Different message than the apology tour of 2009.
(no message)
He can walk it back now that he's in the Middle East, but what's done is done. He campaigned on an anti-muslim message for 18 months. Then he signed an EO that was essentially a Muslim ban.
He's not helping, despite what he said.
Maybe what he said in Israel contrasts with Obama in some way, but it doesn't change 18 months of hurting the cause.
It's not like teenagers that died yesterday in the UK would have been spared had Trump not said mean things about the terrorists.
Who is advocating being nice to terrorists?
If Trump had spoken of terrorism and the Muslim religion for 18 months like he did yesterday, I'd have nothing to say.
But, he didn't. He demonized the religion. Consistently. And that makes his words yesterday hollow.
This is a vast oversimplification on the flip side of "Islam creates terrorists".
And the point I'm making is his words only stand to hurt the homegrown terrorism problem we have here. He's made Muslims and Islam the enemy. How is that good?
I picked gays as an example. I often think that gay pride parades recruit more ISIS terrorists from the ranks of conservative muslims than anti-terror rhetoric coming from Western leaders.
And especially read Eric Hoffer's True Believer if you want to understand the psychology of any mass movement whether its the trumpbots, hippies, terrorists, nazis, whatever.
I think you're taking my comment to mean that without this type of rhetoric there wouldn't be terrorism or ISIS or whatever terror group.
That's not what I'm saying.
I actually feel like it's pretty straightforward. Terrorism is a growing threat yes, but ISIS isn't sending their fighters over here to carry out these acts. When was the last time that even happened? 9/11?
They just recruit people who already live here, were born here, and have never been to the Middle East. The lone wolf types.
And they were able to do this before the prospective, and now current, President went on national TV and said he wanted to ban all Muslims. He's making the problem worse, not better.
Do you think your religion or the rhetoric of some foreign leader (not even the same country) would be major contributing factors?
My life experience and my world view are vastly different than many Muslim-Americans in this country because we don't grow up the same.
The only experience I have with discrimination personally was a bunch of black kids thinking I was chump in track because I was white (or at least not black).
I don't know what it's like to be labeled a terrorist because of the way I look or dress. I don't know what it's like to have people look at me funny since I was a kid. Or ridicule me. Or to feel I didn't belong and to wish I'd just leave. Look at the way Muslims are talked about on this board.
I don't know what drives people to do terrible things like that. Honestly, I'd like to think whatever the President says makes no difference to a Muslim kid who lives in a place where people are hostile to him. But, then that doesn't make sense.
The guy scapegoated Muslims, made them out to be either terrorists or abetting terrorism, called for a ban on their entry into the country, and people cheered.
You don't think a disgruntled kid on election night, having heard all of this, and already having gone through whatever he's gone through, didn't say "man, fuck all of these people" and started to get some fucked up ideas?
Coincidence? I think not.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
That if people like Trump didn't say what they say, then these attacks wouldn't be happening, and ISIS would just wither away?
But, now we are seeing home-grown terrorism. People born in the United States, the attacker yesterday was born in the UK, who are committing these acts. They feel they live in a country that hates them and they retreat to an online world that radicalizes them and then they do what they do.
I don't blame Trump for yesterday of course, and I wouldn't blame him if something similar happened in the states tomorrow, minus some sort of error on the administrations part, but that goes for any administration.
ISIS has been pushing a narrative that the west hates Islam, it's what they sell and how they recruit these lone wolf types.
Trump with his rhetoric confirms it for those who are predisposed to believe it.
It doesn't help the problem. It hurts it.
And his solution is to ban Muslims from entering. Well, there are 3.3 million Muslims who already live here. Some of whom feel unwanted and demonized. And for what? Because Trump wanted to win a point on Obama and Hillary and pretend he is strong on terrorism.
CBS News (White House and senior foreign affairs correspondent) said a few days ago that Trump is backing down from his promises to ban all muslims from the US, and a bunch of other stuff that Trump didn't say. I searched for the video, but couldn't find it. (I heard it on the radio.) She is representative of what I see happening all over the mainstream media. Trump said "Islamist," and the media hears "all of Islam." Trump sais "Syria," and the media hears "all Muslims."
When Trump says we should fight Islamists, and ban Islamists from immigrating, how much do we blame his political opponents for pushing a narrative that he wants to ban all Muslims, etc.? If he really didn't say the stuff, but the Left did, can we really hold Trump responsible? I understand that the Left is seeking short term domestic political gains by fanning fears by misconstruing what Trump says he wants to do and is likely to do. And, I also understand that Trump is not a lawyer or politician, and doesn't parse his words well, but the Left then pretends his mistatements are true, and trumpets them as if they are true to fan the fear, thereby mobilizing their base. But, do they bear any responsibility if people are radicalized as a result?
