Then if a great amount of what is said in Obama's book has been 'debunked', then those things are lies. Are they not?
And so, if he said that, but doesn't mean it, then it's a lie too. Isn't it?
So what is his truth then?
Printable View
Then if a great amount of what is said in Obama's book has been 'debunked', then those things are lies. Are they not?
And so, if he said that, but doesn't mean it, then it's a lie too. Isn't it?
So what is his truth then?
It's not what Obama said in his books, it's what people have said he has said that has been debunked. Much like what you have said that has been proven over and over again not to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
That was exactly the same article from which I was quoting from that absolutely says nothing about prosecuting people for saying anything about Muslims. It certainly doesn't say anything to the effect of the point that I was making that if you see something you can call the police without retribution. That is a point that people are in complete error on. As I've pointed out several times, nobody can show an instance where this has happened, so it's just another irrational fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
If Lynch were going to prosecute anybody for speaking a negative word on Muslims, Trump would currently be up for multiple lifetime sentences, possibly treason charges for what he's done. He's free to discriminate, incite violence without impunity.
I just can't understand how people can't see the difference in taking a stance against those who want to incite violence against any group and what is allowance for free speech or even something as simple as notification of your local law enforcement.
I know where people are going to head next, but I'm going to let that organically evolve instead of putting in my two cents worth right now.
Wrong. I don't need to watch national news. The internet works just fine. I've laid out the timeline, the audience and the quotes and NEVER has she said that if anybody says ANYTHING about Muslims, they face prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
I'm more in line with you than you think, but you're being too cute parsing words here, or you're just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Lynch was criticized by free speech advocates after saying to a Muslim Advocates Dinner in Arlington, Va. on Thursday, "Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric or, as we saw after 9/11, violence against individuals… when we see that, we will take action."
She was stupid. But she said what they are saying she said. It's one sentence, and taking the action first, she said, "we will take action ....for "anti-Muslim rhetoric"....or violence.
Are you arguing that "take action" doesn't mean prosecute?
Are you arguing that "anti-Muslim rhetoric" doesn't mean speech?
Your best argument is that a) it IS ridiculous, but she said it, and b) she was clumsy by including anti-Muslim rhetoric in with the violence (along with a reference to "free speech, but..." which clearly reinforced the idea that she intended speech to be part of her attention.)
Stu, all you can see is what blinds you to the truth right in front of you. I hope you see the light some day, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
It's close to what I'm saying. First of all, what I'm saying is that it's irrational, or even idiotic, for someone not to make a call to local law enforcement if they see something and use the excuse that they're afraid of targeted prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
I'll start off by saying, what leaders have not made a clumsy, irrelevant statement or even erroneous statement at some time? Have we forgotten the Bush administration? I can list hundreds of statement he or his people have said, taken out of context that had no meaning to the actual message. It doesn't mean it's factual. Is this not an example of holding people accountable of a different level? There's a term for that.
My argument was that she made a mistake speaking to a Muslim group without realizing the trickle down effect of specifically referring to that one group, even though that was the intended audience. However, she had the opportunity to clarify her remarks and I believe did so clearly enough. At a minimum, I can't fathom the link that some in the group here are making.
"Take action" doesn't totally equate to prosecution. It can be the end result, but not only result of action. The responsibilities of the AG go way beyond prosecution.
You can call her stupid all you want, and that's not an argument that I'm making, but in my view, it's stupid to take one sentence that somebody said and create a whole new context around that when she has since clarified her position when pressed further. She obviously made a mistake but the strategy is clear.
I'm debating statements like(paraphrased), like people that notify law enforcement will be prosecuted, that she hasn't ever mentioned other groups, isolating Muslims, that's a debate that I clearly win.
