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 53

post #781 of 1309
I edited my post for clarity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

My president and AG told me there's no such thing as radical Islam.

I edited my post for clarity.
post #782 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post


We're never going to defeat radical Islam militarily. The only way to defeat them is to turn them into capitalist countries like we did with the Japanese.

The developed world should stop its white mans complex and stop funding groups and development aid, as neither work nor help.
post #783 of 1309
I meant buy their stereos and cars, not give them money.
post #784 of 1309
So do I.
post #785 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


My president and AG told me there's no such thing as radical Islam.

 

This whole "Obama won't say radical Islam" thing is so bizarre. George W. Bush didn't call it radical Islam either. "War on terror." "Fight against violent extremism." W in a speech right after 9/11: "Americans understand we fight not a religion. Ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=65084

 

Hell, Rumsfeld even bitched about the W. administration doing this. "From the beginning, members of the administration worked gingerly around the obvious truth that our main enemies were Islamic extremists. I didn't think we could fight the crucial ideological aspect of the war if we were too wedded to political correctness to acknowledge the facts honestly."

 

The prior administration did the exact same thing that Obama did and for the exact same reason. The language used was a very deliberate strategy by the W. administration not to appear to be declaring a war between the U.S./West and Islam. The Obama administration is doing the exact same thing, because both administrations believe(d) that declaring war against Islam (even radical Islam) is exactly what radical Muslims want us to do.

 

It's really not that complicated of a concept. I don't really give a shit if someone uses the term. I use the term. I also think it's fine to disagree with the administration's choice not to use the term. However, the vast majority of people who do disagree with Obama not using the term lack a complete understanding of why that choice was even made. It's not some whacky Obama thing. W. did it too. And both had the same reason.

post #786 of 1309
^You'd be correct if terminology were the only difference. When Fort Hood was labeled "workplace violence" I think there's more going on than an unwillingness to use a certain phrase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

We're never going to defeat radical Islam militarily. The only way to defeat them is to turn them into capitalist countries like we did with the Japanese.

We will continue to suffer from and tolerate periodic attacks until they pull off something very large. 2,400 dead in Pearl Harbor - 3,000 killed on 9/11 which sort of triggered a response but not enough to get the job done, obviously. We're all pussies now, so factor in the generational differences and it's unlikely we do much of anything until they're able to do serious damage in a single attack, serious meaning more than 3K dead.

As long as groups like ISIS exist and the ideology exists, people will be drawn to it and carry out these random attacks on civilians. I doubt the ideology goes away without leveling parts of the middle east. Am I suggesting we do that tomorrow? No, but I think that's the reality we live in.
Edited by suited - 7/19/16 at 2:32pm
post #787 of 1309
Thread Starter 
I mentioned Lynch though. Isn't the decision to edit audio tapes taking it to the next level? This is not a person refusing to use the term but rather editing someone that did. I could be wrong and it didn't get said in Miami or Lynch didn't edit the tapes but pretty sure I saw her address it directly in an interview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

This whole "Obama won't say radical Islam" thing is so bizarre. George W. Bush didn't call it radical Islam either. "War on terror." "Fight against violent extremism." W in a speech right after 9/11: "Americans understand we fight not a religion. Ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=65084

Hell, Rumsfeld even bitched about the W. administration doing this. "From the beginning, members of the administration worked gingerly around the obvious truth that our main enemies were Islamic extremists. I didn't think we could fight the crucial ideological aspect of the war if we were too wedded to political correctness to acknowledge the facts honestly."

The prior administration did the exact same thing that Obama did and for the exact same reason. The language used was a very deliberate strategy by the W. administration not to appear to be declaring a war between the U.S./West and Islam. The Obama administration is doing the exact same thing, because both administrations believe(d) that declaring war against Islam (even radical Islam) is exactly what radical Muslims want us to do.

It's really not that complicated of a concept. I don't really give a shit if someone uses the term. I use the term. I also think it's fine to disagree with the administration's choice not to use the term. However, the vast majority of people who do disagree with Obama not using the term lack a complete understanding of why that choice was even made. It's not some whacky Obama thing. W. did it too. And both had the same reason.
post #788 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post


We're never going to defeat radical Islam militarily. The only way to defeat them is to turn them into capitalist countries like we did with the Japanese.

"capitalism" isn't some bandaid you can just patch over a dysfunctional system. and even if it happens successfully overnight, it doesn't negate the possibility of a chinese-like oligarchical system taking root which would probably not sit well either. at this point the best model left, since turkey is going to hell in a hand basket, is the UAE. They are pretty harsh on any perceived threats from either arab-spring activists of especially extremists. they play well with the West, for the most part (you can drink to your liver's delight there, and the financial hub that is Dubai is a massive 'trade-route' between Eastern and Western economies), and the locals are happy/appeased with enough government subsidies and foreign aid ('slavery') that they don't grumble much.