{Thought I'd throw in at least one use of "narrative" for MAS.}
That statement was left on his website until a couple weeks ago. So yeah.
I just listened to a longer version of that. (I hadn't heard the part you embedded. I think it is safe to say that FoxNews wasn't looping that one for a year. Only liberals were seeing that over and over again.) He was quoting a PEW poll which indicated that 25% of American Muslims agreed that violence against Americans here in the US is justified as part of the global jihad. That is pretty amazing. If 25% of a group already here believes that, what percentage of non-US Muslims believe that? That is really amazing.
25% of the people in Conor's all-American Muslim family think terror attacks are justified. Not sure I knew it was that bad.
And yet, Trump has not tried to do that. Do you think that rhetoric from the Left which lies about him trying to do that is "creating more savages?"
And that's just a cop out. Radical Islam has been around for thousands of years. These fuckers are still pissed about the crusades. In other words, Islam has failed to evolve for the most part. A good portion of the religion is stuck in the 7th century.
This is an excerpt from an interview from a Times reporter who lives in Mosul and is embedded with Iraqi troops who are fighting ISIS. I also linked to the whole thing.
I understand the point that no matter what Trump does he can't get rid of terrorism or extremism. But, again, he isn't helping.
Now, what is happening is that both al-Qaida and supporters of the Islamic State are actively using this rhetoric in their propaganda. Al-Qaida has done it officially. They have put Trump in their official magazines and in videos and used this as evidence of what they've been preaching for a long time, which is that America actually really hates Muslims. ISIS has not done it in an official capacity, but their supporters have been very active in putting out basically the same message.
GROSS: Can you tell more about the propaganda that you're seeing that uses Trump?
CALLIMACHI: Sure. So when I was in Mosul, my translator was in touch with a friend of his who was in the western part of the city, which was still occupied. And infrequently, that man was taking his hidden cellphone and climbing to the roof of his house and making phone calls out to my translator because that was his main connection to the outside world. And during one of the conversations he had, this person in western Mosul said that he had overheard ISIS fighters in his neighborhood calling the Trump travel ban as the blessed ban.
Of course, they were using that term facetiously, but the blessed ban in the sense that this ban was going to help their recruitment efforts and help in their effort to make Muslims in the West feel alienated, attacked and underscore that really the only force that could help them is the Islamic State.
Link: http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520057038/a-front-line-view-of-isis-at-war-theyre-not-backing-down
That pure speculation at best. Actions speak louder than words, so Obama droning savages and killing OBL created more ISIS fighters too, huh? That's bullshit as well. These fuckers have been around for ages and it's their bastardized belief set that creates more terrorists. It's a generational thing more so than external influences.
Branding Muslims as savages who can't be trusted, who we don't want in this country, doesn't help with the homegrown terrorism problem we have in the US and abroad. Frankly, I don't think what I'm saying is very controversial. If you brand any religion, social group, sex, whoever, with an evil connotation there will be poor results. If you tell someone enough times they aren't welcome and you demonize them, well, you know how that goes.
He can't alleviate it of course, and ISIS would still create propaganda no matter who it was. They can just make stuff up.
But, when it's the presidents own words and actions, that they don't have to manipulate, that has an impact.
Again, not helping.
We can agree to disagree, just sharing my position.
And I thought for 8 years of reading here, if we would just use those words we would win.
I'm not surprised you're enthralled.
however, I give credit where credit is due. At least the guy isn't apologizing to the savages. Go fuck yourself.
I meant to imply nothing of the kind, and, honestly, as I re-read it, I don't think I did.
I think it's pretty clear that my remark pertained to the intent of Trump's statement, not to him (much less to you) personally.
Now, I do say that his statement, such as it was, was intended for the consumption of domestic "rubes," so I guess that if you think the shoe fits, you can put the damn thing on, but I did not for a second mean to imply that. If you see yourself as a rube that is your call, not mine.
I think a simple, "I was wrong" would be nice and we can all move on.
(no message)
Honestly what would be the harm in another waste of time, BS show where two triggered males talk about how dirty Muslims are and then apply that to a whole swath of Muslims who don't even support terrorism in the first place? The kicker is you two think you are somehow very profound in your assessment of what it is to be Muslim, but the only interaction you have ever had with one is in a Fox News story. Kinda like these jagoffs who think all Catholic priests abuse children.
Certainly has been amusing witnessing you regurgitate every worn out excuse to malign Muslims.
