American Politics

[M3J]

Weren't Jews blamed for Jesus's death, Pontius specifically?

I never said terrorism from Islamists was caused by discrimination, I'm saying that discrimination from the West makes it easier to recruit Muslims. Propaganda films during the World Wars inspired and motivated men to enlist for the army, no? I'm pretty sure terrorism is caused for different reasons, and more nefarious ones at that.

What are anti-terror measures? I don't think most politicians understand, and Trump definitely doesn't.

 

[shionoro]

Weren't Jews blamed for Jesus's death, Pontius specifically?

I never said terrorism from Islamists was caused by discrimination, I'm saying that discrimination from the West makes it easier to recruit Muslims. Propaganda films during the World Wars inspired and motivated men to enlist for the army, no? I'm pretty sure terrorism is caused for different reasons, and more nefarious ones at that.

What are anti-terror measures? I don't think most politicians understand, and Trump definitely doesn't.

I think there is something like rule 34 for jews. If it is a thing, jews were blamed for it at some point.

Even for that, I think it doesnt. I don't think it gets easier or harder for terrorists to recruit anyone just due to the actions of the west.
The propaganda by now is completely independend from reality. I had many discussions with salafists (they are not directly a terror sect, but many western terrorists can directly be traced back to their ways of thinking). Those people have no perception of what the west actually does and they will scream discrimination even if they themselves are the perpetrators. They will say that the crusaders are imprisoning their brothers when said brothers are imprisoned for stabbing a policeman into his back (it actually happened, not metaphorically speaking).

Imagine it like when speaking with ultra rightwingers. You know the people. the people who want a birth certificate.
Try convincing them that obama is actually a decent politician. Convincing someone of those sects that the west is not pure evil is equally fruitless, no matter what the west does. At the point at which they are in these, well i will call em the word, gangs, they are a lost cause.
And whether they get into them or not is rarely decided by economic or social factors alone.
I know a guy who went to syria to fight for the IS.
He was a nice guy and most people in my school liked him. He didnt show signs of being a hardliner until school was almost over and he went into the salafi sect. I know that he was sometimes not accepted by bumpers to get into a disco, but from all his schoollife, i can honestly say that he was completely accepted and his family was well off. He still went there, starting inviting everyone to islam on facebook, writing more and more bitter and hateful psots or quoting angry quran sura, until finally he deleted his facebook account. Then i just heard that he went to syria, i dont know what happened to him.
Becoming an angry sect member can happen to anyone. Yes, feelings of isolation help, but they will still have enough people even without that.
It is like becoming a conspiracy nut. It will always happen to some people.
We cannot stop people from becoming crazy and hateful, but we can stop their networks and their ways to aquire more members.

You say it yourself: It was the propaganda films inspiring men to enlist. Even if, honestly, it probably was not needed to use propaganda against the hitler regime, the truth shoulda been enough. But ya, donald duck vs hitler, we have been there.

Well anti terror measures are for example teaching about propaganda in schools in a more effective way. Teach the children media competence, what are credible sources and how to check whether a source is credible.
Adress propaganda openly, like antisemitist propaganda, islamic propaganda or rightwing propaganda.
Destroy their channels on facebook, imprison hatepreachers faster or throw them out of the country if possible.
Those would be reasonable steps which, in my opinion, are realistic.

 

[M3J]

Reasonable steps, sure, but while they reduce the power of recruiting, it doesn't really solve much. It still won't stop young adults and kids from being brainwashed into joining the terrorist groups, so we have to start with them first.

 

[shionoro]

Reasonable steps, sure, but while they reduce the power of recruiting, it doesn't really solve much. It still won't stop young adults and kids from being brainwashed into joining the terrorist groups, so we have to start with them first.

But that is what we do by the steps i mentioned. We have to fight antisemitism and myths about islam starting with young children in school
As i said tho before, this problem is much smaller in the US than it is in europe.

Muslims in the US are much better integrated on average and less suspectible to dschihadist propaganda.

