^^ Yes sir. Body cams and cell phones transformed the entire equation. I've also read accounts of cops confiscating video from bystanders.
***Political Thread*** (Massive merge)
- Thread starter ukfit
- Start date
- Status
The problem with their wording is right wing sovereign terrorism. They continue to lable our own people but, will not lable Islamic terrorism for what it is. Guliani is right, they hate America or at least leave that perception.
This post was edited on 2/21 6:30 AM by warrior-cat
Language is important if you're the leader of the free world. If you call them "muslim extremists", you concede the fact that they 'represent' Islam. We don't want that. If there's a rift between moderate muslims and the extremists, any legitimacy we give to them as representatives of the religion just gives credence to their cause. It would fall right into ISIS propaganda. "See, they're after Muslims!"
We could get into why an us vs. them mentality is more often catastrophic than not, and with that labeling you create an us vs them scenario where we are Christians and not a collective of faiths or non-faiths. Let's not throw a billion people in there with the extremists needlessly and create an exclusive environment at home where muslims feel belittled.
This post was edited on 2/21 8:34 AM by EastKYWildcat
We could get into why an us vs. them mentality is more often catastrophic than not, and with that labeling you create an us vs them scenario where we are Christians and not a collective of faiths or non-faiths. Let's not throw a billion people in there with the extremists needlessly and create an exclusive environment at home where muslims feel belittled.
This post was edited on 2/21 8:34 AM by EastKYWildcat
I admittedly know nothing about law enforcement but I'd wager "retaliatory" attacks from the black community currently rank 1 trillion times higher on the list of police officer concerns than alleged "right wing terrorists" are...
Not defending the KKK, but they were thinking like Hitler thought. They did not believe in mixing races, keeping the white race pure. Islam extremists believe the Koran gives them the right to kill anyone that won't accept Islam as their faith. They want ONLY Islam as the only religion in the whole world. There is a huge difference here. I see you have the Obama talking points down pat, tho.
Fact is they want to kill us unless we all bow down to their way of thinking. Mohamed stated that he would "spread Islam,either by the word, or by the sword". What do you think he meant by that? So, to simply say they do not represent Islam is putting your head in the sand.
Do you ever see any Christians rejoicing when Muslims are murdered? Do you ever see Muslims rejoicing when Christians are murdered? Did you see any Muslims rejoicing when 3000 people were murdered in 2001? Make no mistake, this is a Holy War, and I am agnostic, but if I live long enough, I will have to fight for my way of life.
Liberal myopia at work. No, it would not concede a representation. The problem with word games is deciding where it stops.
ISIS is recruiting on our presence in the ME...bombings and drones. They are having a banner year. If anyone thinks calling the execution of a dozen soldiers at Ft Hood "workplace violence" or jumping to conclusions on the UNC killings to make them victims of xenophobia......is actually helpful, you are not grounded in reality.
George W. Bush would not use the term Islamic Terrorist, in fact he wanted them called extremists. He also made it a point to explain that we are not fighting Islam we are fighting a group of radicals. I've listen to a few sound bits from George W. in the last few days and his comments are virtually indistinguishable from Obama's. Where was your outrage back then? In fact the memorial service for the 9-11 victims that was put together by the Whitehouse included speakers from 3 major faiths one of which was a Muslim cleric. If Obama had done that some of you would have been calling for his removal from office.
Why inflame a situation with people you are trying to recruit to help, just to make yourselves feel good? They are what they are, a group of radical, violent lunatics, and anyone with eyes can see and understand that. Labels are not going to achieve anything.
BTW Guiliani is an idiot.
"only in american could my story be possible" Barack Obama
This post was edited on 2/21 10:33 AM by Deeeefense
Where did this "calling muslim terrorists muslim terrorists legitimizes them as representatives of Islam" come from?
Is that straight from WH talking points? Someone on MSNBC?
It's one of those things that seemingly pops up out of nowhere and the left repeats it ad nauseum without stopping for one second to think how stupid it sounds.
