The Political Discussion Thread

[Ian-S]

....Your tinfoil hat is on extra tight today..

I thought it was about the ongoing investigation and not wanting to alert the people he could have been working with by releasing his name..

But I meant that Trump is the leak.. He's planning to investigate himself..

You want to see pictures of dead children on the news? And not just dead, but badly injured, covered in blood. With nails and screws embedded in their bodies.

That kind of image has never been shown on the news. See if you can figure out why.

Oh they've been shown, just not in our lifetime and yes, the reason they are not shown is because of people like you who think it's their right to dictate what others see, do and say.

The fact that you made the jump from what I wrote to somehow concluding that meant I wanted to see photos of dead kids speaks volumes, considering the photos I was talking about that were leaked were of the bomb pieces and wide views of the area, not the 'omg close up of corpse' you imagine I said.

Oh btw, your logic on not wanting to release the name because it might tip off those he was working with has a small flaw, since by conclusion "working with" implies they already had prior knowledge of his plan, the mere mention of events on the news has already done that, unless of course you advocate a complete media blackout of all events of this nature so not to 'tip anybody off'.

Yup, we can all live in blissful denial, that's a great idea.

[Annoyed]

Plus we seem to have this mentality that we must not show graphic images on TV or in newspapers for fear of upsetting the poor snowflakes who are incapable of deciding for themselves what to and what not to look at, as I've said before perhaps if these images were shown, the Joe Public might be more inclined to report stuff instead of assuming someone else will.

I wonder if it has something to do with TV news networks not wanting to lose viewers. How many completely sheltered "snowflakes" might turn the channel if over the top footage of a live bombing site or war zone including the gory details appeared on their screens?

[jelgate]

The news isn't different than regular TV. It still needs ratings. So they are going to produce stories that sell

[Ian-S]

Exactly.

[Gatefan1976]

Maybe cause republicans are not out to sabotage dems, unlike the dems seem to be out to sabotage anything republican??

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/1...-pledge-044311

[Gatefan1976]

That doesn't answer his question about the transition from Clinton to Bush

I didn't expect that to register Jel.

[jelgate]

I don't subscribe to the us vs them mentality

[Gatefan1976]

I don't subscribe to the us vs them mentality

Just come up with a good plan does me fine, it's why I have voted for all of our major parties at least once.

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.761088881725

Yuge.

[garhkal]

That doesn't answer his question about the transition from Clinton to Bush

I honestly don't know..

[jelgate]

Jelgate knows.

[Gatefan1976]

Gatefan knows.

[aretood2]

Maybe cause republicans are not out to sabotage dems, unlike the dems seem to be out to sabotage anything republican??

False, they literally said they were going to do just that in 2010, and that's exactly what they did.

I honestly don't know..

Could it possibly be that Trump is an ineffective government leader who is unable to understand how government works and the law and a little thing I know you have trouble understanding called "morality"? If Bush didn't find these issues (Or any previous president), why does Trump find them? Just think about it for a second beyond your near religious faith in Trump.

[Falcon Horus]

Finally time to properly catch up with this thread. I'm back home.

Anyway, here goes the post I didn't get to finish yesterday as I had to leave to visit three more talaotic settlements (1600 BC until 123 AD -- give or take a few years).

Trump wanted to ban all Muslims because there could be terrorists travelling with them.. Remember Trump Jr's bowl of skittles argument?

The 4th circuit ruled it unconstitutional. It's still not happening this ban, not EO-1 and not EO-2.

They're not welcome in your society, they get shunned for their race and religion. They are constantly told they're not wanted anywhere, no one wants to hire them, they're met with suspicion everywhere. Eventually they start to believe it. Maybe they really are monsters. And since society just wants them to crawl away and die.

Oh come on, Daesh is counting on our cooperation. If we don't shun the Muslims, they won't have any recruits. Trump's their best recruiter since taking office -- he's been winning "Recruiter of the Month" every month. He likes winning, you know that.

And as I recall, lax immigration/refugee policy was one of the driving forces behind Brexit?

Yeah, pretty much based on a lie.

Here's a hint. Bombings and other acts terrorism aren't going to result in a better public opinion of them.

That's true. Just look at all the shootings in the USA, and the many people who get killed in those (mass-)shootings.

Public opinion is rather so-so.

Numbers to large to ignore. If incidents such as this were a rare thing, I believe it would be dismissed as inevitable background noise. But it's not a rare thing, is it? As I understand it, there are already more than 10 such this year already?

Compared to gun violence in the USA -- here are the numbers for 2017 so far:

Total number of incidents: 24,612
Number of deaths: 6,012
Number of injuries: 11,856
Number of Children Killed or Injured (age 0-11): 262
Number of Children Killed or Injured (age 12-17): 1,246
Mass shootings: 133
Officer Involved Incident, Officer Killed or Injured: 115
Officer Involved Incident, Suspect-Subject Shot or Injured: 851
Home Invasion: 1,019
Defensive Use: 835
Unintentional Shooting: 819

Suicides are not included in these numbers.
Data validated on May 27, 2017.

Today alone -- 27th of May -- there were 13 shootings, which killed 9 people.

So, on an average year, there will be 1000-1250 people killed by radical Islamic attacks outside of "combat zones" across, well, hey, let's just say the US.

More people in the US have already been killed, in the last 5 months, by way of gunviolence than you are calculating to die in a year from terrorist attacks.

I'm not using numbers to belittle, or ignore the problem, terrorism is a massive problem, but you really are ignoring something that has far more of a real impact on US citizens lives far more than terrorism, and so far, after years of watching the US, the best reason I can find for it is, you (Americans) simply find it more tasteful to get killed by one of your own, rather than some "foreigner"

Better to get killed by an honest American, than a dishonest Daesh member.

I don't know... maybe... *shrug*

Ah sterotypes and generalizations. We keep on falling into the same trap.

What would we be without stereotypes and generalizations.

And suicide bombers do not usually wake up and say they want to die. They get told, by people whom they see as authority, to go out and kill in the name of something greater than themselves. Kill, not die. Dying is the means towards better killing.

And take a bit of drugs to keep calm -- usually their labresults are full of chemicals. A little coke to keep the nerves at bay.

That's the question, how can you be born with the wrong thing of which is impossible to be born with in the first place? If Gender is learned, how can you end up learning the wrong one?

When you are born in the wrong body, perhaps.

Birthcertificate says female. Parents raise a girl, but the boy born in the wrong body is still a boy, no matter the outside.

Or birthcertificate says male. Parents raise a boy, but the girl born in the wrong body is still a girl, no matter the outside.

Or birthcertificate says male or female. Parents raise a boy or girl, but the person in the body does not feel like they fit in either category, no matter the outside.

You seem to be talking about sex though, breasts and all. Not gender. Breasts are just matched with one gender. Couldn't it be said that by rejecting the gender that breasts come with you are actually able to reject the body parts you feel you shouldn't have?

Female hormones make female attributes -- hence the hormone blockers given to transkids, or the hormone-treatments transwomen/men have to take to up their testosterone/estrogen levels.

I reckon, someone who opts to transition, does exactly that -- reject the body parts which do not match their gender.

[Falcon Horus]

I don't think so. People who go the suicide bomber route tend to blow themselves up early, usually when challenged by security. This bomber in Manchester could have caused far, far more damage if he had waited a little longer.

Perhaps he tried to get into the venue but couldn't so instead waited at the door, and before he could be discovered he blew himself up -- taking with him whomever would be at that place at that time. It would have to do.

OK, lets wipe Medina, Mecca, Jerusalem and the Vatican off the planet, burn all their books and purge their religions from the world.
Is that enough controlling and suppression for you?

Outlaw religion -- they'll go underground.

I think it's a combination of both. Men & Women's brains are structured differently, for example the two halves of a woman's brain communicate better than the two halves of a male brain. I'm sure there are other differences, I just remember reading that in a news article. But men and women are inherently different, and we behave differently.
And there is no doubt that societies treat a young female and a young male differently. So it seems to me that the person is the result of both nature and nurture.

There we go, the world is definitely going to end, Annoyed and I agree on something.

So all those white guys who shoot up schools and churches, they're just doing it because they can? No one pushed them? No "mental illness" excuses to fall back on? They're just evil?

You know, white guys can't be terrorists. Only non-white guys are terrorists.

I don't believe that anyone is born with the ambition of blowing themselves up and taking as many people with them as possible.

Sociopaths and psychopaths do have different brain chemistry -- proven fact.
But you are right, suicide bombers are not born with the trait to want to blow themselves up and take as many people with them as possible.

Isn't the starting point of your cycle their holy book, the Quran? Don't they (ISIS and followers) claim that their Quran tells them that anyone not of the faith, an "infidel" is to be converted or killed? Doesn't it also promise 42 virgins in their version of the afterlife if they die advancing the cause?

72, and it could be grapes instead of virgins. Nobody knows for sure.

I quote the Bible - Deuteronomy 13:6:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, and none of the condemned things are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors — because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

2 Chronicles 15:13

All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

So err, you were saying...

Spoiler:

btw how the hell will they ensure a steady supply for newcomers?