 

[M3J]

That is true, but I was mainly thinking about Middle East, as that's where a lot of recruits happen. I assume many recruits are alone with anger at the world due to their loss, how they were treated, or whatnot. As long as bad acts happen, there will be a terrorist group full of pawns. I do want to know what ISIS's agenda is, given despite being Muslim extremists, they have no qualms about killing other Muslims and destroying mosques and ancient Muslim relics.


@Drmke is making me wonder if Hillary truly is the better choice. :\

 

[xi0]

I mean, homosexuals for example are as hated by certain groups as muslims are.
But you don't see homosexuals going into full terror mode. Wise versa, they are even often targets of violent crime or terror, but still do not found terror groups.

Well that's the issue at it's core, isn't it? Homosexuals have no doctrine they're supposed to follow in order to live their lives properly.

They didn't hurt him winning the nomination though, and maybe even helped when "undecided" voters decided to side with Trump after seeing protesters get violent with supporters.

This is all pure conjecture really...lol. The reality is, the people at his rallies (or any rallies for that matter) are window-dressing. If a voter can't be included in a mob-dynamic because they're not there, what effect could such an environment have on the majority of voters? I'd say it's rather unknowable.

People who don't like Obama. He had a great campaign, I'm not disagreeing with that, but I still feel some voted for him more due to white guilt than anything. Anonymity doesn't matter, how a person feels would. A Hillary voter would vote for her just because it's "feminist" to do so, despite anonymity, because he/she feels having a female president is a big step forward.

My point is white guilt used as a reason is of a detriment to Obama himself...and I don't think there's any merit to that.

I disagree, based on what I've seen and heard. If an "Islamist" is suspected in a terror attack, many people will want all Muslims to be wiped out. If a black person is suspected in a violent attack, people won't call for all blacks to die. If a white person is suspected in a terror attack, he's apparently a lone wolf with mental issues. Muslims are the black sheep, like the Jews were decades ago, I think.

The only thing that matters in comparing Islamic terrorism to other incidents which could be called "terrorist" in nature is whether it's state sponsored or not (so to speak). I'd say most people committing acts of terror are people with mental issues. The problem is there are multitudes of organizations and even countries that support and encourage people doing these things. The same sort of thing can't be said about all of these "lone wolf white kids" you usually bring up.

Destroy their channels on facebook, imprison hatepreachers faster or throw them out of the country if possible.
Those would be reasonable steps which, in my opinion, are realistic.

I have no issue with 90% of what you've said here in this current discussion, but this one I have to object to. I understand that hate speech is treated differently in Europe, especially in Germany. The aws seem ultra-sensitive regarding things like Holocaust-denial, etc. But I think imprisoning people for such things is downright ridiculous. The greatest enemy of hate is free speech. If hateful ideas exist, but no one knows it due to them being illegal, how does that actually improve society in any way? Moronic, hateful people should be able to say whatever they feel, and they'll reap what they've sowed, be shouted down, have their careers ruined and ridiculed, usually justly. Censoringship is never reasonable IMO, and for the US in particular, it isn't realistic at all. Nor can I see it being a step in the right direction.

 

[shionoro]

I have no issue with 90% of what you've said here in this current discussion, but this one I have to object to. I understand that hate speech is treated differently in Europe, especially in Germany. The aws seem ultra-sensitive regarding things like Holocaust-denial, etc. But I think imprisoning people for such things is downright ridiculous. The greatest enemy of hate is free speech. If hateful ideas exist, but no one knows it due to them being illegal, how does that actually improve society in any way? Moronic, hateful people should be able to say whatever they feel, and they'll reap what they've sowed, be shouted down, have their careers ruined and ridiculed, usually justly. Censoringship is never reasonable IMO, and for the US in particular, it isn't realistic at all. Nor can I see it being a step in the right direction.

Maybe we misunderstand each other. I am aware that hatespeech laws in the US work differently, and i am fine with that.
I am not talking about the guys who shout about gay people being animals.

There are facebook channels and (partially foreign) preachers in germany and other european countries however who openly lie to justify the actions of isis and introduce young people to recruiters from isis or other terror groups (so they can always say 'well i just introduced them i have no real ties to isis').
And that is something that has to be stopped.
These guys are already isolated and don't get any attention outside of their own channels. They have only few fans, but those are completely indoctrinated and a mainfactor of german dschihadists.
I am not sure how US law is when someone openly encourages people to not follow the constitution, but personally, i think it is very appropriate to throw them out of the country if they are foreign to it.