I don't think so and I also don't think it's just a coincidence that the VAST majority of all terror attacks come from people of the Muslim faith. Ever read the Qur'an? Didn't think so, because if you did, you'd realize why Islam fosters blood thirsty savages.
unessential one. To say these people mass murder because they are Muslim is a vast oversimplification. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world yet there have been what 100 terrorist attacks globally in the last decade (including Muslim on Muslim terrorism). If it was just the nature of the religion, you'd expect far more attacks.
The nazis, bolsheviks, fascists and others all committed their atrocities without needing a religion.
Eric Hoffer wrote about this in his book, The True Believer.
Here's a few interesting passages:
Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.
The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.
All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action. ... All of them irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all ... demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.
For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap.
Link: https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1495515742&sr=8-2&keywords=true+believer
Whether we believe it is driven by their perverted view of their religion does not matter- they do.
11,800 terror attacks in 2015 alone, which was an "improvement" from the prior year.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4356139/global-terrorism-decline-2015-state/
But regardless, what's 1.6B divided by 11K? And since the majority of those were Muslim on Muslim, that kind of defeats the religious war argument, no?
And there are a hell of a lot more radicals than you think. Experts have estimated that 10-20% of Muslims are radicalized.
Look, Islamic Terrorism is a problem, and one that definitely needs to be addressed. But the problem is the more effective we are in combating it, the more effective their recruiting efforts become. Even if your number is correct, there are still 80-90% (or over a billion people) that probably don't fuck goats and don't want to kill you.
(no message)
(no message)
They need to quit cowering to the minority. Trump was right that Islam needs to distance itself and fight the radicals. For the most part that isn't happening without US involvement.
This problem isn't going away, so prepare yourself and your family. Be ever vigilant.
(no message)
The only way to do that is to kill them. The majority of Islam needs to subscribe to that train of thought and quit being sensitive pussies. If they start doing this, I will no longer consider them goat fucking douche bags. Cool?
Total cost including interest is estimated to be over $5T, over 7000 casualties and over 30000 wounded American soldiers. Despite this great expenditure, terrorism is on the rise. So I have to ask, did this line of thinking make the problem better or worse?
I don't know what the answers are, but I am glad I was born here and not in Goatfuckistan. I have empathy for the non-terrorist refugees which far outnumber the terrorists.
Notably, however, ISIS didn't really come on as a force to be reckoned with until after we withdrew. Giving them space to operate was the problem.
People think this problem can be solved before the next 1 or 2 election cycles. I think we need to take a longer term view. This is a problem for the next generation or two, not for the current president.
Isn't it sort of like the war on drugs? Best hope is to contain it.
And you have a point.
I have thought that the best we can do is to keep them attacking our troops over there, and not our people here, until their religion grows up in another 300 years.
But, they are trying to recruit over here. Personally, I think we he keep them busy over there, recruiting will decrease here. No one wants to join a losing group, do they? (Not sure what your guy would say about that theory. I just assume people want to perceive themselves as being on a winning team.)
Albeit possibly a less violent one. The struggle and "self-sacrifice" in combat against "the great satan" is more important than who is "winning", again there are deep psychological issues that it takes a certain environment and circumstances to create and ISIS is just the flavor of the week in the context of thousands of years of human conflict, mass movements and atrocities. Suicide bombers and the people that bomb abortion clinics are the same only wrapped up in different causes. They are both true believers, swap their locale and the result is the same.
The vigor of a mass movement stems from the propensity of its followers for united action and self-sacrifice. When we ascribe the success of a movement to its faith, doctrine, propaganda, leadership, ruthlessness and so on, we are but referring to instruments of unification and to means used to inculcate a readiness for self-sacrifice.
It can only be won by killing a critical mass of the terrorists (ISIS, Taliban, whatever)...80% of them, possibly more. We need to be hunting them down and exterminating them if we want this war to last less than 100 years.
The quotation is a collection of truisms. Beyond that, it's terribly written. Of course many mass movements identify villains. Isn't the important variable whom they identify as the villain and what means they employ to take down that villain? In this case, Islam's holy books identify the villain and the means to destroy it. We see evidence of this in whom they target and the means they employ. It is directed by Islamic texts. If your argument is that these folks would do the same if they adhered to a different religion, we would see similar numbers and scales of terrorism from other younger males, mostly from middle class homes, in societies that are predominantly Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Scientologist/New Age religionists, et cetera. We do not. Islam is the crucial variable here.
