Page 41 of 152
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 2:04 pm
by dimejinky99
So it looks like they caught the guy who rented the car.
I'm no expert but surely they aren't as dumb as to rent a car in a real name and then leave the guy dangling to catch all the shit for it? I mean he was in Belgium. That's not even that far away
Or are they that dumb?
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 2:50 pm
by LoathedVermin72
dimejinky99 wrote:So it looks like they caught the guy who rented the car.
I'm no expert but surely they aren't as dumb as to rent a car in a real name and then leave the guy dangling to catch all the shit for it? I mean he was in Belgium. That's not even that far away
Or are they that dumb?
it's not hard to believe that these people are total idiots
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 2:54 pm
by Kaius
stip wrote:Kaius wrote:stip wrote:Kaius wrote:Well, stip, most of us don't know a damn thing about what it means to go to war or kill someone. I think that's very important to understand.
I agree
I know you do, and at the risk of destroying my "board reputation", I have agreed with just about everything you've said the last couple of days.
Want to go listen to Backspacer?
Are you trying to push me away?
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 3:23 pm
by nyquillyn
I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremists. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 3:28 pm
by LoathedVermin72
turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"
Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 3:58 pm
by hlniv
Somebody passed me this, and I subjected myself to watch it. From a Christian news org, regarding Sharia law taking over Belgium. Not sure where this should go, or what to think of it, but this doesn't sound that far off, and it makes me think deeply about the concept of religious freedom in today's world.
http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx? ... 9282970001
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:14 pm
by nyquillyn
Sorry, but I'd rather f*ck Pat Robertson than watch anything produced by CBN.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:20 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
"religious freedom" is only ever intended to mean the religion of the person crying foul about it.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:23 pm
by dimejinky99
turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremists. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"
We're all looking at it through the wrong lens. It's an incompatibility of just about every way of life imaginable and a fraction of one side taking it to an extreme and alienating the whole lot of us as a result.
Capitalism and western culture to a lesser degree is also ruthless and destructive as Islamic extremists. Just because it leaves its victims and losers alive to forever suffer their debt/unemployment doesn't make it any better.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:26 pm
by LoathedVermin72
dimejinky99 wrote:Capitalism and western culture to a lesser degree is also ruthless and destructive as Islamic extremists. Just because it leaves its victims and losers alive to forever suffer their debt/unemployment doesn't make it any better.
oh boy
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:30 pm
by dimejinky99
E.H. Ruddock wrote:"religious freedom" is only ever intended to mean the religion of the person crying foul about it.
That or crying cos they can't impose that religion and its rules on all of us. We have the same thing happening with the hardline Catholics here trying to maintain their grasp on all the schools. Your kid gets knocked back to the end of the line in 96% of Irish schools if he hasn't been baptised Catholic. And even if thy get in they get Indoctrined / force fed this religion in classes for communion and confirmation.
Just ridiculous
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:35 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
LoathedVermin72 wrote:dimejinky99 wrote:Capitalism and western culture to a lesser degree is also ruthless and destructive as Islamic extremists. Just because it leaves its victims and losers alive to forever suffer their debt/unemployment doesn't make it any better.
oh boy
*hoo
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 4:36 pm
by LoathedVermin72
LoathedVermin72 wrote:dimejinky99 wrote:Capitalism and western culture to a lesser degree is also ruthless and destructive as Islamic extremists. Just because it leaves its victims and losers alive to forever suffer their debt/unemployment doesn't make it any better.
oh boy
dime, do I REALLY need to point out why this is a ridiculously absurd false equivalency? As a gay man living a free life, you of all people should understand that the value systems in place are anything but equal. People can debate the ramifications of social conditioning in western/capitalist culture and all, but let's not pretend these are the same thing.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:32 pm
by stip
LoathedVermin72 wrote:turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"
Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.
And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:33 pm
by nyquillyn
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:34 pm
by LoathedVermin72
turned2black wrote: 
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:36 pm
by stip
The other issue with the way we talk about this is strategic. A useful litmus test for whether or not someone is responsible enough to make foreign policy decisions is how they talk about these issues. Any candidate that comes out and says Islam is the problem, talks about war against islamic extremists, etc. should be automatically disqualified for alienating the populations that you need to do business with. Hilary Clinton is going to catch hell in political ads for her comment about war against jihadists, not islamic extremists, but it was the absolute correct answer from a leadership perspective.
Every idiotic tweet for a republican presidential candidate, media talking head, etc. who harps about war with islamic extremism is helping those groups frame their narrative and grants them legitimacy.
If there is one thing I'm willing to give GW Bush credit for it's that he understood that and spoke accordingly.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:37 pm
by Simple Torture
stip wrote:LoathedVermin72 wrote:turned2black wrote:I'm not a fan of this "very tiny percentage" argument when discussing Islamic extremist. It's both incorrect and not conducive to furthering the discussion. In many ways, it's as destructive as rednecks shouting, "Kill 'em All!"
Soooooo agreed. That kind of PC refusal to acknowledge the deeply troubling issues inherent in Islam is stifling discourse that needs happen. Claiming the problems are simply political is delusional.
And here's there problem in a nutshell, LV. In your response there was a strong implication that all Muslims are extremists, or the majority, etc. Which of course is going to trigger the tiny percentage response.
I'm not so sure that's implied in LV's response. There are millions and millions of Muslims in the world that support theocracies, the subjugation of women, harsh treatment for homosexuals, and so on and so forth, and yet are
not considered extremists or radicals (the same could be said, of course, for most other religions as well). I think LV is just suggesting that when you purport any absolute theology as "the truth," you're creating an environment in which extremists can flourish. Am I wrong, LV?
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:38 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
The difference I always saw when I was deployed was not the number of extremists, but the number of people who were either too scared to speak out or just were tolerant enough with extremist views to not speak out against them. That kind of environment is in the least enabling.
Re: The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread
Posted: Mon November 16, 2015 5:38 pm
by Fuck You Jobu
stip wrote:Just to provide a slightly less glib response.
I am not a pacifist. Sometimes violence and war is necessary to secure the safety and protection of innocent people. But we should never loose sight of the fact that organized state sanctioned violence leads to the murder of innocent people no less (and frequently much much more) than terrorism. Saying that this was an unintended consequence while knowing full well it is a probable consequence hardly seems to me to be sufficient to absolve us of moral responsibility. The response to the deaths of 150 innocent people is likely to kill 10 times that number of innocent people. That we didn't start it (though that's debatable) does not level the moral scale.
I am very much against any reasoning that enables us to diminish to ourselves the full horrific impact of what we authorize. If we were forced to confront the consequences of our actions, and bear responsibility for them, we would (I believe) be less likely to use violence in the first place--to the point that it really becomes an object of super last resort, rather than convenience, politics, power, and business.
Can you please share what your response would be?