The "radicals" are representatives of a large portion of their religion. There isn't a big enough rift between those that don't want to blow all the infidels off the planet, and those that do. They are terrorists in the name of Islam. If white devil infidel from the west calling them "radical muslims" legitimizes them in the eyes of some, then there's just a few more people we need to eliminate.
Radical muslims are a problem in the world. Whether you want to admit it or not. The first step in solving a problem is seeing the problem, not sticking your head in the sand.
And yeah, we can't call them radical muslims because it will be used as a recruiting tool. Let's just drone their families off the planet instead. We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
Is that straight from WH talking points? Someone on MSNBC?
It's one of those things that seemingly pops up out of nowhere and the left repeats it ad nauseum without stopping for one second to think how stupid it sounds.
The "radicals" are representatives of a large portion of their religion. There isn't a big enough rift between those that don't want to blow all the infidels off the planet, and those that do. They are terrorists in the name of Islam. If white devil infidel from the west calling them "radical muslims" legitimizes them in the eyes of some, then there's just a few more people we need to eliminate.
Radical muslims are a problem in the world. Whether you want to admit it or not. The first step in solving a problem is seeing the problem, not sticking your head in the sand.
And yeah, we can't call them radical muslims because it will be used as a recruiting tool. Let's just drone their families off the planet instead. We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
Funny to "moderates" to the left of Bill Maher
BILL MAHER: This idea that we cannot even call it Islamic terrorism seems Orwellian to me. It seems like we're paying a very high price for this which is we can't discuss it even rationally. Can't we at least say that there are a number of factors that are involved? And the religion is certainly one of that.
[President Obama] presented this idea that it's poverty and education. It is poverty and education, also. But why are they impoverished and uneducated? It's mostly because of the religion. That's mostly why. The U.N. did a study in 2002, they found out that only 300 books had been translated into Arabic that year. In madrassas they only teach one book -- I don't have to tell you which one.
BILL MAHER: This idea that we cannot even call it Islamic terrorism seems Orwellian to me. It seems like we're paying a very high price for this which is we can't discuss it even rationally. Can't we at least say that there are a number of factors that are involved? And the religion is certainly one of that.
[President Obama] presented this idea that it's poverty and education. It is poverty and education, also. But why are they impoverished and uneducated? It's mostly because of the religion. That's mostly why. The U.N. did a study in 2002, they found out that only 300 books had been translated into Arabic that year. In madrassas they only teach one book -- I don't have to tell you which one.
Not that it matters but deeee was wrong. The bigger issue is the current potus has even his own former Sec of State, Sec of Defense, and other high ranking officials questioning his commitment and strategy in the ME.
Bush: U.S. at war with 'Islamic fascists'
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Posted: 4:43 p.m. EDT (20:43 GMT)
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday that an uncovered British terror plot to blow up planes flying to the United States was further proof "that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."
Bush: U.S. at war with 'Islamic fascists'
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Posted: 4:43 p.m. EDT (20:43 GMT)
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin (CNN) -- President Bush said Thursday that an uncovered British terror plot to blow up planes flying to the United States was further proof "that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."
Pretty sure Defense has everyone on ignore who likes to point out how big of a dipshit he is.
It's fairly ironic that Defense's way of coping with everyone who points out how wrong he is, is to ignore they exist. Basically the same way he wants to defeat terrorism.
It's fairly ironic that Defense's way of coping with everyone who points out how wrong he is, is to ignore they exist. Basically the same way he wants to defeat terrorism.
No, I wrote that this morning. Believe it or not, there are those of us who can reach conclusions without watching any cable news. If I could watch the Cats consistently, I wouldn't have TV. Ironically I can tell when one of those channels has riled up the right when hard conservative guys in my family are pissed off over the same stupid thing as conservatives on the internet. "You weren't offensive enough to those guys, that offends me." Just had this talk yesterday with my cousin.
Political discourse has devolved into meaningless distractions from actual **** that matters.
Ah, the old Fox News and talk radio generalization and stereotype. Lazy.
I get info from neither, btw.