Note that under Erdogan, Turkey became the 8th largest economy in the world and if he's able to right this ship it can still be a viable model, he just needs to stop with the crazy pills for a few weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post


The developed world should stop its white mans complex and stop funding groups and development aid, as neither work nor help.

feel free to also stop the white man complex of baseless/illegal invasions, mass indiscriminate dronings based on 'meta-data' that leads to large civilian casualties and recruitment pamphlets, propping up dictators, overthrowing elected leaders, aiding land-grab, and buying resources from insane regimes that turn around and support the very ideologies that lead to such attacks in Europe. Do that and you may have a deal, hell you can probably get a truckload of pistachios* and rugs as a bonus.



* israelis have been illegally importing persian pistachios for years now and they are certainly worth it, none of this california garbage
post #789 of 1309
I do don't either of those, so where is my rug and my pistachios?



But agreed.
post #790 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

feel free to also stop the white man complex of baseless/illegal invasions, mass indiscriminate dronings based on 'meta-data' that leads to large civilian casualties and recruitment pamphlets, propping up dictators, overthrowing elected leaders, aiding land-grab, and buying resources from insane regimes that turn around and support the very ideologies that lead to such attacks in Europe. Do that and you may have a deal, hell you can probably get a truckload of pistachios* and rugs as a bonus.

* israelis have been illegally importing persian pistachios for years now and they are certainly worth it, none of this california garbage

cool to see we agree somewhere, I don't think it would stop terrorism(buit probably reduce it significantly) and it's both moral and sane thing to do.
post #791 of 1309
I meant buy their stereos and cars, not give them money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

We will continue to suffer from and tolerate periodic attacks until they pull off something very large. 2,400 dead in Pearl Harbor - 3,000 killed on 9/11 which sort of triggered a response but not enough to get the job done, obviously. We're all pussies now, so factor in the generational differences and it's unlikely we do much of anything until they're able to do serious damage in a single attack, serious meaning more than 3K dead.

As long as groups like ISIS exist and the ideology exists, people will be drawn to it and carry out these random attacks on civilians. I doubt the ideology goes away without leveling parts of the middle east. Am I suggesting we do that tomorrow? No, but I think that's the reality we live in.


There were like 10 million Japanese. There's 10 billion muslims. If we had left the Japanese alone to kill the Chinese and not fucked with their oil they wouldn't have come after us. If we had let the Muslims alone to be killed by the Israelis and not fucked with their oil they wouldn't have come after us. You're just encouraging them.
post #792 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I mentioned Lynch though.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean. I repeatedly referred to both the W. and Obama administrations, which obviously would include Lynch.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Isn't the decision to edit audio tapes taking it to the next level? This is not a person refusing to use the term but rather editing someone that did. I could be wrong and it didn't get said in Miami or Lynch didn't edit the tapes but pretty sure I saw her address it directly in an interview.

 

Yes, she announced that the FBI would release edited transcripts. Again, this is a very deliberate strategy, and she was not hiding anything. I think Ataturk has described this strategy in the context of other types of mass shootings. When the media shows such an interest in the identity and motivation of those murderers, you actually can create more harm by inspiring copycats and by promoting these acts to others who may hold similar beliefs. Silencing them, not identifying them and their motivations, can become a powerful tool.

 

The murderer/terrorist/Islamic extremist/whatever you want to call him in Orlando wanted his words repeated, because he is appealing to potential followers. Lynch's strategy was to take that power from him, not disavow that the motive was radical Islam.

 

I work in national security. I can assure you that our leaders understand that the problem is radical Islam. The strategy to avoid mentioning radical Islam (and even going as far as editing out references to it) is incredibly deliberate and has been practiced by both Republicans and Democrats. It can potentially be very effective. As I said, anybody is welcome to disagree with the strategy, but they should at least understand the strategy.

post #793 of 1309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

I'm not really sure what you mean. I repeatedly referred to both the W. and Obama administrations, which obviously would include Lynch.


Yes, she announced that the FBI would release edited transcripts. Again, this is a very deliberate strategy, and she was not hiding anything. I think Ataturk has described this strategy in the context of other types of mass shootings. When the media shows such an interest in the identity and motivation of those murderers, you actually can create more harm by inspiring copycats and by promoting these acts to others who may hold similar beliefs. Silencing them, not identifying them and their motivations, can become a powerful tool.

The murderer/terrorist/Islamic extremist/whatever you want to call him in Orlando wanted his words repeated, because he is appealing to potential followers. Lynch's strategy was to take that power from him, not disavow that the motive was radical Islam.

I work in national security. I can assure you that our leaders understand that the problem is radical Islam. The strategy to avoid mentioning radical Islam (and even going as far as editing out references to it) is incredibly deliberate and has been practiced by both Republican and Democrats. It can potentially be very effective. As I said, anybody is welcome to disagree with the strategy, but they should at least understand the strategy.

Information just wants to be free.

I'll disagree with the policy. It's not like we're going to hide this from a billion or so people.
post #794 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

I meant buy their stereos and cars, not give them money.

 

A Paki stereo doesn't sound like something I want to happen to me.

post #795 of 1309
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

A Paki stereo doesn't sound like something I want to happen to me.


Nobody wanted to buy Japanese watches either.


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