in Islamic terrorism, and suffer a loss of privacy and increase in police/military presence because of it.

I'm more frustrated than anything, because what we know what we are headed toward and it's completely avoidable.
post #1207 of 1314
It's an important part of the M.O. of the Liberal apologist hyperPC brigade to accuse anyone with safety concerns re: immigration of being 1) an islamophobe bigot, and if that fails, 2) an irrationally fearful kind of sad case.

So *if you disagree with them* you're at best pitiable and at worst deplorable.

I've noticed this little game for years in debates with these types up here.
post #1208 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

ISIS is recruiting different people with different motivations.

I think you are approaching it from wrong angle. They have very similar goals but they do approach them diffrently using diffrent methods and strategies. Ideologically they are close to each other, if your motivation is to remove secular/apostate governments from ME and western influence you can join either. In fact ISIS partially sprung with AlQ Iraq branch. They do recruit some of the same people as their agendas are in many points very alike, plus with ISIS they do recruit everyone(in gary oldman's voice) who wants to join. There isn't religious exam to join. ISIS needs to control larger territory they need fighters to join, that's why they make it relatively easy. Their endorsment and encouraging of lonewolf attacks is also a part of the strategy, low cost and hard to prevent attacks, AlQ is more selective in picking its targets.
post #1209 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

I think you are approaching it from wrong angle. They have very similar goals but they do approach them diffrently using diffrent methods and strategies. Ideologically they are close to each other, if your motivation is to remove secular/apostate governments from ME and western influence you can join either. In fact ISIS partially sprung with AlQ Iraq branch. They do recruit some of the same people as their agendas are in many points very alike, plus with ISIS they do recruit everyone(in gary oldman's voice) who wants to join. There isn't religious exam to join. ISIS needs to control larger territory they need fighters to join, that's why they make it relatively easy. Their endorsment and encouraging of lonewolf attacks is also a part of the strategy, low cost and hard to prevent attacks, AlQ is more selective in picking its targets.

You're looking at the motivations of the leaders. I'm talking about the people joining at the lower levels.

The uneducated fuckwit from the streets who travels to Syria to fight doesn't really care about the caliphate. They probably only care about "Western influence" because of propaganda in their country. They're looking for something to identify with, and ISIS provides them that. Those weren't the people joining AQ, even if the leaders want to use them for the same things.
post #1210 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

They're looking for something to identify with, and ISIS provides them that. Those weren't the people joining AQ, even if the leaders want to use them for the same things.

I would suggest frontline ISIS and ALQ soldiers ultimately are motivated by something more selfish than that. By their belief in martydom and vision of heaven that awaits them. I doubt it eventually matters if they would achieve this under ISIS banner or banner of some other organization. Ultimately if like you put it these fuckwits didn't hold these beliefs they wouldn't join either ALQ or ISIS. ISIS is doing a much better job with marketing though and selling their vision of getting these people to heaven.
post #1211 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So then obviously TSA is unreasonable as out of all the millions of flights only a few were used as weapons?


The TSA is unreasonable because it is security theater not security.  In fact, I would argue it makes people less safe, and certainly increased the number of air travelers that are the victim of a property crime.  I bet TSA agents have stolen more shit since forming than baggage handlers and all the other airline employees have committed in the history of air travel.

post #1212 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


The TSA is unreasonable because it is security theater not security.  In fact, I would argue it makes people less safe, and certainly increased the number of air travelers that are the victim of a property crime.  I bet TSA agents have stolen more shit since forming than baggage handlers and all the other airline employees have committed in the history of air travel.

You're just saying this from fear. Quaking fear.
post #1213 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


You're just saying this from fear. Quaking fear.


What if it is justified quaking fear?

post #1214 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


What if it is justified quaking fear?

No fear on this topic is justified; it's only racist and xenophobic and that's going to get this new mod here so shut up.
post #1215 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


No fear on this topic is justified; it's only racist and xenophobic and that's going to get this new mod here so shut up.

 

Well, ask the TSA, this AE wearing fool is a known rabblerouser in need of "enhanced" searches.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread