Red Mosquito

You know what is wrong with the world? Not muslims. Ignorance. Ignorant stupid rednecks. America is what is wrong with the world. (just kidding)

Nell Wallace via Breitbart
1 hr ·
More and More people are coming to realize this Ben (Stein). I have read he (Obama) was raised in Indonesia and that is not a Christian place. NO matter how much he tries to stand up and talk about caring about America, his actions and face say different and why has he not been impeached for Treason?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:So ISIS hates being called "Daesh" but all the news does is say they hate being called that. Why don't they start referring to them as that? Are we worried about fair reporting on ISIS?

--1. If you want to be accurate, you should probably use "Islamic State", since that's what they call themselves.
--2. If you want to be the most informative, you should probably use "ISIS", as that's the term that most people are familiar with.
--3. If you want to show your disdain for this group, you should probably use "Daesh" since it pisses them off.

News reporters, should probably go with 1 though I can see a case for 2 if you're being more explanatory than reporting. But politicians, governments, and commentators have a pretty damn good reason to use 3 instead.

--4. If you are Fox News, you call them ISIL instead.

https://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/11/16/ ... amic-state

Chris_H_2 wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:So ISIS hates being called "Daesh" but all the news does is say they hate being called that. Why don't they start referring to them as that? Are we worried about fair reporting on ISIS?

--1. If you want to be accurate, you should probably use "Islamic State", since that's what they call themselves.
--2. If you want to be the most informative, you should probably use "ISIS", as that's the term that most people are familiar with.
--3. If you want to show your disdain for this group, you should probably use "Daesh" since it pisses them off.

News reporters, should probably go with 1 though I can see a case for 2 if you're being more explanatory than reporting. But politicians, governments, and commentators have a pretty damn good reason to use 3 instead.

--4. If you are Fox News, you call them ISIL instead.

https://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/11/16/ ... amic-state

lol @ the comments after that article.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:...Except the middle paragraph, which no one here is doing. But, again, it seems like we're all talking over each other.

I'm sorry. Maybe I am inferring things about you that I shouldn't, but I thought you had been pretty clear about your disapproval of the fundamental teachings of Islam, the influence it has on the people who practice it, and therefore the connection it has to jihadism. I know you're not condemning all Muslims, but your approach to the issue seems to be mired in an all or nothing mentality. I've mostly stayed on the sidelines here, so I certainly don't think I'm talking over you, and would welcome clarification if I'm missing your point.

I'm getting the impression that LV is following the thought process of "religion is all complete bullshit, therefor in a situation where religion is a factor it has to be the main problem"

What is the Islamic State's end-game?

I believe the people that are actually carrying out the attacks are Jihadist, the brains behind ISIS, not so much. But i know nothing.

Kaius wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:...Except the middle paragraph, which no one here is doing. But, again, it seems like we're all talking over each other.

I'm sorry. Maybe I am inferring things about you that I shouldn't, but I thought you had been pretty clear about your disapproval of the fundamental teachings of Islam, the influence it has on the people who practice it, and therefore the connection it has to jihadism. I know you're not condemning all Muslims, but your approach to the issue seems to be mired in an all or nothing mentality. I've mostly stayed on the sidelines here, so I certainly don't think I'm talking over you, and would welcome clarification if I'm missing your point.

Yes, that is correct, right there. What I disagreed with was saying that I was condemning Islam because of the actions of extremists; I am condemning Islam because I find Islam itself to be deserving of condemnation, and am not making any judgments about Muslims as individuals. Nuance is called for when discussing or interacting with individuals. I don't think it's called for when discussing the ideology itself, which is loaded with problems from the start.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm getting the impression that LV is following the thought process of "religion is all complete bullshit, therefor in a situation where religion is a factor it has to be the main problem"

I think there isn't a main problem here, though oil money may be the closest thing to one. I think it's really a combination of factors and fundamentalist Islam is a powerful tool of mind control in practice.
If a form of Christianity was the main religion in the area they'd use a version of that that would serve a similar purpose.

Cool. I suppose that was better worded than "Attempting to disregard<(poor word choice) ancient religions practiced by billions due to a minority that manipulates it's followers in the name of those gods, whilst others of the same faith actively condemn these groups as heretics of their modern faith, whom seemingly still hold onto medieval concepts, is just point-blank wrong. "

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Kaius wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:...Except the middle paragraph, which no one here is doing. But, again, it seems like we're all talking over each other.

I'm sorry. Maybe I am inferring things about you that I shouldn't, but I thought you had been pretty clear about your disapproval of the fundamental teachings of Islam, the influence it has on the people who practice it, and therefore the connection it has to jihadism. I know you're not condemning all Muslims, but your approach to the issue seems to be mired in an all or nothing mentality. I've mostly stayed on the sidelines here, so I certainly don't think I'm talking over you, and would welcome clarification if I'm missing your point.

Yes, that is correct, right there. What I disagreed with was saying that I was condemning Islam because of the actions of extremists; I am condemning Islam because I find Islam itself to be deserving of condemnation, and am not making any judgments about Muslims as individuals. Nuance is called for when discussing or interacting with individuals. I don't think it's called for when discussing the ideology itself, which is loaded with problems from the start.

