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 7

post #91 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

^ I know that particular question is a clusterfuck (again, one above my paygrade). But the complicating factors seem to be:

- we're dealing with a refugee crisis that derives from a destabilization of the region--a destabilization that this country has had a partial but significant role in fostering. Not sure how (morally but also politically) we can do something like invade Iraq (+ make mistakes in Libya and Syria) and then disavow responsibility

This rise of ISIS was not inevitable. We have no obligation to take 65,000 refugees as Hillary wants to do (the actual number would be higher, I'm sure). We have an obligation to do what's best for our country and the safety of its citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

- I'm not sure how we *don't* fundamentally alienate Muslim populations at home as well as abroad if our attitude is closing our borders to Muslims.

I don't understand how people make statements like this without realizing what they're saying. We shouldn't have to worry about alienating a large population of Muslims within our country. The fact that we have to worry about that is ipso facto proof that our immigration policy is insane. We have to worry about Muslims being offended by an immigration policy that protects innocent lives, so your solution is to continuing bringing in people from the culture that we can't offend for fearing of being blown up an airport. If you think this problem will be solved by a continuation of our current immigration policies, just to show how tolerant we are, nothing I say is going to make a dent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

- Or, to put it differently, it seems difficult or impossible to keep your own supposedly sensible/practical prescription

Supposedly? We have to pretend that it's up for debate whether or not it's a good idea to keep taking people from this culture? All immigration is not the same. You must know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

(U.S. citizen Muslim)

His father was an immigrant from Afghanistan. Please describe, in detail, the vast cultural enrichment we receive by taking in people from Afghanistan. It must really be something if it's going to offset the 50 people brutally murdered last night.
post #92 of 1314
quick response because I'm off to do something actually pleasant:

1) "the bad results of my actions weren't inevitable so i'm morally/ethically/politically off the hook!" is a stupid argument

2) alienating a minority population is bad politics. this is especially true when a) what we're talking about is a religious minority in this country and b) America describes itself *foundationally* as a country established on religious freedom. but this is also true in general--alienating a minority population can and often does lead to bad results and harmful reactions. and yes, i'm talking about muslims in particular but i'm also talking about what happens to disillusioned minority groups in general.

3) so if someone's dad is an immigrant, that u.s. citizen is still defined as an immigrant and we can easily slide from talking about him to talking about immigration policies. not in general, i'm sure--only if the immigrant-citizen in question is irish a jap a jew muslim.
post #93 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


This rise of ISIS was not inevitable.

 

You're right.  We didn't have to go toppling leaders in the Middle East.  Our destroying of Al Qaeda didn't hurt either.

post #94 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


3) so if someone's dad is an immigrant, that u.s. citizen is still defined as an immigrant and we can easily slide from talking about him to talking about immigration policies. not in general, i'm sure--only if the immigrant-citizen in question is irish a jap a jew muslim.

Stage 1 cancer often leads to Stage 2, and Stage 2 is no less dangerous. Of the groups you list, only 1 is cancer. So this analogy won't apply to irish/japanese/jews.
post #95 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

How will they highlight the targeting of gays without specifically incriminating the culture of Islam? Contradictions within the hierarchy of political correctness are typically not at odds with one another in such an obvious way.

post #96 of 1314
^ lol, great comic KaiKaiKai!
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
it really shows that the thought of pushing two buttons at once is so wild and kinky it doesn't even register in the mind of a mouthbreather
post #97 of 1314
Why would one capitalize "The"?
post #98 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


2) alienating a minority population is bad politics. this is especially true when a) what we're talking about is a religious minority in this country and b) America describes itself *foundationally* as a country established on religious freedom. but this is also true in general--alienating a minority population can and often does lead to bad results and harmful reactions. and yes, i'm talking about muslims in particular but i'm also talking about what happens to disillusioned minority groups in general.

3) so if someone's dad is an immigrant, that u.s. citizen is still defined as an immigrant and we can easily slide from talking about him to talking about immigration policies. not in general, i'm sure--only if the immigrant-citizen in question is irish a jap a jew muslim.

So can you name the things we gain by bringing in people from Afghanistan? We know what the potential downsides are - can you detail the list of pros that outweigh the cons?

I don't care about politics, I care about preventing terrorist attacks and protecting us from backwards cultures that are hateful and violent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

You're right.  We didn't have to go toppling leaders in the Middle East.  Our destroying of Al Qaeda didn't hurt either.

Could we have killed Saddam and prevented the rise of ISIS?
post #99 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

Stage 1 cancer often leads to Stage 2, and Stage 2 is no less dangerous. Of the groups you list, only 1 is cancer. So this analogy won't apply to irish/japanese/jews.

how many generations should we go back and what % of immigrant blood makes you an immigrant? quick, back to blood quantum analysis!
post #100 of 1314
I got kind of excited after hearing the founder on the radio... but then I saw that their website was built by a 12-year old and their change.org petition has a total of ~2500 signatures.
http://muslimreformmovement.org/
https://www.change.org/p/muslims-and-neighbors-we-support-the-muslim-reform-movement

It's also interesting that the list of people to which the petition will be delivered doesn't explicitly contain any Muslim leaders (except Obama, I guess, if you're into that kind of thing).
post #101 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post


Could we have killed Saddam and prevented the rise of ISIS?

Go back one step more: should the US have toppled Saddam? Answer that and now you've got some insight.
post #102 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Why would one capitalize "The"?


I assume the author's implication that it is some kind of proper noun such as a team name.

post #103 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Go back one step more: should the US have toppled Saddam? Answer that and now you've got some insight.


I think the US should remove every world leader at least once every decade.  Some countries more often just to keep them all on their toes.

post #104 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Go back one step more: should the US have toppled Saddam? Answer that and now you've got some insight.

Probably not, but I think the answer to that is harder to argue with absolute certainty. It's easier to say we could have prevented the rise of ISIS by leaving enough troops behind to prevent the breeding ground we were left with. I'm not sure how to prevent that from happening without long term occupation. Some people here seem to think we can change their culture. Can you do that while occupying territory? They will use occupation as recruiting propaganda, but if it's not occupation, it will be something else. We have a long term problem and if we still fought wars with edged weapons and shields, it might not be a big deal if we take another 150 years to sort it out. The problem needs eliminated before it triggers major conflicts across the globe, or before they get their hands on some kind of weapon of mass destruction.

Global conflicts and potential nuclear/biological events will happen before we are able to change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people who are embracing deep seated religious beliefs. Cultural changes like that don't happen within a generation, not even close. Second generation Muslim immigrants are committing acts of terror.
post #105 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

Probably not, but I think the answer to that is harder to argue with absolute certainty. It's easier to say we could have prevented the rise of ISIS by leaving enough troops behind to prevent the breeding ground we were left with. I'm not sure how to prevent that from happening without long term occupation. Some people here seem to think we can change their culture. Can you do that while occupying territory? They will use occupation as recruiting propaganda, but if it's not occupation, it will be something else. We have a long term problem and if we still fought wars with edged weapons and shields, it might not be a big deal if we take another 150 years to sort it out. The problem needs eliminated before it triggers major conflicts across the globe, or before they get their hands on some kind of weapon of mass destruction.

Global conflicts and potential nuclear/biological events will happen before we are able to change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of people who are embracing deep seated religious beliefs. Cultural changes like that don't happen within a generation, not even close. Second generation Muslim immigrants are committing acts of terror.

I didn't tie this to preventing the rise of ISIS. I simply said answering whether or not the US should have toppled Saddam is the real question. ISIS is simply one post-Saddam player among many.
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