 

[M3J]

This is all pure conjecture really...lol. The reality is, the people at his rallies (or any rallies for that matter) are window-dressing. If a voter can't be included in a mob-dynamic because they're not there, what effect could such an environment have on the majority of voters? I'd say it's rather unknowable.


My point is white guilt used as a reason is of a detriment to Obama himself...and I don't think there's any merit to that.


The only thing that matters in comparing Islamic terrorism to other incidents which could be called "terrorist" in nature is whether it's state sponsored or not (so to speak). I'd say most people committing acts of terror are people with mental issues. The problem is there are multitudes of organizations and even countries that support and encourage people doing these things. The same sort of thing can't be said about all of these "lone wolf white kids" you usually bring up.

Not entirely, but then again... how do we/I know that these people weren't already planning on voting for Trump anyway? But the effect depends on the views of people - many will shy away from Trump seeing how his supporters act while others will support Trump seeing his supporters get attacked by protesters despite the supporters' behaviors.

I think there is some merit, actually. It's not a knock against Obama, as 98% of the time at least, I hear that he was voted because he promised change.

That is debatable. I don't think Islamic terrorists have mental issues, more like they have a cause they think is worth dying for, especially when they have been brainwashed. Other terrorists like Dylann Roof likely want to cause trouble, though I"m not sure if he planned on dying.

True, but they can be considered terrorists, not just lone wolves. Or, not all Muslims should be judged or forced to apologize for the actions of few. If a terrorist is suspected to be brown in any shape or form, he will be branded a terrorist. If he's revealed to be white, the narrative changes to lone wolf with mental issues, no matter if his motive was political.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

The problem about fighting ISIS' ideology is that we can't fix it unless the nations turns into developed countries. The only way this can be resolved is by conquering most of the Middle East and time, which not only will it most likely give Terrorists the opportunity to gain more recruiters, but also furthers up the conflict (however, with a given time of nurturing the younger generations, it would allow them to form a powerful nation with secularists politicians).
Here's a quick example: Turkey (or formerly the Ottoman Empire) abolished the Caliphate system because they didn't want him to send men to death (especially in the first Great War) and eventually became a Democracy (up until now, or theoretically; Erdogan is being sketchy since the failed Coup Attempt).

It's a mess in the Middle East, but only time can "cure" the conflict (and effort, mostly from the Iraqi and/or Afghanistan veterans that knows the issue going on).

 

[kkck]

The problem about fighting ISIS' ideology is that we can't fix it unless the nations turns into developed countries. The only way this can be resolved is by conquering most of the Middle East and time, which not only will it most likely give Terrorists the opportunity to gain more recruiters, but also furthers up the conflict (however, with a given time of nurturing the younger generations, it would allow them to form a powerful nation with secularists politicians).
Here's a quick example: Turkey (or formerly the Ottoman Empire) abolished the Caliphate system because they didn't want him to send men to death (especially in the first Great War) and eventually became a Democracy (up until now, or theoretically; Erdogan is being sketchy since the failed Coup Attempt).

It's a mess in the Middle East, but only time can "cure" the conflict (and effort, mostly from the Iraqi and/or Afghanistan veterans that knows the issue going on).

Well, they don't have to turn into "developed" countries... There are plenty of undeveloped countries where there aren't terrorists. And who exactly do you think needs to "conquer" the middle east? And why would that help? The US? Germany? Russia? And even then, why would this help? Even you post makes the case that it actually wouldn't....

Also, as for your example... Well, I am not very versed in turkey's history but from what I can tell what you are suggesting is that turkey itself abolishing an old system is comparable to a foreign nation taking over. That is obviously and blatantly wrong... What do you think the anti-US sentiment at the middle east and in many other places is about? Of course, it is about getting foreign powers to stop influencing their inner affairs. Being "conquered" by anyone is not the solution and probably it's not even feasible.