I have no idea what source gave you that number of 100 terrorist attacks. Here's a list from December, 2016 alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_December_2016
Atheism is a belief system. Atheists believe there is no God (in contrast to agnostics, who do not believe and are simply unsure). With regards to Stalinists and Nazi leaders, they believed they would not answer to any higher power for their actions as they "improved" humanity. Both had mixed in a good dose of scientism. Unsurprisingly, when a group believes they will not answer to a higher power and they have the means and rationalization for "improving" mankind, we see millions die.
The problem with Islam is that it has no New Testament and no Ten Commandments.
Here's a couple regarding atheism, Eric Hoffer would have agreed with your take on Atheism:
The atheist is a religious person. He believes in atheism as though it were a new religion. He is an atheist with devoutness and unction. According to Renan, 'The day after that on which the world should no longer believe in God, atheists would be the wretchedest of all men.
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a God or not. The atheist is a religious person. He believes in atheism as though it were a new religion.
You should read the book, he also takes on one of your favorite subjects: intellectuals.
Just off the top of my head, people that grew up in a Judeo-Christian society yet still became murdering assholes, and this is despite the fact that Americans are much less inclined to become radicalized due to a number of factors addressed in the book.
Adam Lanza
Dylan Rooff
Ted Kacynski
Timothy McVeigh
Whoever the Heaven's Gate cult leader was.
Jim Jones
Eric Harris & Dylan Kleibold
Fanaticism, radicalization, mass movement, whatever you want to call it; it comes in many flavors and neither the absence nor presence of religion is essential. Islam may be a precursor of sorts, but Islam alone cannot convince a 20-something to strap a bomb to their chest, there is much more psychology involved and there are members of every religion that under the right circumstances could be convinced to do the same.
In other words, they should be especially militant, given your hypothesis. They are not. I suspect you know why they're not.
I don't know who you think is disagreeing with you that "religion is not essential." Who in the world argued it is? As a matter of fact, I pointed out that with Stalin and Hitler, their belief that no higher power would hold them accountable made them more likely to continue with their "improvements" of mankind.
You cite a list of individuals. With the possible exception of McVeigh, were part of a larger terrorist movement. We had no one who followed any of those individuals. We see Islamic terrorist attacks followed by Islamic terrorist attacks because there is something unique about Islam that isn't present in Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Sikhism, et cetera.
Finally, your estimates of how many Muslims actually disagree with the "death to apostates" principle is undoubtedly lowballing it. I'll try and dig up the polling on that. As Sam Harris has stated quite well, the jihadists give a quite plausible interpretation of Islamic texts. In contrast, no one believes that the Gospels give license for Christians to commit terrorist acts.
IRA
Lord's Resistance Army in Western Africa
Army of God
The Phineas Priesthood
The National Liberation Front of Tripura
You've now had to Google search "Christian terrorists"to try to keep up this false equivalence. "The National Liberation Front of Tripura?" Is this supposed to be funny? Sorry if I'm missing the sarcasm.
There is no theological basis for wanton murder in Christianity. There is no basis in Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, et cetera. Unfortunately, there is a basis and justification within Islam. This is reflected in the poll numbers linked below. When you go beyond Russia and the former Soviet-bloc countries, observe some of the levels of support for death to apostates and other positions held by the so-called "extremists." Is the argument that, "Well, most Muslims don't blow themselves and others up," therefore this is really about other issues or is true of religions in general? Is that the argument? Most Germans weren't out killing Jews during the Holocaust. Did their silence, acquiescence or enthusiastic support all help the cause? Of course. When 30% or more...tens of millions... of Muslims state that they endorse death to apostates, you may want to take them at their word. That isn't a small minority, and as you will see in many Muslim-dominant countries, it's a strong majority.
But, yeah, some Christians do murder in the name of Christ and they have approximately 0.001% support for their beliefs and actions from the Christian population.
Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Do these muslims read a different version of the Quran?
What do you think a poll of American Muslims would show?
Link: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/pew-144000-us-muslims-say-suicide-bombings-civilian-targets-often-or
That's reflected in the poll, as you've noted. I've had this discussion other places. If we could just westernize about a billion Muslims, we'd have it made! How long do you reckon that will take? Beyond that, whose interpretation is the more plausible interpretation of Muhammad's words? Therein lies a large problem for those not living in western civilization.
Is that on the banned buzz word list? I can't remember.
Besides the link, I read that 4% of Americans believe that the attacks on abortion clinics are justified. How do you think that number extrapolates to Evangelical Christians? How about Evangelical Christians that live in rural areas in the South?
There can be more than one variable leading to a person adopting a radical belief. And you've yet to show a causal link between muslim faith and terrorism.