We should be thankful that they're trying to take a proactive approach with Islamophobia. It spread to an innocent plumber. Islamophobia and actions towards innocent Muslims is getting out of control. It's spreading rampant throughout my city, and I'm sure it is all over the country is well. I guess that I'm in the minority that feels if there is a targeted group, who are law abiding American citizens, at the top of the risk list that they deserve extra attention. It doesn't mean that they are the only primary focus, as some here are alluding to.
Back to my original point that started this all, that I will expand upon, if you see something and don't call out of a fear of something that has never happened, that simply makes you an idiotic coward.
When you show me truth, I'll see it, but all you've shown me is recycled bunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
Okay Stu. If you say so.
A) We ARE at war, but not with a religion, but an ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
B) That statement is what's wrong with the term terrorism. I consider ALL mass killings acts of terrorism. Those are not predominantly Muslim attacks. We are selectively calling acts terrorism.
C) I couldn't disagree more with your statement that fear creates racism. There's no way to declare either of us correct, but I'm a firm believer that racism creates fear, but not all fears. It takes that one match to light the fire, but once it's roaring, it causes people to react in irrational ways, and some of those ways are extremely harmful.
D) I don't even know how 'radical Christianity' should be defined, but I know it when I see it, and I've seen a lot of it. I know it's convenient for people to sweep it under the rug, especially in the wake of San Bernadino, but those that have killed in the US in the past and will in the future have not been 'radical Muslims' with few exceptions. Since 9/11, there have been two high profile radical 'Islamic' attacks. I can go on and on with what I view to be 'Radical Christianity' to be the motives. I know many people like to simplify it as a mental issue, which brings me to my final point,
E) I am also particularly observant and particularly good at spotting double standards.
Radical Muslim attacks off the top of my head since 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Ft. Hood
Chatanooga
Moore, Oklahoma
Boston
DC Sniper
The thwarted Texas attack
A) That "ideology" is based wholly in Islam. We aren't at war with the entire faith, but we are with that segment of it. it's a version used for the ends of these fascists, but fascists who absolutely sincerely believe the are acting in the name and command of their faith. They're the ones making this about faith, not us.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
b) I can consider all dinnerware to be "spoons", doesn't make me right. Terrorism has a pretty standard accepted definition and it includes not just the act but the motive being to make political or sociological change. So if a determined person attacks a place to effect some kind of change it's terrorism, but if it's just some mentally insane person lashing out randomly it's not. San Bernadino is terrorism, carried out by people following an ideology and a leader to take action for political purposes. Sandy Hook isn't, it was just a troubled kid who lashed out at his perceived persecutors. One is personal, one is political or social.
You can call them the same thing, but you'd be misusing the language and standard definition of the term.
c) I can post on this more later, but I'm right and there's actually a large body of research to back it up. That's why you don't see racism against groups that aren't economic or sociological threats. Most of the fear that drives racism is in fact economic, not physical, as proven by the fact that most research shows that racism is inversely correlated with economic status. If you're a poor white person but you believe all white people are better than blacks then you aren't the lowest on the totem pole.
Likewise that person doesn't go around hating Russians. Why? B/c no Russian is at risk of taking his job or displacing him socio-economically. There is no threat, so no racism. Numerous studies show that racism is driven by those threats, largely economic but in this case physical in the form of being an enemy.
Same thing in any war. Go to war, prejudice against the enemy's race or faith or whatever will shoot straight up. They're now a threat, and between that and the need to demonize the enemy (not hard when ISIS is killing babies and gay people in the streets), that's what we get.
d) Please list all the terrorist incidents in the last 10 years done in the name of Christianity. Going to be be a short list, which is why "radical Christianity" is some kind of myth, one of the more delusional ones I've heard in a while.
from what I can tell you are inferring that killings where people are mentally ill is actually some kind of radical Christianity based terrorism. Other than the complete lack of them having manifestos or social media posts or anything else indicating they are doing it in the name of Christ and to further Christendom you've got a heck of a case. Which is to say you have no case at all.
Plus San Bernadino. And those that have been stopped, which I think the shoe bomber was since 9/11. I think there was one in Little Rock or that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Throw in Paris, and so many world wide all by radical Islam terrorists.