You certainly have the right to do so and you've been very clear that your condemnation isn't specifically aimed toward Islam but rather religious institutions as a whole, not necessarily the individual adherents to a particular belief system. That's fine. But in the context of this discussion which is about a small minority of people from a large group who are violently murdering civilians can you see why some people would feel that nuance is appropriate? I understand you aren't saying this, but certainly you are aware that some of the people who don't make distinctions between Islam/radical Islam/whatever are doing so often as a way of engendering fear and hate against the Islamic people as whole, whether peaceful or violent.

I don't know if I'm being clear, so let me say it this way: I understand and have no problem if you want to make no distinction between different segments of Islam or Christianity or religion as a whole even. However, in the context of terrorism, there is absolutely a distinction to be made between radical extremists and peaceful people, regardless of their religious beliefs. They may share the same religion in name, but they do not share the same ideology, even if both groups would trace their ideologies back to the same common starting point. I think it's dangerous to act is if it is otherwise.

I think the distinction you're trying to make between an Islamic ideology (singular) and the 1.6 billion individuals who fall under that ideology is blurry at best.

islamic extremists are just power hungry assholes. Super simple. Problems solved.

I personally feel like it's really hard to have some kind of reasonable conversation about this without all sides throwing around ridiculous generalities. And as I said before, "not all Muslims..." and "yeah, U.S. intervention has worked soooooo well in the past" are conversation killers just as much as "Fuck it, nuke them all!" is.

We all realize there is history and socioeconomics behind all this, but a "small percentage" is probably at least 8% (and that figure is on the VERY conservative side of most estimates), which is something like 125,500,000 "radicalized" Muslims with about 75M active jihadists. That's a lot of fucking people. I'm sorry, but we should do something about that. If that makes me a terrible warmonger than so be it.

You're welcome.

Spoiler: show

Sorry, you folks are having a nice debate and I should stop.

turned2black wrote:I personally feel like it's really hard to have some kind of reasonable conversation about this without all sides throwing around ridiculous generalities. And as I said before, "not all Muslims..." and "yeah, U.S. intervention has worked soooooo well in the past" are conversation killers just as much as "Fuck it, nuke them all!" is.

We all realize there is history and socioeconomics behind all this, but a "small percentage" is probably at least 8% (and that figure is on the VERY conservative side of most estimates), which is something like 125,500,000 "radicalized" Muslims with about 75M active jihadists. That's a lot of fucking people. I'm sorry, but we should do something about that. If that makes me a terrible warmonger than so be it.

So what is the "something"? That's the real discussion.

Why is pointing out that U.S./western intervention in the region has been calamitous a conversation killer? Isn't that a very important thing to keep in mind when figuring out what future action needs to be taken?

4/5 wrote:

turned2black wrote:I personally feel like it's really hard to have some kind of reasonable conversation about this without all sides throwing around ridiculous generalities. And as I said before, "not all Muslims..." and "yeah, U.S. intervention has worked soooooo well in the past" are conversation killers just as much as "Fuck it, nuke them all!" is.

We all realize there is history and socioeconomics behind all this, but a "small percentage" is probably at least 8% (and that figure is on the VERY conservative side of most estimates), which is something like 125,500,000 "radicalized" Muslims with about 75M active jihadists. That's a lot of fucking people. I'm sorry, but we should do something about that. If that makes me a terrible warmonger than so be it.

So what is the "something"? That's the real discussion.

Why is pointing out that U.S./western intervention in the region has been calamitous a conversation killer? Isn't that a very important thing to keep in mind when figuring out what future action needs to be taken?

I don't understand your "something" question.

And sure, it's an important point. But many/most times it's brought up to instantly discount any conversation about military action.

turned2black wrote:

4/5 wrote:

turned2black wrote:I personally feel like it's really hard to have some kind of reasonable conversation about this without all sides throwing around ridiculous generalities. And as I said before, "not all Muslims..." and "yeah, U.S. intervention has worked soooooo well in the past" are conversation killers just as much as "Fuck it, nuke them all!" is.

We all realize there is history and socioeconomics behind all this, but a "small percentage" is probably at least 8% (and that figure is on the VERY conservative side of most estimates), which is something like 125,500,000 "radicalized" Muslims with about 75M active jihadists. That's a lot of fucking people. I'm sorry, but we should do something about that. If that makes me a terrible warmonger than so be it.

So what is the "something"? That's the real discussion.

Why is pointing out that U.S./western intervention in the region has been calamitous a conversation killer? Isn't that a very important thing to keep in mind when figuring out what future action needs to be taken?

I don't understand your "something" question.

And sure, it's an important point. But many/most times it's brought up to instantly discount any conversation about military action.

Sorry, you said, "we should do something about that" towards the end of your post. What is that something we should do? I don't have an answer to that question yet, but I think that's the question worth discussing.

I don't think I have any of us have the answer to that right now.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I don't think I have any of us have the answer to that right now.

Elect Trump.

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I don't think I have any of us have the answer to that right now.

Elect Trump.

yeah, fuck everything!

Strat wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I don't think I have any of us have the answer to that right now.

Elect Trump.

And let France and Russia to do all the heavy lifting this time...

Spoiler: show