How about all the Guliani distraction huh? More outrage from that than a candidate for president that has circumvented fundraising regs via $2b in donations to a foundation, much from foreign contributors?
I get info from neither, btw.
How about all the Guliani distraction huh? More outrage from that than a candidate for president that has circumvented fundraising regs via $2b in donations to a foundation, much from foreign contributors?
No one ever said the Republicans have a monopoly on diversionary tactics. I was responding to everyone in the thread that thought my post that they didn't agree with was beamed straight from the liberal mothership. I don't even particularly like Obama and I'm a registered Republican.
Wrong, you must call it for what it is. The PC culture is not working and proof is being shown practically everyday. Couple that with the fact that the Obama administration has no problem with labeling our people and blaming us for many of the problems happening out there and you have disgruntled Americans as well as the Islamic world.
I guess I misunderstood your one track posting. That or you are just full of ****.
You want to answer my HRC question since you want to focus on important stuff since she is the favorite to be the next potus?
You think Obama should take credit for the positive effect of reduced gas prices on the economy since all the additional supply has come from private lands while public property has decreased?
It's a common misconception for people who love the political drama.. every worldview exists on a spectrum and every person in the world fits nicely into preconceived notions.
If Hilary is questioning Obama's policy in the middle east, then she's certainly not alone. He continues to support Saudi Arabia, the primary culprit in funding and exporting radical Islam. As a senator he sponsored a resolution that said we do jack **** to stop Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Total inconsistency.
No more than he should take credit for all of this stuff from Politifact. Including: the stock market has doubled, healthcare inflation at its lowest rates since the 1960s and "America is creating jobs faster than at any time since the last time a Democrat was president."
So I ask you again, why was it OK in your mind for George W. Bush to not refer to al Quida as Islamic Terrorist but reprehensible for Obama not to refer to ISIS as such? Is there a difference?
Every so often, an incoherent talking point comes down from the White House that the left repeats ad nauseum on here without stopping to think.
War on women is one of the obvious ones. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but they're easy to pick out in real time.
The "calling radical islam what it is strengthens and unifies the terrorists, so Obama shouldn't call them Muslims" is currently what we're hearing from everyone on the left. Maybe yoou didn't read it one Mother Jones, but rest assured, that's where Defense and others on here get thier talking points.
At least EastKYWildcat acknowledge any statistical improvements in this country have happened in spite of Obama, not beause of him.
War on women is one of the obvious ones. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but they're easy to pick out in real time.
The "calling radical islam what it is strengthens and unifies the terrorists, so Obama shouldn't call them Muslims" is currently what we're hearing from everyone on the left. Maybe yoou didn't read it one Mother Jones, but rest assured, that's where Defense and others on here get thier talking points.
At least EastKYWildcat acknowledge any statistical improvements in this country have happened in spite of Obama, not beause of him.
Yeah I think it is a reach for any single leader of the executive branch to take credit for economic ups and downs. A global economy is too fluid and complex for anyone to point at a single man and say they're responsible for either.
And while I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a war of language as much as there is a war with weapons, I think those on either side wasting time arguing about who called who what is insignificant and a distraction from issues that affect the everyday guy. Net neutrality, climate change, gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, finding a solution to the impending massive unemployment as a result of automation, just to name a few. The less time we spend worrying about the nuances of who called who what, the sooner we'll end crippling gridlock in Washington.
And while I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a war of language as much as there is a war with weapons, I think those on either side wasting time arguing about who called who what is insignificant and a distraction from issues that affect the everyday guy. Net neutrality, climate change, gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, finding a solution to the impending massive unemployment as a result of automation, just to name a few. The less time we spend worrying about the nuances of who called who what, the sooner we'll end crippling gridlock in Washington.
They even play these cards internally, via Mediate:
Buried inside a Politico report about Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (D-FL) future aspirations was an interesting revelation: "When [Wasserman Schultz] sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic."
Buried inside a Politico report about Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (D-FL) future aspirations was an interesting revelation: "When [Wasserman Schultz] sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic."
When all you know is playing racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe cards it's not surprising that's what she (or any of them) go to.
- Status