Since 9/11 how many have been murdered in Chicago, I don't know of any that were Christian based.
I don't know of any place in the New Testament that says all non Christians/ non believers should be killed if they don't accept the Bible such as the Quran. God nor Jesus says that and those that claim they were told that are truly mentally unstable
A couple on this list are skeptical at best and motives were never proven, such as the DC Sniper(which was mostly domestic related) and Chattanooga(which motive has still yet to be determined), but I'll give those to you. Here's a pretty good scorecard that illustrates my point. The killing count is 48 for right wing extremists - 45 for Jihadists/Islamic extremists. The count of incidents are dramatically skewed towards the right wing extremists. I guess that when those on the right are radicalized, they're way more skilled in murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Let's not forget that the 2nd largest terrorist attack in the US was also perpetrated by 'Radicalized Christians'.
As I mentioned, we all have different definitions of what "Radical Christianity" may mean, but any denial that radicalization can not happen outside the name of Islam is completely insane. To think that their threat isn't real is just as insane.
a) There are a whole lot of people in the U.S. That are completely comfortable with treating it as a war on Islam. It's rhetoric being used in the campaigns. At best, it's a mutual religious war. 99% of Islam has no interest in a war against Christianity. Their ideology casts the bait and we gobble it right up. It's why they are capable of recruiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
B) One of my biggest issues with how we act as a nation is what we call terrorism. There maybe a generic and accepted definition that seems to be religious based, but for people without a religious affiliation, the accepted definition is very disheartening. Any crime where weapons of mass destruction(another term not adequately defined) is certainly an act of terror. It's crazy to think that survivors of mass shootings weren't terrorized.
C) there is no right or wrong answer, just perception.
D) I included a list in another response, but as I said, it's obvious that we're not going to agree on the definition. You see these incidents as mental health issues. I see them as radicalization. However, I think practically all instances of radicalization is a mental health issue. Not all, but most. There is pure evil, but that's not what most of these people once were.
The examples you cite are far from radical Christianity, crazy people doing crazy stuff has nothing to do with Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
The guy in Chattanooga was a Muslim. Period. He attacked a military recruiting office with military personnel therein. For the express purpose of killing United States military members. In Tennessee, in the United States of America.
I don't care how you try to frame that Stu, that is a terrorist attack on a U.S. military installation by a Muslim terrorist. Period.
In your opinion. Not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
As I've mentioned, I find real problems when it's from the far right extremists, it's a mental issue, or as you say "crazy people doing crazy stuff", but if it's a Muslim that it's radicalization and terrorism. I don't, and will never, see a difference.
But, hey, that's just me.
I said I'd give it in the discussion. He may be Muslim, but there isn't clear evidence that he was radicalized, at least in the terms of what people are considering radicalized. Even with it's inclusion, the numbers still fall short of the right wing/Christian extremism.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
Stu, I respectfully disagree. That guy was radicalized, only a radical or a moron would do something like that. He may have been both, AFAIC.
Your statement here, we actually do agree, mostly.Quote:
Originally Posted by suncat05
It's my opinion that all(well, mostly all. I do believe that some are pure evil) mass shooters are "radicalized", by whatever belief, whether it be a skewed version of Islam, being a baby warrior, anti-government, racism or whatever various factors.
It's just not in what the general population defines as radicalized. Radicalization shouldn't be confined to apply to Muslims. That's where there seems to be a disconnect with so me and many people on this board and the right wing.
Muslims=radicalization; Non-Muslim=mental illness. IMO, radicalization is a mental illness and all perpetrators should be treated and feared equally, with the assumption that people are U.S. citizens.
There's a pretty objective standard one can apply. Did the person in question say they were doing it in the name of some ideology or faith? If so then there you go, and if not then you have your answer there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
The definition of "terrorism" isn't about religion, but it is about using random, shocking violence to effect some kind of change. That's the textbook definition, and that's what distinguishes it from other forms of violence. You may not like it, but that's what terrorism means. You can call it "puppies" but that doesn't make it so.