 

[xi0]

There are facebook channels and (partially foreign) preachers in germany and other european countries however who openly lie to justify the actions of isis and introduce young people to recruiters from isis or other terror groups (so they can always say 'well i just introduced them i have no real ties to isis').
And that is something that has to be stopped.

Well, openly calling for violence is a bit different than just hatespeech. That's a bit different. So I guess our wires got crossed there.

Not entirely, but then again... how do we/I know that these people weren't already planning on voting for Trump anyway? But the effect depends on the views of people - many will shy away from Trump seeing how his supporters act while others will support Trump seeing his supporters get attacked by protesters despite the supporters' behaviors.

You keep bringing up supporters, but how did the "negative" attention that some Sander's supporters get effect his campaign? I'm just saying that I think it's overblown and has an unknowable effect on people on the fence.

That is debatable. I don't think Islamic terrorists have mental issues, more like they have a cause they think is worth dying for, especially when they have been brainwashed. Other terrorists like Dylann Roof likely want to cause trouble, though I"m not sure if he planned on dying.

Many of them probably do actually. I mean, mental illness and what that actual consists of is another semantic argument perhaps. But my point is, the same part of the brain involved in making these sort of rash decision is being used.

True, but they can be considered terrorists, not just lone wolves. Or, not all Muslims should be judged or forced to apologize for the actions of few. If a terrorist is suspected to be brown in any shape or form, he will be branded a terrorist. If he's revealed to be white, the narrative changes to lone wolf with mental issues, no matter if his motive was political.

What does it matter? Terrorism in this day and age has a clear and obvious meaning. Just because it's ususally carried out by Muslims doesn't make the word terrorism having an implied meaning racist or "Islamophobic". We know why these people are doing what they're doing. If a similar attack is carried out by a non-Muslim, the reasons, inspiration, and/or ideology involved is much less clear and harder to classify/know. I don't know why people insist on making an issue of how the media portrays violence like this.

That is obviously and blatantly wrong... What do you think the anti-US sentiment at the middle east and in many other places is about? Of course, it is about getting foreign powers to stop influencing their inner affairs. Being "conquered" by anyone is not the solution and probably it's not even feasible.

This isn't only about invasion and war though. The Middle East has had this sentiment at least since WWII. The fact is, a major power in the region (not named Israel) has strong diplomatic ties and mutual interest with the USA in Saudi Arabia. That is also one of the reasons why the US and it's allies continue to have issues with Iran, despite it being one of the more progressive countries in the Western World. I know I heard somewhere that the Kingdom of Saud is the largest foreign owner of real estate in the US. I'm not much for delving too deep into conspiracy theories, but yeah...

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Well, they don't have to turn into "developed" countries... There are plenty of undeveloped countries where there aren't terrorists. And who exactly do you think needs to "conquer" the middle east? And why would that help? The US? Germany? Russia? And even then, why would this help? Even you post makes the case that it actually wouldn't....

Also, as for your example... Well, I am not very versed in turkey's history but from what I can tell what you are suggesting is that turkey itself abolishing an old system is comparable to a foreign nation taking over. That is obviously and blatantly wrong... What do you think the anti-US sentiment at the middle east and in many other places is about? Of course, it is about getting foreign powers to stop influencing their inner affairs. Being "conquered" by anyone is not the solution and probably it's not even feasible.

The thing about undeveloped countries is that it allows criminals to equate the government's influence themselves (if not, overpowers them in terms of money and power, not in a way that the criminals would run the country, but more like being "above the law" type. Sure there are people like that in developed countries, but that's sorta aside the point). Of course not every undeveloped countries that do not contain terrorism, but they sure as hell do contain a huge crisis of some sort (Mexico with the whole drug war; countries like Honduras and Brazil with the largest number of homicide rates in the world; just to bring an example).
Hmm... I guess the word "conquest" isn't the correct term to use. Definitely didn't think this one through.

 

[kkck]

This isn't only about invasion and war though. The Middle East has had this sentiment at least since WWII. The fact is, a major power in the region (not named Israel) has strong diplomatic ties and mutual interest with the USA in Saudi Arabia. That is also one of the reasons why the US and it's allies continue to have issues with Iran, despite it being one of the more progressive countries in the Western World. I know I heard somewhere that the Kingdom of Saud is the largest foreign owner of real estate in the US. I'm not much for delving too deep into conspiracy theories, but yeah...