Link: https://thinkprogress.org/less-than-2-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-in-the-e-u-are-religiously-motivated-cec7d8ebedf6
so it's entirely essential. Read the Quran, then you will see how some Muslims become radical. Also, there are estimates that 10-20% of Islam is radicalized and virtually EVERY modern day terrorist attack is at their hands.
The Nazis, committed atrocities, but were generally unwilling to die for their cause, therefore I don't see a comparison.
bortion clinic without a unique interpretation of the Bible, so do these Muslim radicals use the Koran to justify their terrorism. What's unique about the Muslim radicals is that they are so willing and wanting to die themselves. The other groups you mentioned wanted others to die, but not they. Muslim radicals almost always kill themselves as part of their terrorism. While the circumstances were different, kamikaze pilots certainly would be in the Radical Muslim neighborhood.
(no message)
The "male" part disqualifies us from commenting, I take it? I mean, you chose that instead of "humans" or "omnivores" and such, right? I can certainly see how being a male would preclude one from having anything meaningful to say on this subject. "Female," no sir. As victims of oppression themselves, they would of course have something to say.
You constructed a strawman, specifically your implication that I think all Muslims approve of terrorism, along with your outright fabrications that I think Muslims are "dirty" and that the only experiences I have with Muslims is through Fox News. Is this really the best you can manage?
Someone here is indeed "triggered."
(no message)
Where concerned parents were desperate to stop an optional, "free lunch" Christian prayer group that met across the street from a public school in a public park. You get the picture. Naturally, some of these same folks are passionate about fighting "Islamophobia." You can't make up this stuff.
Link: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/religious-lunch-event-causing-tension-between-organizers-and-middleton-school/article_b39bf369-8c75-5622-8a02-3baa664acca7.html
(no message)
You definitely can't make this shit up.
"She said their location and timing during the school day 'is what’s making me very uncomfortable.'”
Chilling, indeed.
I honestly don't know what country they think they're living in or if they've ever consulted our Constitution. I'm pretty sure they believe that it states that "There shall be no Christianity in any public place, for it would threaten separation of church and state."
Former Governor Lee Dreyfus once described Madison as "33 square miles surrounded by reality." It's really true. Dane County is not unlike an electoral map of the United States. You get outside of Madison in the county, and beliefs and ideologies are much different. The proceedings of the city council are unreal. You have a situation where the ex-radical mayor of the city is placed in the position of being the voice of reason. The homeless situation is out of control downtown and the good uber-liberals refuse to move them, so they harass visitors to the capitol and so forth. Violent crime and shootings have been getting worse and worse and these are the types of folks who want sensitivity training for the cops, yet no more cops on the beat, in these neighborhoods. It's literally like ringing the dinner bell for deviants from Chicago. It's a classic example of unintended consequences: the "well-meaning" and "compassionate" policymaking increases victimization of innocent citizens and actually stokes more racial hatred.
BTW, guess how many of the uber-liberals bring the homeless into their homes to feed, clothe and shelter them? That's someone else's responsibility, you see, in the form of a new government program, which, as we all know, is how you solve problems like homelessness and racism.
(no message)
Polls and getting re-elected drive most of these politicians in D.C., which brings up a logical question: to whom are the Dems trying to appeal when they refuse to say "Islamic terrorism" or make these silly argument that most Muslims are moderates who disapprove of fundamental beliefs about what should be done to apostates? As near as I can tell, it appeals to folks on public university campuses; folks in places like Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor; media talking heads; people who listen to state public radio while everyone else is at work; and many American Muslims, who make up less than 1% of the total population. To most everyone else, it has zero appeal and to many, it incites them to actively oppose the Dems.
BTW, how long do you think an ultra-lib would last in a country like Saudi Arabia?
They actively avoid such realizations and perform mental gymnastics to explain how, for instance, the hijab is actually a symbol of female "empowerment."
A couple years ago I chaperoned a civil rights pilgrimage down South. There were a number of LGBTQ students on the bus and I didn't have the heart to tell them how many of the black folks they were meeting along the way are absolutely opposed to homosexuality and how strong of a reaction they have against likening gay rights to the battle for racial equality. That was naivete and genuine ignorance on their part, in contrast to their relationship with Islam. They've grown up with militant Islam.
. . . . they gain traction by selling "hate" to gullible small minded people, looking to blame someone/something else, for their miserable existence.
Women and children are treated like shit, goats get regularly raped, Moozies hate people of other faiths, and the fuckers don't eat bacon. That's sacrilege in it of itself, no?
People who hate, hate... and use whatever jutification they can for motivation to act it out.
(no message)
(no message)