It's the same virgins, or grapes...
Besides, do you really think they are waiting for someone who resembles a 10,000 piece puzzle?

ummmm... No. It's not *what* they look like. It's what their deeds have been, as in "actions speak louder than words." Plus, not everyone who looks different in skin color or clothing fashions is hellbent on hurting or destroying people who are different than them color and clothing wise.

The word terrorist is never used when the perp is white. It will always be uttered when they're not, no matter where they come from.

Remember that dude in Canada, who shot up a mosque? That was a terroristic act. Yet, never once did they label him a terrorist. Had he been darker skinned, they would have labelled him a terrorist from the first article onwards.

The article originally came from the Islamic State's Dabiq magazine, and was apparently written shortly after the nightclub murders of the LGBTQ club down in Orlando,FL (USA) last year (2016). So, from their own clear statements, here yah go--please see inside spoiler quotes.. (for everyone)
https : // azelin .files. wordpress. com/2016/07/the-islamic-state-e2809cdacc84biq-magazine-

The article is real -- there really was an article published, not long after the Pulse shooting, in one of the Dabiq issues, the official Daesh magazine.

However, the problem starts with your link. I went looking for the original article (which I didn't read, nor clicked on). However, the first link google gave me (top to bottom) wasn't the Dabiq issue # in which the article appeared, it was the Clarion Project who copied the article and added their opinion to it.

Now here's where it gets interesting. I ignored the article altogether (I know how Daesh rejoiced over the Pulse shooting -- heck, a few Christians rejoiced along with them) and followed the Clarion Project instead as that name rang a distant bell.

I think we've talked about them before. I think you've used them before and here comes my problem:

The Southern Poverty Law Center described the organization as an anti-Muslim group, and the Muslim advocacy group Council on American–Islamic Relations said the group promotes Islamophobia in America.

I assume, the person who provided the translation is Walid Phares, who is a Lebanese-born American scholar and right-wing political pundit. He worked for the Republican presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016. He has also served as a commentator on terrorism and the Middle East for Fox News since 2007, and for NBC from 2003 to 2006. A Maronite Christian, Phares has drawn controversy over his association with extremist Lebanese Christian militant groups in the 1980s during the Lebanese Civil War, and over his anti-Islam views.

And apparently speaks right to your cause:

Views on Islam
According to the New York Times, Phares "regularly warns that Muslims aim to take over American institutions and impose Shariah, a legal code based mainly on the Koran that can involve punishments like cutting off the hands of a thief." Phares has also asserted that jihadists are posing as civil rights advocates.

Phares has been described as being part of "the Islamophobia industry, a network of researchers who have warned for many years of the dangers of Islam and were thrilled by Mr. Trump’s election." According to Lawrence Pintak of the Atlantic Council, Phares is a "card-carrying Islamophobe". Although Phares is often described as a scholar on terrorism, Stanford University terrorism expert Martha Crenshaw stated that Phares was "not in the mainstream as an academic". Duke sociologist Christopher A. Bail describes Phares as an influential figure in the anti-Islam movement.

According to the New York Times, Phares "is regularly accused by Muslim civil rights groups of being Islamophobic and of fear-mongering about the spread of Sharia law."

Daesh uses whatever parts of the Quran that fit their narrative best. The more death and destruction they can cause, the better. Put the fear of god in the Crusaders, in a manner of speaking. But the Crusaders should know better, and instead of calling Muslims bad, or Islam evil because of what a small group (relatively speaking in comparison to the whole group) does. We should not be painting them all with the same brush. I know that's not easy, but for me Daesh are monsters and they most certainly do not represent all Muslims. Far from it.

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. [...]

I couldn't green you, but damn... best ever response.

And when we see people CHEERING (in palestine and other muslim countries) when certain bombing happened, its IMO more than just a small minority.

Didn't we see Christians who "celebrated" the death of the 49 Pulse victims?
Didn't we see Jews who were celebrating the death of a Palestine child convicted for that same celebration?

Or doesn't that count?

No doubt, there is celebrating going on. But please, it's not just Daesh who gloats.

But we have tried the "open arms and accepting them" and that didn't work either (see afgan/iraq).

What did you do in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Besides creating a void for Daesh to step into.

And what of all the leakers? Are they also not a threat to the US??

I would say, your President at this point is the biggest leaky problem of all.

Wow. A nice read Sgalisa..
And when you read things like that, it makes you truly wonder, HOW can we ever try to 'find common ground, to accept/welcome or otherwise think we ever can live in peace' with such a hateful religion and ideology.

You should see who helped translating the original article. I guess, you also take it as face value hey. Don't bother with the background of the person doing the opinionating.