Well, no, the issue certainly goes back many decades. However I would argue that shows that intervention in the area has not really produced desired results. Intervention in the area has led to further and further destabilization. Of course, I am not suggesting the US should straight up pack its bad and leave because that would cause a number of problems as well (say, Iraq where the US left and there is still a civil war going on). However at least the US should aim to reduce its middle presence over time (which did happen under obama but will likely be reversed under hillary and specially trump). As for saudi, I am not particularly familiar with them as a whole. What I do know is that a big part of their relationship to the US is oil related and a couple of things are sort of ignored by the western world due to that (say, ties to terrorism).... I never heard about their real state but at this point it only makes sense.

 

[Franckie]

I haven't seen a presidential nominee as hated by his own party as Trump since McGovern, and he got 38% of the vote. I'm still sticking by my prediction that Trump garners ~45% of the vote this upcoming November.

 

[kkck]

I haven't seen a presidential nominee as hated by his own party as Trump since McGovern, and he got 38% of the vote. I'm still sticking by my prediction that Trump garners ~45% of the vote this upcoming November.

I don't think trump is getting that much of the vote to be honest. Not anymore at least. The party seems to be bleeding voters to the libertarian party.... And they are pooling higher than at any other point in history. Of course, the same goes for democrats to green party although at this point the situation is not quite as bad.

 

[xi0]

Not sure if anyone else saw the Libertarian Town Hall last night on CNN, but I was surprisingly impressed by the combo of Johnson-Weld. I think the Libertarian approach to the economy is usually nonsensical, as economic policy can withstand change and adaptation depending on the global picture...especially with how much of a global economy we are now. However, the main selling point is that they are for individual freedom first and foremost. That means that they just simply don't give a fuck reinforcing archaic ideas regarding social issues. And it's refreshing to see older, white, former-Republicans who simply don't give a second thought to religiously-backed nonsense. That Johnson himself admitted that he had his "head in the sand" on the issue of police brutality, and that they openly admit that there isn't enough research money going toward the Cannabis industry, and that Big Pharma is the one standing in the way of that happening.

So I'll be more than glad to see them get that 15% in the polls and earn a spot in national debates. They deserve to be there. And I wouldn't mind either if the Green Party candidate could accomplish the same thing (though it's probably much less likely).

 

[shionoro]

It would be a pretty great turn if all of this desaster of an election process would lead to more than two parties in the senate.

 

[M3J]

The problem about fighting ISIS' ideology is that we can't fix it unless the nations turns into developed countries. The only way this can be resolved is by conquering most of the Middle East and time, which not only will it most likely give Terrorists the opportunity to gain more recruiters, but also furthers up the conflict (however, with a given time of nurturing the younger generations, it would allow them to form a powerful nation with secularists politicians).
Here's a quick example: Turkey (or formerly the Ottoman Empire) abolished the Caliphate system because they didn't want him to send men to death (especially in the first Great War) and eventually became a Democracy (up until now, or theoretically; Erdogan is being sketchy since the failed Coup Attempt).

It's a mess in the Middle East, but only time can "cure" the conflict (and effort, mostly from the Iraqi and/or Afghanistan veterans that knows the issue going on).

Developed countries can still produce terrorists, just as Norway (?) did with Brevik, or as US does with its many mass shooters. So that won't work.

Who's gonna conquer and how will that help? That would just make things worse.

You keep bringing up supporters, but how did the "negative" attention that some Sander's supporters get effect his campaign? I'm just saying that I think it's overblown and has an unknowable effect on people on the fence.


Many of them probably do actually. I mean, mental illness and what that actual consists of is another semantic argument perhaps. But my point is, the same part of the brain involved in making these sort of rash decision is being used.


What does it matter? Terrorism in this day and age has a clear and obvious meaning. Just because it's ususally carried out by Muslims doesn't make the word terrorism having an implied meaning racist or "Islamophobic". We know why these people are doing what they're doing. If a similar attack is carried out by a non-Muslim, the reasons, inspiration, and/or ideology involved is much less clear and harder to classify/know. I don't know why people insist on making an issue of how the media portrays violence like this.