So at Sandy Hook there is no ideology, no desire to send a message or effect change. there is simply desire to somehow get even with perceived personal persecutors in the minds of a mentally ill boy. Certified mentally ill btw.
But in San Bernadino we have a shooting not to get back at someone who hurt them personally, or someone they thought did so, but simply a plan based on a call by an organization with which they affiliate to kill Americans in order to effect a change in US foreign policy.
As for you tacking "christian" to any "right wing extremist" killing, you are engaging in an impressive level of hypocrisy. You call anyone who even hints at grouping Muslims in with these extremists a racist, yet you pin the Christian tag on attacks where there was NO reference whatsoever to religion on the part of the attacker.
So in your world there are questions about the motives of the Chattanooga attack but any other non-Muslim attack in the US, even by the mentally ill, is "Christian radicalism".
BTW it's critical to maintain that distinction for "terrorism", b/c the way we combat violence is all about WHY there was violence. If we start seeing all mass attacks as the same we lose the ability to counter them.
For example better mental health procedures can work to address things like Sandy Hook, it won't do a thing to stop a terrorist. Likewise shutting down ISIS' internet access wont' stop the next picked on kid with mental issues from stealing grandpa's guns and going on a rampage (or his car, there was one of those attacks last year in California where multiple pedestrians were killed, or making a bomb, etc.).
While it's a clear minority, sadly there is more than 1% support for more radical versions of Islam, even in the US. Thankfully it's still small, and I"m all for not helping ISIS recruit by overreacting, but disturbingly there are way too many Muslims who are buying way too much of the radical agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
Very reminiscent of the last fascist movement. It won't take a very high percentage of people to buy in for it to get very ugly.
Polls have indicated more than 25% of the Muslims in this country support Sharia Law, which is at the heart of the extremism.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Not to mention those who approve of honor killing and even the use of suicide bombers. The latter is admittedly a low percentage but Pew in 2013 or so put it at 8% in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
I believe the % is much higher! I had a convenience store owner admit if the S... Hit the fan he would side with his brothers. I assure you I never stopped at his place again. While they pretend to love us and our money, many will turn against usQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Ought to side with us "radical Christians", we're better armed and get more practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
The response we will have to make then will be very clear too. And that disturbs me to no end. I don't want to have to do that ever again, but if it's between me or him, it's going to be him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
:trink39:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I do not think it would work. We are so racialphobic, we would shoot them on sight before asking questions.
I didn't realize you were one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I was using your definition, which seems to include most everyone not Muslim. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StuBleedsBlue2
I'm a radical from way back. I believe in free minds, free markets and free society. These days that will get you on a government watch list.
Folks need to separate the stupid political spin of these topics and just look at the right/wrong and see what is driving it.
Don't forget the Jews. I'm definitely not lumping them in there. Atheists/Agnostic too(which is my group), among many others. As I mentioned, I can't create a boundary of inclusion, but I know one when I see one.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I believe in free minds, free markets and free society as well, but I also believe that those can't come without limits and regulations. Every freedom and right needs to have this as well as a system to monitor its relevance. That's what I believe our founding fathers had in mind when they said "in order to form a more perfect union".
I would love it if the players in that game(exclusive of govt) were able to police themselves, but in the history of our nation, we've proven quite successfully that we can't do so, at least effectively. It shouldn't mean we should stop trying.
By the way, we're ALL on a government watch list in one way or another. The first time that any of us got a job, we ended up on a watch list called the IRS. There's plenty of watch lists that we're on. If somebody doesn't want to be on a government watch list, then this isn't the country for them.
stu, on another thread you supported registration of guns, fingerprints and DNA so you could know what your neighbors are doing.
You do not believe in free minds, free markets or free society. Not even close.