Maybe not his campaign, but it did draw more people towards Trump. I'm saying that I disagree with you to an extent, although I think you're more valid on unknowable effect.

So why can't the same apply to Islamic terrorists? In the US, nonwhites are grouped together as this or that, but for some reason white people don't have to deal with this. One of them goes on a shooting spree, he's a lone wolf. If a black guy goes on a shooting spree, you'll have a group of people saying they wished black people would go back to Africa or something (only time I saw someone say this was on FB when BLM had their first protests). Islamic terrorists might have mental illnesses too that make them want to kill others or believe that they will be rewarded for heinous acts, whether or not they live.

I remember an argument in another thread in this section where one member said the term was defined to just practitioners of Islam, whereas few of us said it applied to anyone regardless of race. It's the way people use it that has an implied meaning of racism or Islamophobic. If a white person kills multiple immigrant-looking people just to oppose legalizing illegal immigrants, then that would be considered terrorism. However, majority, including the media, would deny otherwise. In contrast, a Muslim doing a similar thing would be considered a terrorist.

Would you consider Dylann Roof a terrorist? His action an act of terrorism?

 

[kkck]

Not sure if anyone else saw the Libertarian Town Hall last night on CNN, but I was surprisingly impressed by the combo of Johnson-Weld. I think the Libertarian approach to the economy is usually nonsensical, as economic policy can withstand change and adaptation depending on the global picture...especially with how much of a global economy we are now. However, the main selling point is that they are for individual freedom first and foremost. That means that they just simply don't give a fuck reinforcing archaic ideas regarding social issues. And it's refreshing to see older, white, former-Republicans who simply don't give a second thought to religiously-backed nonsense. That Johnson himself admitted that he had his "head in the sand" on the issue of police brutality, and that they openly admit that there isn't enough research money going toward the Cannabis industry, and that Big Pharma is the one standing in the way of that happening.

So I'll be more than glad to see them get that 15% in the polls and earn a spot in national debates. They deserve to be there. And I wouldn't mind either if the Green Party candidate could accomplish the same thing (though it's probably much less likely).

It would be a pretty great turn if all of this desaster of an election process would lead to more than two parties in the senate.

To be honest, I don't see how this is a good thing at all. The US already has a far right wing party with the republicans. The libertarian party isn't a better or even comparable alternative, they are merely a different breed of far right wing nutjob. Just look at their policy proposals....
https://www.lp.org/issues

-They are against the bailouts.... As in, the thing that stopped the world economy from collapsing. Bailouts are the entire purpose of fiat money.... At best they do not get the system, at worst they want to return to the gold standard.

- They are basically the same as republicans when it comes to gun control. Perhaps worst.

- Their health care policies are basically to do nothing. Eliminate all government intervention in this... From what I get they take moral issue with even the concept of universal health care.

- Their environmental propositions are basically to shut down the government.... Somehow.

- They want to literally end welfare as if it was evil. They also want to end social security.

- They want to privatize education. As if people weren't in debt enough....

- They want to eliminate taxes and most of government.

Now, there are a few policies which are not outright insane. Their position on free trade is consistent with economist consensus (all of them basically agree that free trade is a good thing, republicans and democrat seem to be shying away from that nowadays). They seem to be better of on certain social issues, particularly pertaining to privacy. However I do doubt the little good there is offsets the abject insanity they are proposing. The libertarian party getting greater presence in this or future elections is not a good thing. They are a bunch pretend intellectual far right wing nutjobs who see ron swanson as a hero rather than satire and the joke he is. Libertarianism makes the same amount of sense as communism.... It can't work, it is ideological mumbo jumbo which stands at odds with what we actually know about the economy and social issues.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Developed countries can still produce terrorists, just as Norway (?) did with Brevik, or as US does with its many mass shooters. So that won't work.

I never said there's no such development of terrorism in Developed countries; it is more likely that we'll see more terrorism development in developing countries than it is seen in developed ones.